Mr. Walsh and Everyone,
It is evident to me, and I suspect most reasonable people, that if a criticism
is levied that is a reasonable, that it would be best to address it directly
so as to correct the problem concerned.
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Sunday, August 22, 1999, 3:50:48 AM, Planet Com
Mr. Walsh and Everyone,
I had no problem with finding them give a little time and effort.
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Saturday, August 21, 1999, 8:13:14 PM, Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > William and all,
>
> > William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> >> Saturday, August 21, 1999, 7:47:32 PM
Mr. Walsh and Everyone,
How many times do you need to see the same emails, Mr. Walsh?
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Saturday, August 21, 1999, 7:47:32 PM, Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > William and all,
>
> > I am afraid I don't agree with William's evaluation of the Berkman
> >
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Monday, August 23, 1999, 4:43:57 AM, Planet Communications Computing Facility
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The existence or non existence of a provision and it's application is
> > not relevant here. What is at issue is the right to incorporate p
JeffM and all,
Completely agreed. In fact NOW is really a bit late in the game,
as ICANN in it's "Accreditation Policy" is already in violation of
the Privacy Act, and the 1996 Telecommunication's act, it may also
be in violation of the Credit Protection act, as well as the Sherman act...
Pla
William and all,
William, I am sure that repeating the same thing over and over again
does get boring. And doing so also doesn't make it true either. You have
yet to state difinitively or site any particular creditable evidence for your
stance here...
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Monday, Augus
Oh no noe william, that incorrect, what I am saying is that ICANN is a
near government organization (NGO) and should have simular privacy
regulations in place - if not - it stands to be subject to further
criticism.
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Monday, August 23, 1999, 4:43:57
Monday, August 23, 1999, 4:43:57 AM, Planet Communications Computing Facility
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The existence or non existence of a provision and it's application is
> not relevant here. What is at issue is the right to incorporate privacy
> law into icann at an oportune time - NOW.
The existence or non existence of a provision and it's application is
not relevant here. What is at issue is the right to incorporate privacy
law into icann at an oportune time - NOW.
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Monday, August 23, 1999, 4:35:49 AM, Planet Communications Comp
Monday, August 23, 1999, 4:35:49 AM, Planet Communications Computing Facility
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If ICANN wants to play - it needs the same privacy controls as exsist in
> the us government.
As was already pointed out numerous times, there is amble evidence
that no applicable provisio
If ICANN wants to play - it needs the same privacy controls as exsist in
the us government.
Regards
Jeff Mason
--
Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 [EMAIL PROTE
Roberto and all,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jeff Mason wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
> >
> > > I must say, I think these fields are exceptionally
> > reasonable -- each
> > > justified for a legitimate logistical reason, with privacy
> > policies clearly
> > > stated on
Jeff Mason wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
>
> > I must say, I think these fields are exceptionally
> reasonable -- each
> > justified for a legitimate logistical reason, with privacy
> policies clearly
> > stated on the sign-in form itself. Nonetheless, if there are
> > co
Eileen and all,
I agree with you Eileen, the ICANN is most likely not gathering personal
information for nefarious purposes or commercial ones. That however is
not really relevant under the law.
eileen kent wrote:
> I think Edelman's logic holds up just fine. I also think that there are no
Jeff and all,
Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
>
> > I must say, I think these fields are exceptionally reasonable -- each
> > justified for a legitimate logistical reason, with privacy policies clearly
> > stated on the sign-in form itsel
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
> I must say, I think these fields are exceptionally reasonable -- each
> justified for a legitimate logistical reason, with privacy policies clearly
> stated on the sign-in form itself. Nonetheless, if there are
> counterarguments re why the above should
Planet Communications Computing Facility <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Privacy is a very important issue - on the net, to the consumer, and to
> government organizations in the free world.
I certainly wouldn't disagree! But I think some clarification is in order;
perhaps you overestimate the "in
Saturday, August 21, 1999, 8:53:33 PM, Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William and all,
> To lazy to do your homework, eh? That sounds familiar coming form you
> william... What a shame!
> Now, Who is the fraud?
> To wit, a blast, again from the past...
> === Copy
Jeff and all,
Agreed! It should be noted that it doesn't seem that the ICANN
(Initial?) Interim Board is very concerned about privacy issues,
given the terms of their "Accreditation Policy" and the interesting
post from Ben Edelman you properly provided regarding the
methods that the Berkman C
Jeff and all,
ROFLMAO! Touché!
Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > What I understand is when I see a criticism being made for the sake of
> > having one more thing to criticize, rather than focusing on the
> > substance of the
William and all,
To lazy to do your homework, eh? That sounds familiar coming form you
william... What a shame!
Now, Who is the fraud?
To wit, a blast, again from the past...
=== Copy of WIlliam's past employer ==
Subject: Is this really true about William Walsch
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Again, I am afraid I can't agree with William on this point either.
> It seems to me that Jeff M., focused nicely on the substance
> of the issue quite well... That being, of course, one of Privacy issues
> and Ben's remarks in the link that Jeff M.
Jeff, William and all,
Again, I am afraid I can't agree with William on this point either.
It seems to me that Jeff M., focused nicely on the substance
of the issue quite well... That being, of course, one of Privacy issues
and Ben's remarks in the link that Jeff M. provided. It is also now
w
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
> What I understand is when I see a criticism being made for the sake of
> having one more thing to criticize, rather than focusing on the
> substance of the issues.
Of course, we understand.
Regards
Jeff Mason
--
Planet Communication & Computing F
Saturday, August 21, 1999, 8:13:14 PM, Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William and all,
> William X. Walsh wrote:
>> Saturday, August 21, 1999, 7:47:32 PM, Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > William and all,
>>
>> > I am afraid I don't agree with William's evaluation
Sunday, August 22, 1999, 3:50:48 AM, Planet Communications Computing Facility
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> > I think your way ahead of us here been. Were not there yet - i.e.
>> > protest. As I have said before we have no protest at this time.
Jeff and all,
No, William doesn't understand anything about privacy, NGO's or
the implications as he believes he has the right to have any and all
information on anyone that he pleases. And when he doesn't get what
he wants he manufactures it...
Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote:
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Saturday, August 21, 1999, 7:47:32 PM, Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > William and all,
>
> > I am afraid I don't agree with William's evaluation of the Berkman
> > Centers performance Why? Well it is a documented FACT
> > that th
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > I think your way ahead of us here been. Were not there yet - i.e.
> > protest. As I have said before we have no protest at this time. Were
> > just gathering opinion, and thank you for your support of the policy
> > stated.
>
> My response was
Saturday, August 21, 1999, 7:47:32 PM, Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William and all,
> I am afraid I don't agree with William's evaluation of the Berkman
> Centers performance Why? Well it is a documented FACT
> that the Berkman Center has had several opportunities for CNN,
Sunday, August 22, 1999, 3:24:50 AM, Planet Communications Computing Facility
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> > http://www.pccf.net/correspondence/icann/19990819-edelman-icann.html
>> We must be careful not to criticize, or imply criticism solely f
William and all,
I am afraid I don't agree with William's evaluation of the Berkman
Centers performance Why? Well it is a documented FACT
that the Berkman Center has had several opportunities for CNN, TBA/TNT
and others, which have offered coverage and INternet IP Video
conferencing for t
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > http://www.pccf.net/correspondence/icann/19990819-edelman-icann.html
> We must be careful not to criticize, or imply criticism solely for the
> purpose of criticizing, or finding every little detail to criticize,
> and instead ask ourselves if a
Sunday, August 22, 1999, 3:04:17 AM, Planet Communications Computing Facility
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello:
> The information posted here respects ICANN policies on real video
> transmissions. Were inviting individuals to contact us privately if they
> should have any concerns respecting
34 matches
Mail list logo
