RE: A need for correction to:Re: [ga] Request for endorsements

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Some have asked for me to return my site debunking the frauds of
Jeffrey A. Williams.  I don't have the time to do that, but I will share
some information with you.

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05398.html

Rather interesting readying about the person behind the name Jeffrey A.
Williams (and Brian Hollingsworth, David "Duke" Jensen, and the most
recent Bob Davis).

Particularly interesting to go and look at Jeffrey's long posting history
and then read the posts by his "alter egos" and see how they match up. 
There are many other things that show them to be one in the same, but you
have probably heard them all here from many of us before.

Some more reading:
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08030.html

Everyone remember Bob Allisat?  Sure, many of us considered him a kook,
but at least he was real, and you always knew where you stood with him. 
Well here is what he has to say about JW.
http://robin.fcn.net/mr99jeff.html

And here is some more information from the same list:
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08000.html

And did you hear about the largest internet related convention in history
hosted by JW's INEG group in Dallas this year?  This is the one that none
of the hotels knew about (and no increase in bookings), none of the local
TV news heard about or could verify, that the Dallas PD was not aware of,
that even the STADIUM EVENTS DIRECTOR said emphatically WAS NOT HAPPENING
at their stadium, no matter what this person claimed.  

Here is one member of the press who tried to get information to attend. 
And guess what happened?  You can read it yourself here:
http://robin.fcn.net/mr99ronydebunk.html

Jeff has twice duped reporters into quoting him in news articles. A LA
Times reported quoted him as a long time friend of the late Dr. Jon
Postel, and was greatly embarrassed by being duped.  Chris at Wired.com was
also duped in an article earlier this year, and within 90 minutes pulled
the articles and replaced it with a rewrite that did not include Jeff's
quote.  Yet Jeff has used both these incidents to try and give himself
some credibility.  Then last year, Jeffrey wrote up an alternative
proposal to the NTIA, and they (not having been active participants in the
online forum) took his submission at face value, and published it in their
websites along with all the other submissions they received. Jeff has used
this as some claim that the NTIA has "checked him out" and found him and
his company to be valid.  This is NOT true.  NTIA has confirmed that NO
background or verification checks were done prior to that, and that they
relied SOLELY on the claims in the paper itself and the fact that they
sounded credible as a basis for publication.

No one disputes that when he wants to, Jeff can sound credible.  It is a
mark of a good confidence man (or con man for short).  In the short term,
absent a long history of exchanges, he can pull it off and sound
beleivable.  I've talked with him on the phone a few times.  He presents
himself in a credible fashion.  But in the long term, he contradicts
himself, can't keep his facts straight, makes claims that never seem to be
validated when checked out, no matter how deeply one goes in checking, etc.

I notice there are a lot of new names on this list that have not been on
many of the other forums over the last several years, and thus may not be
aware of this history, or of his past actions.

I will go ahead and tell you how he will respond to this.  Jeffrey
responds to these allegations by doing everything he can to attack the
credibility of the person posting them.  

And in my case, he has what he thinks is a way of attacking me.  Some time
ago, I was one of three people who developed the registry for the .TJ
ccTLD.  After nearly one year of running it, the other two participants
were seeing the DNS process as leading to a situation where the ccTLD
business would become tight, as ccTLDs which focus and depend on
foreigh registrations would lose much of their marketability.  They sought
to abuse the resource in the time remaining in a fashion that was
inconsistent with the original charter and plan.  I was the obstacle to
them doing that, taking the responsibilities that RFC1591 put us under very
seriously.  .TJ was a registry without a "place of business."  Using
colocated servers, all of us worked from our home offices.  I still do
today.  3 times in the period from Oct 1998 to Dec 1998 attempts were made
to use small problems or failures as a means of "getting rid of me" by
alleging that the incidents were my fault.  I successfully defended myself
every time, because it was clear to anyone with any common sense that
there was no misdeed or negligence involved.  In late December 1998 the 
reviewed the records from the company that was handling our payment
processing.  Over a period of 5 months, a total of $38 in descrepencies
had occured.  Since I was the one who established the contract, I was
accused of "stealing" this money.  

This was done with the full knowledge that it wasn't true.  As a matter of
fact, at NO time did I receive funds on behalf of the registry.  ALL
checks were sent to one of the others, who had been designated the
business manager.  He was the ONLY one authorized on the bank account, and
the only one who could deposit checks to the company.  All checks were
sent to his home address.

He called the billing company and tried to coerce the owner into making
statements that would of appeared to have supported his actions, so he
could use that as "evidence."  Indeed, the gentleman told him that there
was NO way this was in any way my fault, and that had there been anything
intentional about it, then the amounts would of been far greated than $38.
 He accepted responsibility for the mistake on behalf of the company,
stating the real mistake was in how their web based payment system was
organized.  Before he could offer to fix the setup, he was hung up on. 

The next day I was locked out of the servers without explanation.  They
would not accept my calls, and publicly accused me of embezeling.  

Let me make this very clear, within 48 hours of being aware of the
problem, the billing service accepted responsibility and corrected the
mistake.

I then acted to restore the registry to the administrative contact.  I had
nearly succeeded when they lodged an objection with IANA, and IANA does
not like to get involved in disputes, so the TLD was ordered frozen, and
no new registrations were to be processed at all.  

Now, let me point this out.  From the beginning, I have been willing, and
indeed have (both publicly and privately via email and phone) to discuss
this with anyone who had any questions or comments about the situation. 
They, however, do not respond to such requests.  There is a reason for
that.

From the day of the suspension, they sought to see if they could still
milk the registry without IANA's knowledge.  We had setup a backend access
system so that other registration services could directly interface with
us securely, to automate the processing of registrations for their
customers.  One such company was Alldomains.com.  Throughout the ban, the
.TJ registry was processing, and being paid for, a large number of
registrations being funnelled into this backend system.  It was revealed
to them a month or so ago (I am not positive on the date of notification)
and this loophole was closed.  But the .TJ registry did not want to draw
ANY attention to itself, while it's unsavory operators were violating an
IANA ordered freeze to continue to milk money out of this resource for as
long as possible.

Jeffrey will tout out an email that the 2 other operators posted, and his
question to them "is this true" and their response "yes it is."  These
were in the first few weeks of it occuring.  Jeffrey likes to tout this
out, and make up stories around it, in an attempt to shift the spotlight
from the accusations surrounding him to the unfounded allegations made
against me nearly a year ago (for which they NEVER filed charges, nor made
any claims for).

When I told him I was considering restarting the JW/INEG information
website again, he threatened to toss those emails out again, and has begun
making vague references to them here.  Well, now you know the real story
(but of course, he will just say its all lies no matter the proof to the
contrary, Big surprise there, huh?  ;)

In closing, I call for a mandatory validation system in the DNSO.  All
participants who wish posting/discussion/participatory rights in the
organization should be required to present to a party selected by the
Names Council as the repository for this information a copy of a state
issued photo identification (this can include a passport, driver's
license, state issued ID, etc, provided it is considered acceptable proof
of identity in their jurisdiction).  This information is to be reviewed
for forgery, and otherwise held in strictest confidence, except as
necessary should a question of validity or fraudulent activities be raised.

This is one way that the GA can show that it is indeed self organizing,
and that the Names Council can show a committment to adopting procedures
that will enable the GA to acheive that goal.

It can also serve as a model for how easy it can be to do this, rather
than the draconian measures ICANN as been considering for the at-large
membership.


--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934