Re: [ga] Retraction from the list

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I will give you here the opportunity to retract. I will give you the 
opportunity to make your so called "private" emails to me public. I am the only 
representative of the GA. I am somewhat controversial and only legitimate 
because of apathy and no incentive to remove me as Chair.  Some say because I 
do a good job, others say because I am a scourge not worthy of dirtying ones' 
hands over. But until someone abrogates:
http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm ;
Section XX.5.9 of the ICANN bylaws and Section X.3.4  
GNSO Council resolution 20070906-2 ;; 
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20070906-2
 
I am chair and your representative. 

--- On Sat, 5/8/10, John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] Retraction from the list
To: "Hugh Dierker" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, "Jeffrey A. Williams" 
<jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Matthew Pemble" <matthew@xxxxxxxxxx>, 
denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx, ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx, rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx, "joe 
Babtista" <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx, roberto@xxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, May 8, 2010, 8:14 AM


 
I retract nothing. How dare you pretend that you can retract something said by 
another person
unless you are that persons representative.
 
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Hugh Dierker 
To: Jeffrey A. Williams ; Matthew Pemble ; denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx ; 
ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx ; John Palmer ; joe Babtista 
Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx ; roberto@xxxxxxxxx ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 8:48 AM
Subject: [ga] Retraction from the list






This is a formal retraction of all matters written in this previous post by 
John Palmer.  This is an open list and we do not have any editing rights.  This 
is not a republication but a retraction.
 
Mr. Palmer,  
 
I suppose you have a normal side to you. I am sure I could find something to 
like about you. But I personally know Jeff. I personally knew his mother who 
just recently passed away. I have spoken with his sister and his brother on 
matters of family and finance.  We all enjoy the troll and fake person games 
but you make yourself the fool with this post. I have papers on file with at 
least one US gov. Agency where I represent the citizen named Jeff Williams, 
most is confidentlal but I know as a fact that Mr. Williams pays more than his 
share of taxes.
 
We must always remember that virtual is the world from which our reference for 
the Internet comes from, and not the other way around. The biggest problem with 
Mr. Palmer's post here is that it totally destroys his credibility, in matters 
of right and wrong and reality. 
 
Mr. Palmer -- Defamation includes both Slander(spoken) and Libel(written) false 
statements about another that tend to damage their reputation. When a persons 
livilihood or profession is attacked in the defamation then it is what is 
called per se. In most cases the libel is not really so because of a good faith 
belief in the truth of the matter stated and it can be argued. In this case you 
have no such defense. I suggest you shut up.

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Jeffrey A Williams and Joe Baptista are one and the same (was Re: [ga] 
RE: Removal from GA list)
To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Matthew Pemble" 
<matthew@xxxxxxxxxx>, denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx, ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 
rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx, roberto@xxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 9:29 PM


 
#yiv2007880489 #yiv387904344 {
FONT-SIZE:10pt;COLOR:black;FONT-FAMILY:arial, 
sans-serif;BACKGROUND-COLOR:#ffffff;}
#yiv2007880489 #yiv387904344 P {
MARGIN:0px;}


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