ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] (Posting as Privacy Liason only) Search Sites Unveil Privacy Plans - Ask.com beats them all hands down, again.

  • To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ga] (Posting as Privacy Liason only) Search Sites Unveil Privacy Plans - Ask.com beats them all hands down, again.
  • From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:25:32 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=H/SB0/CPWEc8GuhXzC0CsMSolpGVzAznHV9cqbUlcwJ6Ny9R91vlUynRnhsDsZFE; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
  • Reply-to: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR>
<P>Eric,</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp; There is also no rule that limits posting as privacy liason either.</P>
<P>A&nbsp;conundrum, eh?&nbsp; However that is often what happens with</P>
<P>rules which are not applicable to the real world now isn't it.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp; So no I am doing what I interpret the draft rules to mean.&nbsp; <BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker <HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Jul 26, 2007 8:17 AM <BR>To: Jeff Williams <JWKCKID1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: Re: [ga] (Posting as Privacy Liason only) Search Sites Unveil Privacy Plans - Ask.com beats them all hands down, again. <BR><BR>
<DIV>You will do as you please but there are no different posting limits for a liason. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Eric<BR><BR><B><I>Jeff Williams &lt;jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">All,<BR><BR>Well at least ASK beats them all hands down. However seems <BR>Google, Yahoo, and MS are laggards again. Weak business <BR>policy that, on the part of MS, Yahoo and Google, but not <BR>unexpected. Given the US and UK's military banning of<BR>Google, Yahoo and MS's search facilities by its service<BR>men and women, I feel confident that they will greatly<BR>appreciate this effort, especially ASK's. <BR><BR>However this is an important step in the right direction, even<BR>though the code/technology has been around for a number<BR>of years. It will help users and domain name holders from<BR>being sniped, scamed, and be a significant help in protecting<BR>their Identity and from ID theft and to a much greater degree<BR>with ASK.COM. Now if only ICANN will do that with Whois<BR>and registrant data, we can take a bigger bite out of crime. It<BR>will also take some load off of law enforcement, which is greatly<BR>needed.<BR><BR>See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6911527.stm<BR><BR>&gt;From the article:<BR><BR>Action on privacy by the top four search sites. Google, Microsoft,<BR>Yahoo, and Ask have introduced plans to reduce the data they store <BR>and how long they store it. From the article: "The rush to improve <BR>privacy policies was started by Google in March when it announced <BR>it would start deleting the final parts of the individual address <BR>it collects from each user's computer after 18 months... Microsoft <BR>is expected to make a similar announcement to separate the identifying <BR>address and other data from searches after 18 months. The information <BR>will be held for longer if users request it. Yahoo said it would <BR>delete identifying addresses and cookies after 13 months... Ask is <BR>taking the most radical step by unveiling plans for a tool called <BR>AskEraser which, it claims, will let people tune whether data<BR>is gathered about them on a search-by-search basis.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>--<BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR>Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is<BR>very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;<BR>liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security<BR>IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402<BR>E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Registered Email addr with the USPS<BR>Contact Number: 214-244-4827<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>Regards,<BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll Towing&nbsp; (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of<BR>Information Network Eng.&nbsp; INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>