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

[admin@consumer.net (admin)]

>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.

>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