[ga] List Decorum - Propogation

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Kristy

Jeff William has been suspended from the [ga] list by the list monitor.

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:

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.  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).  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.

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.

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.

(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 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 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.

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.

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