Jeffrey A Williams and Joe Baptista are one and the same (was Re: [ga] RE: Removal from GA list)

["John Palmer" <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe, you know there is a rule against posting under a different name while you 
are under suspension on the GA list.

Joe, I know that "Jeffrey" is just you posting under a different name. I spent 
most of the day online researching "Jeffrey Williams"
and am convinced of that now, after my research.

You have been using him as your straight man for quite a number of years now - 
how impressive that you've been able
to keep up this real complicated act for all of these years - kudos to you.

Now your gig is up.  

To the ICANN moderators: Jeffrey A. Williams is in all likelyhood Joe Baptista 
posting under a different name.
Take whatever actions you willl regarding this matter.

Cheers,
John
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeffrey A. Williams 
  To: Matthew Pemble ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA ; denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx ; 
ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx 
  Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx ; roberto@xxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 1:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Removal from GA list


  Matthew and all,



    Good points all!  Further given that ICANN's GNSO approved the rules by 
which the GA is loosely

  administered by, I for one could not find a single rule that Dr. Joe 
violated, and at a minimum

  Mr. Palmers discourse was similar in discourse manner, as if that really is 
relevant or 

  matters.  



    Frank was/is probably stepping in to mediate as his position provides for.  
As to why and/or

  whom requested such I do not know and believe in the interest of transparency 
should

  be revealed specifically.



    Finnaly I feel abused in this process as well as my rights to publically 
reading Dr. Joes

  remarks has been abruptly denied me by person(s) unknown and for reasons that 
are

  not in keeping with the GA rules.  Therefore again I kindly but strongly 
request that

  Dr. Joe be reinstated forthwith and that he be publically appologized to for 
such a 

  improper suspension.




    -----Original Message----- 
    From: Matthew Pemble 
    Sent: May 7, 2010 2:18 AM 
    To: "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA" 
    Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Removal from GA list 

    Folks,

    I would just like to point out, in the interests of fairness, that, after 
some 13 hours (some 6 or so of which were working hours in California) and 4 
on-list responses from the ICANN ombudsman, I have not received any public or 
private response to my email regarding Joe's suspension apparently due to my 
email.

    ICANN host this list therefore, under the law as it applies to me, they do 
have the right (in fact it is trivial to argue, the responsibility) to censor 
inappropriate content.  I appreciate this is different for those of you with 
First Amendment rights under the US Constitution :), if you assume that ICANN 
is a government agent (and First Amendment case law would suggest that it 
counts as one for that purpose.)  However, with that comes the responsibility 
to explain your public actions.

    I am increasingly puzzled - especially by Frank's interventions.  Would 
ICANN please either suspend me (and explain what rule or norm I breached) and 
reinstate Joe, or correct the explicit statement that Joe was suspended because 
of my email.  

    If I do receive a private email from ICANN explaining or correcting their 
position, I will send an email to the list stating that such has been received.

    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