Re: [ga] Partial response to questions from Danny Younger regarding Business Constituency: Charter and ByLaw Violations

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

admin wrote:

> >I do not believe that your position
> >against Marilyn Cade is fair nor does the language in your comment
> >appear balanced against her.
>
> On a scale which is measured by how fair the AT&T legal department treats
> people (including me ...  and my family) I am more than fair with Cade.  I
> don't see why I should treat these other people any different then they
> treat me.

The rest of this post by "admin" can be judged by the fact that Marilyn
Cade is not in the AT&T legal department, since she is not an attorney.
With that big of a goof, no more need be said.  (Vague attacks on the
ubiquitous "they" really say nothing, but represent merely a venting of
personal frustrations for which there are more appropriate fora.)

Bill Lovell


>
>
> >It does not appear fair to attack Cade for her participation in the
> >ICANN processes because of her relationship with AT&T.  Cade should
> >promote her position regardless of what others think about her
> >connections and positions.
>
> There is nothing wrong with promoting a position, participating, or
> debating.  It is just that I have learned that I cannot believe anything
> they say.  They don't participate in legitimate debate, they participate in
> spin games.
>
> >In today's aggressive global
> >competitive market, these organizations strive to protect consumers'
> >personal and private information.  Without these organizations'
> >resources, consumers' personal and private information would certainly
> >be in jeopardy and most difficult to control.
>
> Wrong.  I have dealt with Cade and others like in the privacy arena much
> more than domain issues.  In terms of privacy it is the Cade's of the world
> you have to worry about most because they have all these resources.  AT&T
> absolutely refuses to follow privacy laws (as well as the guidelines they
> claim to support).  They refuse to follow the Telephone Consumer Protection
> Act, they placed false information in their web site privacy policy, and
> they had to pay off TRUSTe in order to get the AT&T logo on the TRUSTe site
> even though AT&T refuses to follow their (very weak) guidelines.  And did
> you know that AT&T made an agreement with the Direct Marketing association
> in the early 1990's where AT&T agreed not to make any cold-call
> telemarketing call to any unlisted telephone number in the USA?  HA!  While
> these are not major privacy issues they are measurable and I believe are the
> tip of the iceberg.
>
> >We figure out what
> >to do from their proposals.  We choose to agree, disagree, or modify
> >their proposals.  Let them do the work.  Let's stop being paranoid and
> >move this process forward.
>
> So they control the issues, the forum, who attends meeting, who has input,
> etc?  then if you can figure out what their real game is in time you might
> be able to do something about it?  Great plan!  of course, without them it
> may not get done at all.
>
> >If you want to worry about things, worry about a break-down in these
> >enterprise organizations' positions or a break-down in their ability to
> >protect consumers' personal and private information.  Worry about a
> >foreign group or competitor outside U.S. control obtaining consumers'
> >personal and private information and using it.
>
> This is propaganda.  I have a good idea what "U.S. control" means.  It means
> that the FTC goes to a major credit bureau and says "what you are doing is
> violating the Fair Credit reporting Act because you are combining credit
> header data with marketing data."  The credit bureau says back "Go ahead,
> sue us.  By the time it drags through the courts we will have made many
> times the legal fees and fines."  And yes, and AT&T rep. on Cade's (and/or
> Cade herself) team attended these meetings ... smiling all the way and
> making excuses much like what you are doing now. it is the AT&T's with their
> power, and their excuse makers who go along with them, that scare me.
>
> Russ Smith
>
> --
> 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

--


The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html