Hi Craig,
Thank you for the reply.
> Yesterday during the Policy SIG session, it became quite apparent to everyone in the room that the CONFER system was >indicating community sentiments that were significantly at odds with the sentiments and discussions taking place within >the room.
>
>This discrepancy appeared with the first policy proposal during the session, and continued throughout the Policy SIG >discussions.
I hope that we can get to the bottom of this and that the Chair can decide how to proceed in the future and that we don't need the general counsel in policy matters as it is not really the proper way.
I now also really do hope that these listed account were indeed just fake accounts just to abuse CONFER, as I am not sure about the listing their accounts details in an archived public mailing-list.
QQ is very common, I have a QQ ID it is also just a bunch of numbers, and from what I know it is used to register yourself with a lot of services in China.
I had to have one once I started working for a Chinese company.
They are also traceable by anyone who has QQ, they seem to be real QQ accounts some over a decade old from what I found.
If they are the real people behind the accounts, you just publicly declared them fake and abusive for just showing interest in the policy process and making use of the remote system in place.
And I can very well see non English speaker making use of such a simple system to show their opinion.
If they are real accounts and being abused by someone who is gaming the system, again, those are potentially real accounts that are traceable for anyone and they have just been declared to be scammers while they have nothing to do with this whole incident and probably have never even heard of APNIC.
So unless the accounts are 100% fake accounts, I don't believe they should had been published like that on the list without any obfuscation.