Re: [ga] Scandal, Discussion and Argument

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Very nice discussion of very relevant topics here. Jeff's statement is actually 
very germain in that the Jurisdictional issues of the Internet are always hot 
topics. During the "domain name cybersquatting wars" I lost many a name because 
it was just too expensive to go to New York and fight the challenge. 
 
On the issue of GA contribution. This statement is wrong on many levels: " If 
we want the GA to have any chance of being taken seriously, we need to 
demonstrate that we are capable of behaving like serious professionals"
 
First, "the GA" is not to be taken seriously. It is to be taken at face value. 
We don't need no stinkin badges. If someone states a salient fact or reveals an 
obscure truth, then that is of itself what the GA is for. We do not have 
authority or duty except as individual netizens. We are the epitome of 
Vigilante.  We do not get paid. We do not get promoted. We can put 
participation on a Resume'??? There are doctorates from the wealthiest 
countries and there are students from the poorest. Our only credential here is 
a willingness to participate. This is a true General Assembly as the one that 
drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the UN, 1948. Good ideas 
and bad may come from here but they do not belong to the GA. The worst enemy of 
the GA is censorship not lack of respect. 
So it is not the GA that must be taken seriously, but the ideas that come 
therefrom.
 
As to prurient -- no that is what I meant,,,, in the off science of psychology 
we find that those most offended by public use or display of sexuality and 
offshoots are in fact more than likely harboring a "closet" case of abundance 
of prurience --- blue haired church ladies and the xxx debacle probably are 
proof positive of this thrust ;-)


--- On Wed, 5/5/10, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] Scandal, Discussion and Argument
To: "Matthew Pemble" <matthew@xxxxxxxxxx>, "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA" 
<ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 2:30 PM



#yiv147709001 {font-family:Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif;font-size:10pt;font-family:arial, 
sans-serif;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}#yiv147709001 p{margin:0px;}

Matthew and all,
 
  By in large I agree with most of Matthews remarks and observations.  I differ 
on his opinions of my experience
and sharing of already established legal president and case law.  But I will be 
more than happy to
accept a legal challenge from Matthew on any of those posts to which is very 
generally referred committing
the age old logical fallacy of "Glittering Generalities", at his convienance.  
I gleefully await his service
in a court of proper jurisdiction and competence accordingly.  My guess is that 
such a challange
will NOT be forthcoming ever.  As such, I can only reasonably conclude that 
Matthew has a more of a
personal dalema with me and as such would likely best serve everyone including 
himself if he
would be so kind as to take such deaema's off list as he himself suggested in 
the beginning of his
remarks and observations below.  




-----Original Message----- 
From: Matthew Pemble 
Sent: May 5, 2010 3:19 AM 
To: "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA" 
Subject: [ga] Scandal, Discussion and Argument 

Folks,

Please consider this a general reply to the various messages ...

I think, perhaps, Hugh meant 'prudish' rather than 'prurient' in his warning.  
Personally, I have no problem with discussing 'sex', per se - in fact, the 
whole ICM Registry / xxx tld issue and any potential court action would be an 
entirely valid one for this list (my 2p - I am appalled by the naivety of those 
on one side of the arguments that think that it will encourage sex on the 
internet or make it easier to find - remember "The Internet is for Porn" - and 
the same for those on the other who think that all of that icky stuff will 
magically disappear from other tlds or ccs.) But, to the very limited extent 
that any person's private life is the business of anybody other than those 
directly involved, I don't believe it is the business of a public list.  If we 
want the GA to have any chance of being taken seriously, we need to demonstrate 
that we are capable of behaving like serious professionals.

Having said that, there is a distinct cultural divide between the USA and ROW 
(I have limited experience of non-military Canadians, they might also bat 
prudish) regarding relationships at work, having seen it cause issues working 
in a large multinational with significant US subsidiaries.  Unlike the US, 
where it is seen as anathema in many organisations, most jurisdictions don't 
allow attempts to interfere with people's relationships but many will allow you 
to move people to different roles if there is a serious conflict of interest. 
It is professional to recuse yourself from positions of judgement but then many 
people aren't professional. Anecdata: I met my wife when she worked for my 
father, a long time ago now, and we are now co-directors.

If there is an allegation of serious misconduct or 'heinous acts' then, 
provided that it is directly related to the business of the list then I have 
little problem with it being aired - my issues with the whole Joe / John / 
Thomas 'debate' were around the pointlessness of it all and the lack of any 
evidence.  As Hugh said, repetition of mere allegation does nothing to prove 
(or disprove) your case.  

George's recent highlighting of inconsistency, error and probable negligence in 
UDRP judgements - as well as the embedded bias towards the complainant - shows 
that this list can be of significant value.  (I would note the interesting 
split judgement in the AdventureRV 1st point - the 2 US panellists ruled one 
way on common law, the English one another - there are significant variations 
in what is generally assumed to be a consistent base.)

If we do have sock-puppets on here, as opposed to trolls (and the fact I think 
that some of Jeff's postings are trollish - and many just wrong in his 
understanding of how US law applies to the rest of the world - doesn't mean I 
doubt his personal existence), then we may need to control them.  The only 
accusation of such, I believe, is Joe claiming that John and Thomas are the 
same person.  However, given the lack of influence and general lack utility we 
are demonstrating, that is largely irrelevant at the moment.

I'm happy to discuss this further off-list but I feel that I am beginning to 
contribute to the noise rather than the signal ...

Matthew



-- 
Matthew Pemble
Technical Director, Idrach Ltd

Mobile: +44 (0) 7595 652175
Office: + 44 (0) 1324 820690

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders and growing, 
strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"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
Phone: 214-244-4827