<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] List Decorum - Propogation
Patrick and all remaining assembly members,
As has been the practice of those of us that have been involved in
the internet for many years, I routed around "Damage" I would do
so again if I felt that insuring that as many "Interested Parties" in these
discussions and debates would or may be interested.
More comments below Patricks...
Patrick Corliss wrote:
> Hi Kristy
>
> Jeff William has been suspended from the [ga] list by the list monitor.
Yes I have, and I contend as do others unjustifiable...
>
>
> I can't believe that anybody would take Jeff Williams seriously. If you examine
> his postings you will find that most are content-free. However they are copied
> to everybody he can think of whether they had anything to do with the original
> post or not. For example:
You are of course entitled to your opinion. Others are entitled to theirs,
as am I.
>
>
> From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: Kristy McKee <k@widgital.com>
> Cc: Roberto Gaetano <ga_chair@hotmail.com>; <rmeyer@mhsc.com>;
> <jandl@jandl.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>; <Harald@alvestrand.no>;
> Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>; Kevin Connolly <connollyk@rspab.com>;
> Danny Younger <webmaster@babybows.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 8:51 AM (AEST)
> Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
>
> If any of those addressed replies using "Reply All" then the message is
> propogated further. As Jeff William includes the [ga] list in the addressees,
> his original email makes it to the list from which he has been suspended.
>
> On top of that Jeff Williams posts [ga] messages to Netsol's Domain Policy List
> in a manner that gives the impression that they are [ga] postings. As the
> Netsol list does not allow cross-postings, and he knows that, he must make a
> separate posting. An example is as follows:
>
> From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@IX.NETCOM.COM>
> To: <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 9:52 AM (AEST)
> Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
> <snip>
> > > Friday, April 06, 2001, 1:50:46 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:
>
> I agree that people have the choice of killing mail from Jeff Williams but his
> propogation techniques makes this very difficult. I believe that he has no
> genuine interest in domain policy issues but that his main objective is to
> propogate his sigfile as widely as possible.
I as a representitive/spokesman for our members and a stakeholder myself
do indeed have an interest in Domain Policy and have had for a number of
years off, as is well documented. Hence your contention here borders on
the insane.
> Almost all of his claims are quite
> false as is demonstrated in his sigfile which I won't bother to repeat --
> everybody has seen it thousands of times. One example created a stir:
>
> > Two other candidates DO support these basic principals....
>
> Although he claims to respect people's privacy, he actually has no regard for
> that of others. Jeff will also use all sorts of threats and innuendos (and I
> have ample evidence of this).
I am very interested in stakeholders being able to provide in part for
their own privacy, not restricted from so. Anyone that sends me E-Mail
that is related to a public issue is in fact making a public statement or comment,
whether or not it is sent strictly to me or to a public mailing list. Otherwise
if it is personal information, I have never sent that type of info to any
public mailing list.
> Other tricks include forging email headers and
> using alter egos like "Bob Davis". As well as driving people away from the
> list, this behaviour lowers the trust that we have in each other.
I have never forged any Mailing headers. If you have an example
please post it. Bob Davis is his own person and has stated such
on many occasions. He is also a participant on the DNSO GA (Full)
list and the Domain Policy list as well. How E-mail address is
grossly different than mine as he uses Netzero as his service provider
I believe. I am cc'ing him on this response.... Hence again Patrick
here is engaging in slander. But of course we have seen this before
on several instances from him, some most recently....
>
>
> In fact, I am sure I am not the only person checking a suspicious posting to
> make sure it is not another forgery or Jeff Williams alter ego. At least one
> other list member raised a similar concern recently. The right to privacy of
> genuine posters to the list then becomes compromised as a side-effect.
Oh please Patrick get a grip!!
>
>
> Dealing with with the side-effects is time-consuming and most distracting. For
> example, it has been suggested that I breached Jeff's own rights by reposting
> his private email. In this connection, I advise that I had his publicly posted
> permission as follows:
>
> > Anything I have stated privately or publicly has my permission to be posted
> > anywhere anytime. I don't have two agendas, Patrick.... >;)
>
> I do not wish, at this time, to tackle other issues of list decorum but do
> suggest the following:
>
> (1) Members of the [ga] list consider amending the list rules and protocols
> to clarify exactly what behaviour is acceptable. In my view the above should be
> subject to sanctions by the list monitors.
I agree with this suggestion. As long as it is approved my a majority vote
of the GA members, and that any and all interested parties have the
unfettered opportunity to vote.
>
>
> (2) Meanwhile I would ask that respondents be selective in their replies to
> any postings by persons suspended from the [ga] list. In particular that they:
>
> (a) respect the decision of the list monitor and not post replies to the list
> (b) do not use "reply all" and eliminate any unnecessary cc's in reply.
I disagree with this. The Majordomo can be modified to correct this
if it is desirable. Respondents should not be required to modify the
use of their software (E-Mail Client).
>
>
> I can sympathise with well-meaning people who are opposed to censorship of any
> kind but I submit that others have rights too. Personally I object to people
> who deliberately and continually abuse other people's rights whilst claiming
> those rights for themselves. By that I mean the list rules need to be
> clarified.
I am in agreement with you here Patrick. I have on many occasions
posted to this very area of needed improvement.
>
>
> I would love to see the day when people understand that Jeff Williams delights
> in seeing his postings propogated far and wide on the internet. I would
> ordinarily just killfile his postings but I don't think it's as easy as that.
Many of my postings already are fairly widely propagated presently
Patrick. >;)
>
>
> The truth is that he is in a category of his own. Jeff Williams is far and away
> the best example I know of what can be described as a human internet virus.
ROFLMAO! How gosh of you Patrick, and you seem to have violated the
current list rules with this comment.... Shame on you!
>
>
> I think this is a genuine phenomena which needs to be dealt with by the rules.
>
> Sincerely
> Patrick Corliss
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kristy McKee <k@widgital.com>
> To: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> Cc: Roberto Gaetano <ga_chair@hotmail.com>; <rmeyer@mhsc.com>;
> <jandl@jandl.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 8:34 AM (AEST)
> Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
>
> > Thank you Jeff for stating more clearly.
> >
> > At 03:13 PM 4/6/2001 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >Kristy and all remaining assembly members,
> > >
> > > I have to agree that in some ways ICANN has been a destructive and
> > >disruptive imposition on the Internet as a whole. The Market's have
> > >shown this lately, as have the money folks (Read Venture Capital).
> > >
> > > Some of the areas that have declined or been made worse as a
> > >direct result of ICANN policy are as follows:
> > >
> > >1.) Domain Names have been relegated or equated directly to
> > > Trademarks.
> > >
> > >2.) Registration policy for Domain names has become a murky
> > > proposition and overly restrictive.
> > >
> > >3.) No longer is there a standardized Whois.
> > >
> > >4.) Privacy has been trampled upon directly.
> > >
> > >5.) Registry security has gotten worse and this is escalating as a result of
> > > lack of Registrants to be able to adequately exercise their privacy
> > > rights.
> > >
> > >6.) the UDRP has been a terribly destructive tool against small
> > > ecommerce business.
> > >
> > >7.) Inconsistency in standardization practice and policy.
> > >
> > >Kristy McKee wrote:
> > >
> > > > I guess I've only been participating since 1995, so that doesn't make me
> an
> > > > old timer.
> > > >
> > > > There should have been an option C, so that modifications could have
> > > been made.
> > > >
> > > > The Internet worked better when there was a monopoly. The rules were
> > > > simple: first come first serve. Problems were easily resolved over
> > > > trademark and copyright issues within the courts, etc. I think ICANN is
> > > > several steps backwards.
> > > >
> > > > You did not list any good thing they have done as far as I'm concerned.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for trying.
> > > >
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > ~k
> > > >
> > > > At 08:08 PM 4/6/2001 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > > > >Kristy,
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Please list the "good things" ICANN has done so all of us are made
> > > aware of
> > > > >>their good behavior. I think it's important to note because ICANN
> > > appears
> > > > >>to not be interested in the good of the public; but only their direct
> > > > >>sponsors and if they are infact doing good things I for one would like
> to
> > > > >>know about it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Once upon a time there was a company that had the complete monopoly over
> > > > >the generic TLDs, as Registry and as Registrar ;>).
> > > > >It seems ages, but it was just a couple of years ago when five new
> > > > >Registrars were allowed to compete with NSi at the Registrar level, and
> > > > >just few months ago the basis for the introduction of new generic TLDs
> has
> > > > >been put.
> > > > >
> > > > >To the people like me, that have been fighting for years to achieve this
> > > > >result, it seems an achievement. And it does not seem to me that it was
> so
> > > > >obvious that ICANN could have achieved it: still in Cairo (one year ago)
> I
> > > > >was discussing with other old-timers about what could have been the next
> > > > >roadblock.
> > > > >
> > > > >We do (at least some of us do) criticize the "OptionB" contract, but we
> > > > >have to admit that it is still a long way from the "OptionZero", which
> was
> > > > >basically "NSi has it all".
> > > > >
> > > > >Regards
> > > > >Roberto
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >_________________________________________________________________________
> > > > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >--
> > >Jeffrey A. Williams
> > >Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > >E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > >Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|