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...
Planet Communications Computing Facility 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 Mon, 23 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > 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 exist, and that there is great
> > precedence even at the US Government level for collecting information
> > on participants.
> >
> > Repeating this over and over again is getting rather boring.
> >
> > --
> > William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
> > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
> > Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
> >
> > (IDNO MEMBER)
> > Support the Cyberspace Association, the
> > constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners
> > http://www.idno.org
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
