<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga-abuse] [Fwd: [ga] Partial response to questions from Danny Younger regarding Business Constituency: Charter and ByLaw Violations]
I wish to lodge yet another complaint against
Russ Smith, based upon the attached post in
which it is asserted that all lawyers (including
me) are crooked. You may note that on the ga
list William X. Walsh has brought the posting
rules to his attention.
Bill Lovell
--
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.)
- To: <wsl@cerebalaw.com>
- Subject: RE: [ga] Partial response to questions from Danny Younger regarding Business Constituency: Charter and ByLaw Violations
- From: admin@consumer.net (admin)
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 21:02:11 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <3B845450.12243EBC@cerebalaw.com>
- Reply-To: <admin@consumer.net>
I never said she was. I said she should be treated the same.
You lawyers just don't quit. You are all so crooked it has become the norm.
This is fully "appropriate" (as if you decide).
-----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 8:55 PM
To: admin@consumer.net
Cc: Derek Conant; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Danny Younger'; 'General
Assembly of ICANN'; 'Philip Sheppard'; 'Stuart Lynn'; 'Grant Forsyth';
'Business Constituency Secretariat'; ga@dnsga.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Partial response to questions from Danny Younger
regarding Business Constituency: Charter and ByLaw Violations
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.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|