Re: SUSPENSION RE: [ga] DISCLOSURE Suspension of Jeff Williams on the complaint of Patrick Jones Fwd: PRIVATE FW: [ga] RE: Monthly Reports

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

This kind of proves the point that open discourse is necessary.
 
Joes and Jeffs posts were horribly inflammatory. Why?
 
Because they were spot on right and true. 
 
Query;
If someone does something that is nafarious, illconceived or down right 
naughty. Is it the post that reveals it that is inflammatory or the acts 
themselves? Well to suggest that it is the post that is bad, or the truth that 
is censorable would be ...... well let us not say nutty but rather deranged.
The GA will continue to be labeled as wacko by those who have something to hide.
 
(of course Joe is not suspended)

--- On Fri, 4/17/09, Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: SUSPENSION RE: [ga] DISCLOSURE Suspension of Jeff Williams on the 
complaint of Patrick Jones Fwd: PRIVATE FW: [ga] RE: Monthly Reports
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "'Joe Baptista'" <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, April 17, 2009, 12:33 AM



Hi All

 
I consider the last 7 posts by Joe Baptista to be inflammatory.  I also find 
them not in keeping with the position of List Monitor.  In addition, Mr 
Baptista has exceeded the posting limit within the past 24 hours.  
 
Mr Baptista was also involved, recently, with another inflammatory 
conversation; a thread that I had occasion to stop with a warning of suspension 
to all parties involved.
 
For these reasons, as List Monitor, I am suspending Joe Baptista's posting 
rights for 2 weeks.  
 
On another note, I would also ask that the Chair dismiss Joe Baptista from his 
position as List Monitor effective immediately.
 
I have asked the Secretariat to action this immediately.  Of course, as always, 
and according to our List Rules, the Chair may overrule my decision.
 
Joe, 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 Joe 
Baptista
Sent: 17 April 2009 03:51
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA
Subject: [ga] DISCLOSURE Suspension of Jeff Williams on the complaint of 
Patrick Jones Fwd: PRIVATE FW: [ga] RE: Monthly Reports


I am making this disclosure in the public interest.  The complaining party is 
in fact Patrick Jones an ICANN staff member.

As monitor to the GA I have requested a copy of the complaint but have yet to 
receive it.  I understand Debbie is refusing to provide same.

cheers
joe baptista


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: PRIVATE FW: [ga] RE: Monthly Reports
To: Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>







We just missed each other phone wise. We'll chit chat before end of day.
I don't think we have a problem and I think we can actually make one of those 
now famous "teaching moments" out of it.
 
Maybe we can get some momentum to revisit our rules and make them one notch 
more legitimate via larger participation.
 
I must say Patrick is ex IOC and he is not taking a stand against their lawsuit 
against ICANN. This damn well is fair ground to cover and there has been no 
false statements.
I do not feel comfortable judging this as outside fair coment of a public 
figure. 


--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: PRIVATE FW: [ga] RE: Monthly Reports
To: hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 2:05 PM 





May I make a recommendation that Patrick or George - whomever applies - pick up 
the phone and contact Jeff directly.  Instead of wasting our time with what I 
immediately saw as a frivolous and vexatious complaint.  I find when people 
have the courage to call each other things get settled so much more easily.  I 
promise Patrick or George that if they miss Jeff and leave a message - he will 
call back.

Incidentally I was aware that the allegations were true concerning the IOC.  I 
forget Americans may not be up on European current affairs.  And Nazis - apart 
from the negative implications of gas chambers - etc etc is simply short for 
Nationalist Socialist "Party".  So there are many so called Nazis in Europe.

However Waldheim and some of the older farts at the IOC were associated with 
the original German Nazis 1000 year plan that came up with the Jewish solution 
to the Jewish question.  So Jeff is historically on the ball here.  Let';s not 
forget the first Olympics were held in Germany and Adolf Hitler was in 
attendance.

regards
joe baptista  

p.s. - I would like to see the correspondence form Patrick and George in which 
the complaint is issued.  Thanks.


On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:






Sorry for delay folks,
 
My research began at wiki. It ended at the US state dept. that was on Waldheim.
IOC in fact did have some problems related to this man.
The reference regarding an association with Nazis is undeniably historically 
accurate for both the IOC and Waldheim.
Patrick is associated in time, place and organization with both -- the IOC and 
Waldheim.
Nazis, wether we like it or not are actually some type of political party. 
Yikes!!!!!
 
No we cannot and may not act on this. Imagine what would happen if we 
"censored" someone for referencing the most notorious censors in all of history.
Certainly the comments are not libelous (eyeball) or slanderous (sland EAR - 
ous) ie defamation.
 
I will publicly write to Patrick and George shortly that their contributions 
are fantastic and educational and in keeping with the highest integrity of 
openness and transparency.

--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Subject: PRIVATE FW: [ga] RE: Monthly Reports
To: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Hugh Dierker" 
<hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 5:52 AM 





I have read his message and find nothing malicious or inflammatory in this post.


And as for changing the rules as long as it is done with the consent of the 
members I have no problem with it.

regards
joe baptista


2009/4/15 Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 




Hi Both

I really think that Jeff has, once again, gone too far.  We really cannot
allow such malicious personal attacks to go unchecked.

I would like to recommend that we, once again, suspend Jeff's posting
rights.  As, I think, he was suspended for 8 weeks last time I would
recommend at least 16 weeks.  Whatever Jeff's suspension was last time we
should double the length this time.

It is a rarity for ICANN staff to venture into the GA forum; I feel this is
because when they do they, more often than not, have to deal with the
inflammatory if not downright libelous nature of Jeff's posts.

Enough is enough.  I must request that this is actioned immediately.

May I also suggest that we update the list rules in order that repeat
offenders may be permanently banned; this is not possible at the moment.

Best regards

Debbie

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Jeffrey A. Williams
Sent: 15 April 2009 04:52
To: George Kirikos
Cc: Patrick Jones; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Monthly Reports


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_comparable
s/
> >
> > 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-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.55/2057 - Release Date: 13/04/2009
17:56


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.57/2059 - Release Date: 14/04/2009
14:52







-- 
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




-- 
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





-- 
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





-- 
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