Re: SUSPENSION RE: [ga] RE: Monthly Reports

[Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This goes into the public.  I will not cover up incompetence on behalf of a
fellow monitor.

Your action is illegal and you committed an embarrassment.  I keep reminding
you to play within the rules and you keep acting a bit like Madam Dictator.

This is not acceptable behavior for a monitor.  You are to be ignored.

I have to speak to you on the phone.  You need a little joe baptista luvin
to give you a much needed slap across the top of the head for this idiocy.
You keep doing this all the time - you are less list monitor and in many
cases more the list censor.

In future if you act without first consulting myself your fellow monitor or
the chair I will take issue with you.

regards
joe baptista


On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Debbie Garside
<debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  There is a complainant.  It is not me.
>
> I cannot believe that I need to spell this out, Please feel free to re-read
> the correspondence.  My action was taken prior to receiving your email
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Hugh Dierker [mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 15 April 2009 23:47
> *To:* debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* joe Babtista
> *Subject:* Re: SUSPENSION RE: [ga] RE: Monthly Reports
>
>    Whoa!!
>
> I made clear that there must be a complainant and that complainant should
> not be you.
>
> Can you imagine secret complaints?  Star chambers. It is totally irrelevant
> what you or I like.
>
> Set forth the rules sections that allow for your unilateral determination
> without two monitors in agreement.
>
> I will not be blackmailed into submission by your publicly making a
> suspension you have no right to and before Jeff had a chance to defend his
> position.
>
> At this point I do not even know what he said that is inflamatory. Clearly
> what he said is not libelous as it was true. You said it was not the Nazi
> reference, so what the hell is it?
>
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 4/15/09, Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>
> From: Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: SUSPENSION RE: [ga] RE: Monthly Reports
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: "'Jeffrey A. Williams'" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 2:43 PM
>
>  Hi All
>
> This morning, as List Monitor, I received a private complaint with regard
> to the posting from Jeff Williams (see below).  I consider the complainant
> to be correct in that the post was, at the very least, inflammatory.
>
> As Jeff Williams has in the past had his posting rights suspended for 8
> weeks, according to our list rules, he may now be suspended for 16 weeks.
>
> As List Monitor, I have asked the Secretariat to action this and am
> reliably informed that Jeff Williams will have his posting rights restored
> on the 5th of August 2009.
>
> Jeff, please take this email as official notification of your suspension.
>
> Best regards
>
> Debbie Garside
> List Monitor
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Hugh Dierker
> *Sent:* 15 April 2009 19:14
> *To:* George Kirikos; Jeffrey A. Williams
> *Cc:* Patrick Jones; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [ga] RE: Monthly Reports
>
>    Jeff, George, and Patrick,
>
> This is pretty inflamatory to some Jeff. No not censorable, but kind of a
> defamation by very extenuated association. Kind of a drive by yellow
> journalistic charactar assasination.
> I, who know you well, believe it is below your U.S.Marine code of conduct.
> Along with you I will die for your right to say it. Patricks honor is not
> brought to question by such remarks, but perhaps yours is.
>
> The thread is educational and in keeping with GA tradition. George as
> always helps to keep us informed of critical matters within his expetise and
> should be proud of his contributions to ICANN and particularly the GA. One
> excellent area he has helped in is bringing ICANN executive types into our
> forum in a gracious and dignified manner. I was looking forward to some
> clarifications from Patrick.
>
> Patrick serves this community and brings skills and experience that are
> uniquely valuable to  .... well, the world. There is absolutely nothing in
> his record that is dishonorable as a public servant of the net. Causing him
> embarassment or consternation unnecessarily is dead wrong.
>
> Lookie here, I don't necessarily agree with any positions in this thread,
> but as our best excuse for a chair in the GA, I ask that dignity and honor
> be placed a bit above our universal right to say whatever the hell we want.
>
> As all our Christian friends celebrate a traditional time of ascencion, let
> us try to ascend to a bit higher road of communication and respect.
>
> Eric Hugh Dierker
>
> --- On *Tue, 4/14/09, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>
> From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Monthly Reports
> To: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 8:51 PM
>
> George and all,
>
>   Perhaps this quip from the IOC is as a result of Patricks efforts
> and as such explaines his employment with ICANN currently?
> I am certainly no fan of the IOC given their past association
> with one Kurt Waldhime whom was later exposed as an ex-nazi
> which greatly explained many of his odd decisions for the IOC.
>
> George Kirikos wrote:
>
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> > Just a quick followup, there's a certain delicious irony that
> according to your bio:
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/en/biog/jones.htm
> > http://www.webcitation.org/5g2ZocLPw
> >
> > you "assisted with e-commerce issues, domain name protection and
> intellectual property enforcement for a variety of clients, including the
> International Olympic Committee" in your prior life before ICANN. Now, the
> IOC is threatening to sue ICANN if the new gTLD plan goes ahead:
> >
> > http://domainnamewire.com/2009/04/09/olympics-to-icann-well-sue-you/
> >
> > If ICANN is not going to listen to me, and not going to listen to the
> DOJ/DOC/NTIA, they might want to listen to the IOC, especially if you ever 
> hope
> to go back to having them as a client one day post-ICANN.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > George Kirikos
> > http://www.leap.com/
> >
> > --- On Tue, 4/14/09, George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: RE: Monthly Reports
> > > To: "Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 7:55 PM
> > > Hi Patrick,
> > >
> > > You're correct that the total need not be summed up.
> > > However, the entire column for domains at each registry was
> > > missing, as were other columns. If you read page 6 of the
> > > dot-cat PDF for December 2008, which duplicates the Appendix
> > > 4 fields, there are 35 required fields. However, there were
> > > only columns A through W submitted on the spreadsheet table
> > > (which is 23 fields). Thus 12 fields (columns) were entirely
> > > missing. It's not just the totals (in a row) that were
> > > missing (which were optional). Appendix 4 does state:
> > >
> > > http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/cat/cat-appendix4-22mar06.htm
> > >
> > > "This report shall be transmitted to ICANN
> > > electronically in comma or pipe separated-value format,
> > > using the following fields per registrar:"
> > >
> > > so it's relatively easy to count up to 35, to see that
> > > all fields are present. For ICANN staff earning above market
> > > salaries:
> > >
> > >http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090105_icann_for_profit_companies_comparables/
> > >
> > > I would think that knowing there's a difference between
> > > 23 and 35 would be something "above average"
> > > employees would be qualified to know. If they don't know
> > > that difference, I'd suggest the CFO cut people's
> > > paycheques by 12/35ths, to see if they notice a difference.
> > >
> > > Most ICANN staff members typically ignore questions to them
> > > (save for those coming from registry operators who pay for
> > > fancy parties at ICANN meetings), unless the issue is
> > > published on the lists to "prod them" into action.
> > > If there is an official email address that is public and
> > > archived, feel free to post it, and that might encourage
> > > people to submit it to staff who will then be responsive
> > > (because their lack of an answer can be monitored by all).
> > > You'll note for example the Mexico Question Box answers
> > > didn't appear until I posted about it on the GA list:
> > >
> > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg02775.html
> > >
> > > and even then, answers were evasive, e.g. ICANN denied
> > > receiving any notice they were researching my views on
> > > Obama!
> > >
> > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg02826.html
> > >
> > > ICANN knows the timestamp and IP address of the individual,
> > > so they certainly know exactly who was responsible.
> > >
> > > I don't feel so bad that my concerns are ignored, given
> > > ICANN has also ignored the NTIA/DOJ/DOC in their new gTLD
> > > comments. Unlike them, I have no power whatsoever over
> > > ICANN. It would be better if ICANN continued to ignore me,
> > > but instead listened to the NTIA/DOJ/DOC (and the concerns
> > > of the vast majority of the public who oppose new gTLDs), if
> > > ICANN truly cares about its long-term survival. But, if they
> > > plan to listen to everyone, that's fine too. I guess
> > > we'll see for sure whether ICANN turns the corner and
> > > becomes responsive to the community if the new gTLD plan is
> > > simply shelved or put on the backburner for further study.
> > > Time will tell.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > George Kirikos
> > > http://www.leap.com/
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Patrick Jones
> > > <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Subject: RE: Monthly Reports
> > > > To: "gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx"
> > > <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 7:14 PM
> > > > George,
> > > >
> > > > I saw your post on the GA list about the Monthly
> > > Reports.
> > > > Not all of the registries include a total of monthly
> > > domains
> > > > on their monthly reports. I can assure you there is no
> > > > conspiracy at work - this discrepancy is being
> > > corrected and
> > > > will be posted tomorrow. Field #3 in the appendix
> > > requires
> > > > the registry to submit the total number of domains
> > > under
> > > > management by each registrar, but there is not a
> > > requirement
> > > > that each registry provide a total at the bottom of
> > > column
> > > > #3 adding up the number (it would be great if all
> > > provided
> > > > this when submitted). The line item is added manually
> > > in the
> > > > monthly reports.
> > > >
> > > > Hopefully future automation will provide better
> > > reporting
> > > > and tools for the community.
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to pass this response on to the GA list. If
> > > you
> > > > have questions in the future, feel free to direct them
> > > to
> > > > staff.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Patrick
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Patrick L. Jones
> > > > Registry Liaison Manager &
> > > > Support to ICANN Nominating Committee
> > > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
> > > > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> > > > Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> > > > Tel: +1 310 301 3861
> > > > patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > patrickjones.tel
>
> Regards,
>
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>    Abraham Lincoln
> "YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
> div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mailjwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> My Phone: 214-244-4827
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084