Joe and all,
Yes I know to whom you are referring to here. Our WXW boy!
And this sort of highlights his position on this issue. Sort of
a self preservation thing, eh? I guess some folks just don't
appriciate the many benefits of "Soap on a rope"! >;) Likely to
be a commodity that our WXW b
William and all,
However this is both inadequate and not in accordance with
existing US law. THerefore it is both not legal and as such
not a valid alternative.
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 15-Oct-99 Mikki Barry wrote:
> > The contact information should be available for bona fide
> > reasons
Bill and all,
I am in complete agreement with what you suggest. I made
this suggestion about a year ago as well.
J. William Semich wrote:
> Hello;
>
> For an interesting article on privacy issues related to the ICANN
> requirement that all Whois contact information be made public, see
>
> ht
Peter and all,
Peter Tattam wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Just weighing in on this topic, I have the following to say, and apologies if
> it overlaps or has been said before.
>
> I believe I raised the topic several months ago, but nobody seemed to take much
> notice, but I'm glad that the issues have no
--- start of forwarded message ---
From: John Navas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: ba.internet
Subject: FCC firmly in the pocket of big business
Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems.cable
Organization: The Navas Group, Dublin, CA, USA
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:24:
At 01:18 PM 10/15/99 , J. Baptista wrote:
>If I remember correctly, Tony Rutkowski during his tenur with the ITU
>advised them that if they failed to get involved, then the ITU would in
>fact disappear. This happened some years ago. They didn't take his
>advice then, and now I think it a bit lat
Excellent idea richard. It's not going to happen, but the idea is
excellent.
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> Can I introdude a radical concept here? The telephone ?
>
> Remote participation has been largely one way here.
> The webcasting is quite good, we can tell whats
> going
Can I introdude a radical concept here? The telephone ?
Remote participation has been largely one way here.
The webcasting is quite good, we can tell whats
going on, but the remote comments are read then ignored
as opposed to being discussed, and in some cases are just
"summarized by the scribes"
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> In a hard-hitting interview with
> Communications Week International, Yoshio Utsumi
> has warned that a failure to adapt to the
> modern communications environment could mean
> that the ITU will disappear.
If I remember correctly, Tony Rutkowski duri
This should be subtitled: Utsumi selects
group who tells him what he wants to hear
and attempts to suppress other views.
(Bill fortunately found the press.)
It's also disingenuous because only States
can be ITU "members," and it is only the
members that have any power in the ITU.
--amr
===
Brian and all,
Denial of the existing documented privacy problems with
IPv6 is not going to buy you much and could bring on
some discredit to the IETF and IPv6 in specific. The
best thing to do is fix the problems in the spec.
And having the IAB endorse anything along these lines
is just window
11 matches
Mail list logo
