<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga-abuse] Complaint regarding Jeff Williams
Please consider this a formal complaint regarding the recent
actions of one Jeff Williams using the email address:
jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com for:
1. Crossposting, eg: to the GA list and icann-board@icann.org
2. Making abusive, false and slanderous statements regarding myself
3. Publishing my private email to him and his internet access
provider regarding his recent behavior, see:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg02692.html
While the latter is not specifically against any GA rule, and is
in any case to GA-full, I include it to show that my own attempt
to have him play nice is answered by him with an increasing level
of abusive behavior. Persuant to the GA rules:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html
regarding the republication of slander, I would also request that
the above linked post in the ga-full archives be removed if it is
technically possible to do so.
I include below my most recent email sent to his IAP. It includes
the evidence to support my complaint.
I would also like to point out that previous increasing GA list
sanctions against Jeff Williams for similar abusive behavior seem
to have failed in modifying that pattern of behavior. -g
------------
To: abuse@abuse.earthlink.net
From: gro@direct.ca
CC: jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to Bret
Sent: 07:43 AM 30/05/02 -0700
The headers of my last received email from one
Jeff Williams AKA jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com writing
directly to me after I specifically asked him not
to yesterday (with a cc to you), include flags
************* showing where he sent from and to.
The earlier email which triggered my request, and
which he falsely claims not to have sent directly
to me, is included below and is similarily flagged.
FYI, direct.ca=look.ca and is one of Canada's largest
commercial ISPs. Who I am is immaterial, though I'm
sure they'll be happy to tell you.
As for my need to unsubscribe from the GA list
http://www.dnso.org/mailinglists.html
to get away from him, he has been temporarily
suspended from posting there on various occasions
for similar antics. I will deal with that issue
separately. -g
-------
At 01:02 AM 30/05/02 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
Return-path: <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Envelope-to: gro@direct.ca
Delivery-date: Thu, 30 May 2002 06:05:29 +0000
*************Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.226])
by parsec.look.ca with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #10)
id 17DJ3w-0000us-00
for gro@direct.ca; Thu, 30 May 2002 06:05:29 +0000
*************Received: from dialup-64.157.115.22.dial1.dallas1.level3.net
([64.157.115.22] helo=ix.netcom.com)
by blount.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 17DJ2h-0007g2-00; Thu, 30 May 2002 02:04:12 -0400
Message-ID: <3CF5DC88.A5D7D54A@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 01:02:17 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>
CC: abuse@abuse.earthlink.net, gen full <ga-full@dnso.org>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to Bret
References: <4.3.1.20020528205546.00d24100@mail.direct.ca>
<4.3.1.20020529194246.00d308c0@mail.direct.ca>
<4.3.1.20020529223043.00d3e490@mail.direct.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Gary and all assembly members,
>
> I did not E-Mail you Gary, but the DNSO GA list of which you are
>a subscriber/members. So if you wish to unsubscribe, than of course
>you may do so at your leisure.
>
> So If you don't mind Gary, and I am sure you do, please
>stop lying and pointing to other lies for you own self aggrandizement
>and others harassment. Darryl Greenwood is a well know
>harassment poster of some renown.
>
> My credentials as are INEGroup's are well known and documented.
>See:
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/ineginc/ineginc.htm
>I don't see any such from yourself or Direct.ca.. ????
>
>Gary Osbourne wrote:
>
> > Please do not write me again Jeff. You are a seriously
> > deluded individual, and I don't want any email from
> > seriously deluded individuals. -g
> > http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08015.html
> >--------
Return-path: <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Envelope-to: gro@direct.ca
Delivery-date: Thu, 30 May 2002 03:35:32 +0000
***********Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.246])
by parsec.look.ca with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #10)
id 17DGiq-00071z-00
for gro@direct.ca; Thu, 30 May 2002 03:35:32 +0000
***********Received: from dialup-65.56.125.3.dial1.dallas1.level3.net
([65.56.125.3] helo=ix.netcom.com)
by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 17DGim-0001LD-00; Wed, 29 May 2002 23:35:29 -0400
Message-ID: <3CF5B9BD.11CBC63C@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 22:33:52 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>
CC: Joe Sims <jsims@JonesDay.com>, ga@dnso.org,
icann board address <icann-board@icann.org>,
Don Evans <DEvans@doc.gov>, Karen Rose <krose@ntia.doc.gov>,
Robin Layton <RLayton@ntia.doc.gov>,
kathy smith <ksmith@ntia.doc.gov>,
"Nancy J. Victory" <nvictory@ntia.doc.gov>,
Clyde Ensslin <censslin@ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to Bret
References: <4.3.1.20020528205546.00d24100@mail.direct.ca>
<4.3.1.20020529194246.00d308c0@mail.direct.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Gary and all assembly members,
Gary Osbourne wrote:
> At 07:13 PM 29/05/02 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >Gary and all assembly members,
> >
> > Gary, thank you for you support on this in your comments below.
>
> For the record (and I apologise to those who may have filters
> not fine enough to catch Jeff Williams by name in the body of
> the post though they may otherwise intend to, he is certainly
> normally snagged in mine) I wasn't supporting you Jeff.
Yeah you were and still are. So I again thank you for that,
Gary despite you unfortunate missives regarding myself and
our [INEGroup] members. Of course we understand that
some folks, like yourself are sometimes terribly disturbed
by many things that perhaps you take too personally
and therefore seem to find a need, like Joe, to use
a personal attack to vent those frustrations.
> You
> are the netkook poster boy for Joe Sims and others to point to,
> to show why public participation in ICANN can never work.
Well Joe has clearly showed, not just to me but to many
others that he does not have a clue as to what he sometimes
is really talking about. Of course congress and other governments
have taken note of that but are not quite direct about stating it
as I am. Hence I can understand your missive here, and
take that into account when reading this response.
>
>
> Thankfully, you are almost alone in that regard, with
> allowances for your imaginary friends.
Hardly. Outside of our members, as has been documented
on this very forum on a number of occasions amongst a host
of other forums discussing ICANN related issues, your
unfortunate inaccurate contention here is less convincing..
> I will happily send
> along a few dollars to support you though, if you promise to
> immediately leave your keyboard and seek, and try to make
> good use of, professional medical treatment. -g
No need. But I do appreciate the interest and concern.
I will be just as happy to provide you with the same
financial support in seeking some mental rehab and you
can take along you keyboard to boot! >;)
>
>
> >Transparency is very important if ICANN is to remain viable
> >and representative of the stakeholder/user Internet community
> >as well as business and other interest areas. Right now it seems
> >that Joe does not know how to accomplish providing transparency
> >or just doesn't agree that transparency is necessary.
> >
> > I personally believe that is it clear that Joe and Vint are from the
> >Old School of "Old Boy" network method of accomplishing and
> >addressing the Transparency requirement. Problem with this
> >sort of approach is the in the Internet world this just doesn't
> >work and can backfire on you accordingly, leaving ICANN
> >in a position of growing distrust and dismay by the vast
> >majority of stakeholders/users...
> >
> >Gary Osbourne wrote:
> >
> > > At 07:44 PM 28/05/02 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
> > >
> > > >This point is impossible to argue, so those who argue for their
> > > >peculiar brand of transparency apparently simply don't care
> > > >about this effect. They would rather have the "benefits" of a
> > > >homogenized public discussion than the benefits that almost
> > > >surely flow from candid conversations about complex subjects.
> > >
> > > I don't know if I'm one of those who want some
> > > peculiar brand of transparency. I do know that
> > > "to the maximum extent feasible" is at odds with
> > > Vint Cerf repeatedly telling Karl Auerbach to
> > > "take it offline" at Stockholm. It wasn't Karl
> > > doing the homogenizing. I also don't think your
> > > trip to Europe to discuss ICANN reform without
> > > the knowledge, let alone the vote, of at least
> > > some of the BoD members was particularily
> > > transparent. Was there some valid, logical reason
> > > for keeping it from them? If so, surely it can be
> > > made public now.
> > >
> > > I've served on numerous not-for-profit Boards
> > > going back over 30 years, some of them dealing
> > > with quite contentious matters. Only rarely would
> > > one go in camera to deal with sensitive items
> > > such as personnel, litigation, or something
> > > contained in an NDA, for example. There were also
> > > committees of the whole where directors could
> > > express themselves without fear of being quoted
> > > later. That is all understandable and reasonable
> > > to me, though I will add that the inclusion of
> > > staff or lawyers in camera was only if absolutely
> > > necessary to a specific topic, and neither were
> > > ever included in committee of the whole (a mini-
> > > retreat as it were) so that discussion needn't
> > > be homogenized on their account, as they aren't,
> > > by definition, part of the 'whole'.
> > >
> > > I didn't have a problem with that as ultimately
> > > people were held responsible, proper minutes were
> > > kept, including who voted for or against or
> > > abstained, and these minutes were ratified and
> > > published in a timely fashion. I've never seen
> > > (whether from orgs that dwarf ICANN by any metric
> > > but global impact, or from village PTA meetings)
> > > such sparce and tardy minutes as eventually come
> > > out of ICANN Excom and Special meetings.
> > >
> > > Combined with sudden surprises out of nowhere
> > > like the Verisign renegotiation, ICP-3, and the
> > > Roadmap to Reform, none of which the community
> > > were expecting, let alone requesting, how can
> > > such secrecy be seen as "consistent with
> > > procedures designed to ensure fairness"? What
> > > we have with the ICANN not-for-profit is an org
> > > that uses secrecy as its default mode, and only
> > > opens up if, when, where, and to the extent
> > > that it absolutely has to.
> > >
> > > That does not instill or sustain trust that all
> > > parties' interests are being dealt with fairly,
> > > so any additional non-open, non-transparent
> > > meetings are bound to be suspect as just leading
> > > to more, perhaps unfair, surprises. What I find
> > > peculiar is that you find such suspicion peculiar.
> > >
> > > There's something I learned in school, and I know
> > > I'm not the only one. If you hand in what you hope
> > > is the right answer but you can't show your work,
> > > the default is to assume that you're cheating. If
> > > you're lucky, you can convince them you're guessing.
> > >
> > > There are a number of valid, logical reasons why a
> > > number of diverse affected parties, including those
> > > who (s)elect BoD members, would like to know if the
> > > BoD answers are just being cribbed from its staff
> > > and lawyer. In absence of evidence to the contrary,
> > > that seems to be the default, and safest, assumption.
> > >
> > > That it is a lawyer and staff here now showing their
> > > work, rather than Board members (other than Karl,
> > > does this count as offline?), leaves only one
> > > question, is the Board cheating or just guessing
> > > when it comes to reform? It's all academic anyway.
> > > both rate an F. -g
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--
> >Jeffrey A. Williams
> >Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> >E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> >Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> >Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|