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.
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
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.
