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, Jeff
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
Centers
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
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
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 the sign-in form
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
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 provisions
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
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,
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...
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 privacy
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 the
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
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
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 for the
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,
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 not
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 the Berkman
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
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. Were
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 of the Berkman
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
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 issues.
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
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 of
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
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 be
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 itself.
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
