Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #14
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, February 29 2000          Volume 01 : Number 014

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:54:17 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

At 14:23 28.02.00 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>You said originally, I think, "necessary and sufficient";
>If you said "sufficient but not necessary" that's another vision.

multiple things possible - I'm trying to get a feeling for the space.
it appears that some people have trouble with the "necessary" part, so it's 
probably not reasonable.

>Is the GA an overlapping or disjoint set with the DNSO constituencies? How
>about the ASO, and PSO?

Certainly not disjoint with the constituencies, or I wouldn't be here :-)
same for the PSO - with my IAB membership, I'm part of the structural 
underpinnings of the PSO. I think most of us are in multiple hats, or could 
be if we cared to make it explicit.

>If it is overlapping, ie. if anyone in a DNSO/ASO/PSO group is [eligible
>to be a] part of the GA, then it makes a lot of sense to say "if ICANN
>member then GA member" without necessarily implying the reverse (if not,
>then not). If there is any group of DNSO/ASO/PSO members who might be
>ICANN members who would not be eligible to be GA members (is there?), then
>the result should be different.

I don't think there could be - nobody's proposed (AFAIK) that any person 
should be barred from being a GA member because of other engagements.

If nobody speaks up in favour of excluding anyone, I'll assume that this is 
the GA's opinion: Anyone can join.

                 Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:02:29 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28-Feb-2000 Per Koelle wrote:
> This is silly. There ARE 2 kinds of membership:
> One for the At Large, and one for the DNSO GA !!!
> If we dont have this separation the at-large will be able to vote
> NINE members in the Board and CONTROLE the DNSO NC and therefore also
> be able have their voice heard this way.

You are wrong. The DNSO GA does not control or elect the DNSO NC. 
Unfortunately IMHO.

Your criticism is without merit.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: DSo Networks

iD8DBQE4uwyV8zLmV94Pz+IRAiYeAKCxcJ9BkZRVqrmpGavSchaMatdS9wCdH7t8
4jy4JmN5zjQzy8BcoqbVymM=
=plvk
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:01:38 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-full] Re: [ga] www.dnso.org/archives.html

On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 04:29:33PM -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> I find your note puzzling.
> In a few minutes you already did a better job
> than what's up there-then say what's up there  can't reasonably be
> improved on.  Then you call it "exactly" accurate!
[...]
> "Exactly"?  Having yourself described how this is not the case, I find
> this remark utterly Orwellian.

You seem to be studiously ignoring the obvious, apparently to win 
points in some game I don't fully understand.

Let me rephrase things to hopefully make the obvious more clear: Modulo
an absolutely petty quibble about the meaning of "with rules", the web
page is exactly accurate.  In particular the page lists 4 archives under
the heading "with rules", and one archive under the heading "full". 
This is precisely accurate.  Each of the 4 archives under the first
heading is of an email list that has had filters ("rules") applied.  The
archive under the heading "full" has not had filters applied.

In other words, the headings exactly describe the archives under them.

Your call to identify the precise timing and nature of the rules
applied, in my opinion, simply speaks to a lack of understanding of the
complexity involved.  Some of the events involved were rather
complicated, as when Baptista mailbombed the list, giving it an instant
backlog of over 70,000 messages.  I'm sure it would be interesting to
know all those details, but it takes time and energy to satisfy your
scholarly curiosity. 

Anyway, the first thing to do with a dead horse is dismount...

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:34:07 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

At 21:23 28.02.00 -0500, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
>Harald - what's this garbage form Walsh.  He is not allowed to post at
>this time, nor am i.  Why does he have access???

Change of address. Filters will be updated shortly.

              Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

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

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:33:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

All assembly members,

  Some revisionist history on William's part here.  The DNSO GA DID
elect the NC ending on October 8th '99, although it was an illigitimate
and fradulent election.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 28-Feb-2000 Per Koelle wrote:
> > This is silly. There ARE 2 kinds of membership:
> > One for the At Large, and one for the DNSO GA !!!
> > If we dont have this separation the at-large will be able to vote
> > NINE members in the Board and CONTROLE the DNSO NC and therefore also
> > be able have their voice heard this way.
>
> You are wrong. The DNSO GA does not control or elect the DNSO NC.
> Unfortunately IMHO.
>
> Your criticism is without merit.
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> http://userfriendly.com/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: DSo Networks
>
> iD8DBQE4uwyV8zLmV94Pz+IRAiYeAKCxcJ9BkZRVqrmpGavSchaMatdS9wCdH7t8
> 4jy4JmN5zjQzy8BcoqbVymM=
> =plvk
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:52:03 -0000
From: Jean-Michel Becar <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

Michael,

An ideal world would be everything for free but unfornately I don't think
our world is working like that.
 Yes I know, this is a shame, but if people are really interested in the
Domain Name issues I think it's worth for them to invest let's say 20-30$
per year (the highest price we would ask, but lower would be better).
 In all case participants in these forum still have the money to buy a
computer, to get an internet connection so don't come with arguments like:
"what about people without any ressources!!"

Jean-Michel Becar
ETSI Project Manager
www.etsi.org
Tel: +33 4 92 94 43 15
Fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
GSM: +33 6 82 80 19 31

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 2:47 PM
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: Jean-Michel Becar; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

I would be wary of hitching my cart to these oxen.  ICANN appears to view
the current 'no-fee' memberships as temporary.  What happens when they
start to charge?

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> >Harald, Michael,
> >
> >But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web Interface
could
> >be an example for the GA membership.
> >But the way the proof of identity is done (by sending a postal mail to
the
> >pysical address with a PIN code to be used for accessing to the web site)
> >would cost too much for the GA.
> >So why not to set up a web site where people can registrer themselves and
> >for the proof of identity and interest in the GA DNSO, they should
provide a
> >domain name that can be verified with a whois request if the domain name
> >holder is the same as the member.
> 
> and if they don't hold any domain names?
> For those that do, it's possible - but we'll have to do something for the 
> rest. (And, of course, domain names can cost down to USD 10 these days)
> 
> another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large
membership 
> necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
> This would have a couple of advantages:
> 
> - ICANN has to do the verification work anyway, so it's only done once
> - More active use of the ICANN membership code gives more chance that 
> weaknesses in the system will be found and corrected
> - It's a drive (a small one) for At Large membership
> 
> Of course, this leaves us without the power to impose or enforce our own 
> membership rules, requires people to be willing to sign up for At Large 
> membership, and requires that the people running the At Large are willing 
> to share at least some information.
> 
> But it's an idea.
> 
>                        Harald
> 
> 
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> [email-masked]
> 
> 

- -- 

A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:50:05 -0000
From: Jean-Michel Becar <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

Mr Baptista,

As I'm a honest citizen I don't care to provide or to share any of my
private information with any body. Why are you so reluctant? I always
thought that only people having something to hide would hide their identity.
But I do not think it's your case, so what's the problem?

Jean-Michel Becar
ETSI Project Manager
www.etsi.org
Tel: +33 4 92 94 43 15
Fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
GSM: +33 6 82 80 19 31

- -----Original Message-----
From: !Dr. Joe Baptista [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 11:22 AM
To: Jean-Michel Becar
Cc: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

not in the icann cards - nor do I expect icann for reasons of privacy to
share any information with the ga nitwits.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:

> Harald,
> 
> Yes of course, I wrote this Email earlier in the morning and I only though
> afterwards I was writing something not enough open for our process. BTW I
> like your idea to use the At Large membership system to subscribe to the
ga.
> Dear ga members could we go for a discussion on that.
> 
> Jean-Michel Becar
> E.T.S.I.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 8:26 AM
> To: Jean-Michel Becar; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law;
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot
> 
> 
> At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> >Harald, Michael,
> >
> >But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web Interface
could
> >be an example for the GA membership.
> >But the way the proof of identity is done (by sending a postal mail to
the
> >pysical address with a PIN code to be used for accessing to the web site)
> >would cost too much for the GA.
> >So why not to set up a web site where people can registrer themselves and
> >for the proof of identity and interest in the GA DNSO, they should
provide
> a
> >domain name that can be verified with a whois request if the domain name
> >holder is the same as the member.
> 
> and if they don't hold any domain names?
> For those that do, it's possible - but we'll have to do something for the 
> rest. (And, of course, domain names can cost down to USD 10 these days)
> 
> another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large
membership 
> necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
> This would have a couple of advantages:
> 
> - ICANN has to do the verification work anyway, so it's only done once
> - More active use of the ICANN membership code gives more chance that 
> weaknesses in the system will be found and corrected
> - It's a drive (a small one) for At Large membership
> 
> Of course, this leaves us without the power to impose or enforce our own 
> membership rules, requires people to be willing to sign up for At Large 
> membership, and requires that the people running the At Large are willing 
> to share at least some information.
> 
> But it's an idea.
> 
>                        Harald
> 
> 
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> [email-masked]
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 04:15:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

Jean-Michel and all,

  The problem Jean-Michel here are many and varied when it comes to
the perpetration's that Harald, Roberto, the DNSO NC, and the DNSO
list admin. have done that is a matter of historical record (See DNSO GA
Archives for further in-depth details).  But this is only really part of
the problem to which you refer.  Privacy issues are very real and quite
concerning in general as well as in specific.  One of them is "Identity Teft"
which the FTC  see: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/02/idtheft.htm
for further details.  Other concerns as related to "Identity Theft" with
respect to the DNSO is the total lack of proper security on the DNSO.org
Web site as well as this mailing list.  It is an easy hack, as has been
demonstrated on several occasions.  Another, concern is the total lack
of a viable and lawful "Privacy Policy" as required by US law.  In that
the DNSO is part of ICANN and ICANN is a US non-profit corporation
without an official and approved or well recognized Privacy Policy, the
problem of "Identity Theft" becomes that much more acute.

Jean-Michel Becar wrote:

> Mr Baptista,
>
> As I'm a honest citizen I don't care to provide or to share any of my
> private information with any body. Why are you so reluctant? I always
> thought that only people having something to hide would hide their identity.
> But I do not think it's your case, so what's the problem?
>
> Jean-Michel Becar
> ETSI Project Manager
> www.etsi.org
> Tel: +33 4 92 94 43 15
> Fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
> GSM: +33 6 82 80 19 31
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: !Dr. Joe Baptista [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 11:22 AM
> To: Jean-Michel Becar
> Cc: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot
>
> not in the icann cards - nor do I expect icann for reasons of privacy to
> share any information with the ga nitwits.
>
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
>
> > Harald,
> >
> > Yes of course, I wrote this Email earlier in the morning and I only though
> > afterwards I was writing something not enough open for our process. BTW I
> > like your idea to use the At Large membership system to subscribe to the
> ga.
> > Dear ga members could we go for a discussion on that.
> >
> > Jean-Michel Becar
> > E.T.S.I.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 8:26 AM
> > To: Jean-Michel Becar; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law;
> > [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot
> >
> >
> > At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> > >Harald, Michael,
> > >
> > >But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web Interface
> could
> > >be an example for the GA membership.
> > >But the way the proof of identity is done (by sending a postal mail to
> the
> > >pysical address with a PIN code to be used for accessing to the web site)
> > >would cost too much for the GA.
> > >So why not to set up a web site where people can registrer themselves and
> > >for the proof of identity and interest in the GA DNSO, they should
> provide
> > a
> > >domain name that can be verified with a whois request if the domain name
> > >holder is the same as the member.
> >
> > and if they don't hold any domain names?
> > For those that do, it's possible - but we'll have to do something for the
> > rest. (And, of course, domain names can cost down to USD 10 these days)
> >
> > another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large
> membership
> > necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
> > This would have a couple of advantages:
> >
> > - ICANN has to do the verification work anyway, so it's only done once
> > - More active use of the ICANN membership code gives more chance that
> > weaknesses in the system will be found and corrected
> > - It's a drive (a small one) for At Large membership
> >
> > Of course, this leaves us without the power to impose or enforce our own
> > membership rules, requires people to be willing to sign up for At Large
> > membership, and requires that the people running the At Large are willing
> > to share at least some information.
> >
> > But it's an idea.
> >
> >                        Harald
> >
> >
> > --
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> > [email-masked]
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:19:08 -0700
From: Michael <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

'Privacy policies' are not required under U.S. law.
Michael McNulty

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Jean-Michel and all,
>
>   The problem Jean-Michel here are many and varied when it comes to
> the perpetration's that Harald, Roberto, the DNSO NC, and the DNSO
> list admin. have done that is a matter of historical record (See DNSO GA
> Archives for further in-depth details).  But this is only really part of
> the problem to which you refer.  Privacy issues are very real and quite
> concerning in general as well as in specific.  One of them is "Identity Teft"
> which the FTC  see: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/02/idtheft.htm
> for further details.  Other concerns as related to "Identity Theft" with
> respect to the DNSO is the total lack of proper security on the DNSO.org
> Web site as well as this mailing list.  It is an easy hack, as has been
> demonstrated on several occasions.  Another, concern is the total lack
> of a viable and lawful "Privacy Policy" as required by US law.  In that
> the DNSO is part of ICANN and ICANN is a US non-profit corporation
> without an official and approved or well recognized Privacy Policy, the
> problem of "Identity Theft" becomes that much more acute.
>
> Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
>
> > Mr Baptista,
> >
> > As I'm a honest citizen I don't care to provide or to share any of my
> > private information with any body. Why are you so reluctant? I always
> > thought that only people having something to hide would hide their identity.
> > But I do not think it's your case, so what's the problem?
> >
> > Jean-Michel Becar
> > ETSI Project Manager
> > www.etsi.org
> > Tel: +33 4 92 94 43 15
> > Fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
> > GSM: +33 6 82 80 19 31
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: !Dr. Joe Baptista [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 11:22 AM
> > To: Jean-Michel Becar
> > Cc: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot
> >
> > not in the icann cards - nor do I expect icann for reasons of privacy to
> > share any information with the ga nitwits.
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> >
> > > Harald,
> > >
> > > Yes of course, I wrote this Email earlier in the morning and I only though
> > > afterwards I was writing something not enough open for our process. BTW I
> > > like your idea to use the At Large membership system to subscribe to the
> > ga.
> > > Dear ga members could we go for a discussion on that.
> > >
> > > Jean-Michel Becar
> > > E.T.S.I.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 8:26 AM
> > > To: Jean-Michel Becar; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law;
> > > [email-masked]
> > > Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot
> > >
> > >
> > > At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> > > >Harald, Michael,
> > > >
> > > >But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web Interface
> > could
> > > >be an example for the GA membership.
> > > >But the way the proof of identity is done (by sending a postal mail to
> > the
> > > >pysical address with a PIN code to be used for accessing to the web site)
> > > >would cost too much for the GA.
> > > >So why not to set up a web site where people can registrer themselves and
> > > >for the proof of identity and interest in the GA DNSO, they should
> > provide
> > > a
> > > >domain name that can be verified with a whois request if the domain name
> > > >holder is the same as the member.
> > >
> > > and if they don't hold any domain names?
> > > For those that do, it's possible - but we'll have to do something for the
> > > rest. (And, of course, domain names can cost down to USD 10 these days)
> > >
> > > another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large
> > membership
> > > necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
> > > This would have a couple of advantages:
> > >
> > > - ICANN has to do the verification work anyway, so it's only done once
> > > - More active use of the ICANN membership code gives more chance that
> > > weaknesses in the system will be found and corrected
> > > - It's a drive (a small one) for At Large membership
> > >
> > > Of course, this leaves us without the power to impose or enforce our own
> > > membership rules, requires people to be willing to sign up for At Large
> > > membership, and requires that the people running the At Large are willing
> > > to share at least some information.
> > >
> > > But it's an idea.
> > >
> > >                        Harald
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> > > [email-masked]
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> 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-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:18:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

Michael and all assembly members,

  The privacy Act IS US law.

Michael wrote:

> 'Privacy policies' are not required under U.S. law.
> Michael McNulty
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Jean-Michel and all,
> >
> >   The problem Jean-Michel here are many and varied when it comes to
> > the perpetration's that Harald, Roberto, the DNSO NC, and the DNSO
> > list admin. have done that is a matter of historical record (See DNSO GA
> > Archives for further in-depth details).  But this is only really part of
> > the problem to which you refer.  Privacy issues are very real and quite
> > concerning in general as well as in specific.  One of them is "Identity Teft"
> > which the FTC  see: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/02/idtheft.htm
> > for further details.  Other concerns as related to "Identity Theft" with
> > respect to the DNSO is the total lack of proper security on the DNSO.org
> > Web site as well as this mailing list.  It is an easy hack, as has been
> > demonstrated on several occasions.  Another, concern is the total lack
> > of a viable and lawful "Privacy Policy" as required by US law.  In that
> > the DNSO is part of ICANN and ICANN is a US non-profit corporation
> > without an official and approved or well recognized Privacy Policy, the
> > problem of "Identity Theft" becomes that much more acute.
> >
> > Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> >
> > > Mr Baptista,
> > >
> > > As I'm a honest citizen I don't care to provide or to share any of my
> > > private information with any body. Why are you so reluctant? I always
> > > thought that only people having something to hide would hide their identity.
> > > But I do not think it's your case, so what's the problem?
> > >
> > > Jean-Michel Becar
> > > ETSI Project Manager
> > > www.etsi.org
> > > Tel: +33 4 92 94 43 15
> > > Fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
> > > GSM: +33 6 82 80 19 31
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: !Dr. Joe Baptista [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 11:22 AM
> > > To: Jean-Michel Becar
> > > Cc: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot
> > >
> > > not in the icann cards - nor do I expect icann for reasons of privacy to
> > > share any information with the ga nitwits.
> > >
> > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> > >
> > > > Harald,
> > > >
> > > > Yes of course, I wrote this Email earlier in the morning and I only though
> > > > afterwards I was writing something not enough open for our process. BTW I
> > > > like your idea to use the At Large membership system to subscribe to the
> > > ga.
> > > > Dear ga members could we go for a discussion on that.
> > > >
> > > > Jean-Michel Becar
> > > > E.T.S.I.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 8:26 AM
> > > > To: Jean-Michel Becar; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law;
> > > > [email-masked]
> > > > Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> > > > >Harald, Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > >But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web Interface
> > > could
> > > > >be an example for the GA membership.
> > > > >But the way the proof of identity is done (by sending a postal mail to
> > > the
> > > > >pysical address with a PIN code to be used for accessing to the web site)
> > > > >would cost too much for the GA.
> > > > >So why not to set up a web site where people can registrer themselves and
> > > > >for the proof of identity and interest in the GA DNSO, they should
> > > provide
> > > > a
> > > > >domain name that can be verified with a whois request if the domain name
> > > > >holder is the same as the member.
> > > >
> > > > and if they don't hold any domain names?
> > > > For those that do, it's possible - but we'll have to do something for the
> > > > rest. (And, of course, domain names can cost down to USD 10 these days)
> > > >
> > > > another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large
> > > membership
> > > > necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
> > > > This would have a couple of advantages:
> > > >
> > > > - ICANN has to do the verification work anyway, so it's only done once
> > > > - More active use of the ICANN membership code gives more chance that
> > > > weaknesses in the system will be found and corrected
> > > > - It's a drive (a small one) for At Large membership
> > > >
> > > > Of course, this leaves us without the power to impose or enforce our own
> > > > membership rules, requires people to be willing to sign up for At Large
> > > > membership, and requires that the people running the At Large are willing
> > > > to share at least some information.
> > > >
> > > > But it's an idea.
> > > >
> > > >                        Harald
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> > > > [email-masked]
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > 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-masked]
> > Contact Number:  972-447-1894
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:24:40 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Additional info on privacy included - from:[Fwd: [IPN] Hague Convention on Jurisdiction]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------3F25697E431B1FA2B04411D0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- --
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-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --------------3F25697E431B1FA2B04411D0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:43:44 -0500
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Organization: http://www.cptech.org
To: info-policy-notes <[email-masked]>
Subject: [IPN] Hague Convention on Jurisdiction
Sender: [email-masked]

http://www.cptech.org/ecom/hague-march-2000.html

Meeting in Ottawa on the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and
     Foreign Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters. 

Summary:

The following are CPT's comments for a March 1, 2000 meeting in
Ottawa on the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign
Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters.  CPT is concerned
about proposals that would eliminate the right of consumers to
bring legal actions in their own countries, weaken consumer
rights in intellectual property, and authorize private trade
associations to write their own privacy and consumer protection
rules that would preempt national laws.

Background:

These extraordinary discussions concern a proposed Hague
Convention on Jurisdiction, that would include provisions
regarding business-to-consumer transactions in cyberspace.  The
Hague Convention was first proposed in 1992, long before anyone
was considering the impact of the Internet.  

Formal negotiations began in 1996.  The Convention was supposed
to be finished this year, but has been slowed by controversy,
particularly over the ecommerce provisions.  There are meetings
this week in Ottawa on electronic commerce and a proposed meeting
in July in Geneva with the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO).

CPT, Consumers Union, and the National Consumers League were
briefed on the treaty last week.  We were told it was the first
briefing for consumer groups.  There have been extensive business
sector involvement in the treaty negotiation process.  For
example, in meetings this week in Ottawa the US delegation
includes Cindy Rose, an employee of Disney.

In the negotiations, the US government is opposing language
(Article 7) that would guarantee a consumer the right to bring a
private legal action in her country of residence.

Key persons working on the Hague Convention are also proposing a
system whereby an ecommerce firm could seek a private sector
"certification" that it provided good consumer protection or
privacy practices.  Such a certification would mean that a
business would not be required to abide by country of destination
laws.  The certification proposal provides a context for the
current Federal Trade Commission/Department of Commerce efforts
to push for "alternative dispute resolutions (ADR) systems.  

   Jamie Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
   [email-masked], http://www.cptech.org

<-----------------------CPT Statement--------------->

To:  [email-masked]  
     Attention: Professor Catherine Kessedjian

cc:  Jeffrey Kovar, US Department of State
     Mark Bohannon, Department of Commerce
     Commissioner Mozelle Thompson, Federal Trade Commission
     Michael Donohue, Federal Trade Commission

           Views of the Consumer Project on Technology
                                
                           James Love
                                
                          March 1, 2000
                                
           Meeting in Ottawa on the Hague Convention 
           on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements in 
                  Civil and Commercial Matters
                                
The Consumer Project on Technology (CPT) is a non profit
organization created by US consumer advocate Ralph Nader.  The
work of CPT is on the web at http://www.cptech.org.

CPT is concerned about several issues in the Hague Convention on
Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgement in Civil and Commercial
Matters.  In particular, we are interested in the provisions in
the Convention that address business-to-consumer transactions,
including transactions in electronic commerce.

In the October 1999 draft of the Convention, there are strong
protections for consumers with respect to the issue of
jurisdiction.  In Article 7, consumers cannot alienate, at the
time of the transaction, their right to sue in their home courts. 
Only after a dispute takes place could consumers be asked to make
a "choice of court" that would exclude the right to sue in the
home country jurisdiction.  We believe this is the correct
approach.  Choice would be permitted if the consumer had a real
opportunity to decide which court to use, and the choice would
make the consumer better off.

It is our view that consumers will be harmed if they are faced 
with contracts of adhesion that undermine consumer rights on
issues of jurisdiction of law.  This is an issue in the United
States now, where contracts that address jurisdiction are common. 
For example, Microsoft routinely presents consumers with "take it
or leave it" contracts that establish King County, Washington as
the venue of jurisdiction.  Corel, a Canadian software firm,
requires consumers to "agree to irrevocably submit to the
jurisdiction of the Courts of the Province of Ontario."  The
October 1999 draft, particularly Article 7(3), would protect the
consumer interest, by declaring these contract provisions to be
invalid in international business to consumer transactions.

Unfortunately, the US government has voted against the October
1999 draft of Article 7, on the grounds that US businesses oppose
rules that guarantee consumers legal rights in the country where
they live.   We are also concerned with reports that large
ecommerce firms are lobbying the European Union for changes in
the EU position on the same issue.  Moreover, other proposals
would create new systems of private law making, and eliminate
existing legal rights.

In the press release from the September 1999 Geneva Roundtable on
electronic commerce and private international law, Professor
Catherine Kessedjian, the Deputy Secretary General of the Hague
Conference on Private International Law, made a proposal that
sellers could go through a certification process concerning:

     "minimum substantive rules of protection for the
     consumer including warranties, and a fair and easy
     dispute resolution mechanism which could possibly be
     free of charge to the consumer."

Professsor Kessedjian further proposed that:

     "When a site has obtained the certification label, it
     could provide for the application of the law of the
     country of origin and for the courts of that country
     for the residual cases which could not be solved by the
     dispute resolution mechanism part of the
     certification."

Professor Kessedjian says this will "avoid the traditional
dichotomy between the "country of origin" and the "country of
destination," and she suggests the certification process be
"along the lines of the work done within the icc and other
private organizations."

We are concerned and indeed alarmed that the Hague Convention is
considering an agreement that would permit private organizations
to exempt sellers from laws where the consumer resides.  We
recognize that this is not part of the current draft of the
Convention, and we strongly oppose its inclusion.  

We are further troubled by item 9 of the press release from the
September 9, 1999 Geneva Roundtable, which included this proposal
regarding privacy laws:

     9.In the matter of data protection, the Round Table
     recognized that data collection, personal data
     included, and processing thereof are inherent to
     electronic commerce. The dichotomy between systems
     which do not accept general standards and those which
     require a rigid a priori framework for the collection
     and transfer of data should be avoided. Furthermore, it
     is necessary to carry out a study on the most relevant
     system of applicable law which would also allow a
     greater role to self-regulation and model contracts
     such as those proposed by the icc and in line with the
     principles recommended by the Council of Europe.

Again, the suggestion that the "relevant system of applicable
law" should provide a "greater role to 'self-regulation'" seems
at odds with the experience in the United States.  Self
regulation of consumer privacy has been a colossal failure, as
measured by the astronomical increases in the unwanted collection
and marketing of personal information.

Taken together, the opposition by the US and others to the
October 1999 draft Article 7 language, and the proposals to
create "self regulation" mechanisms that would exempt sellers
from national laws in the country where the consumers reside,
raise the possibility that the Hague Convention will be used to
privatize parts of our legal system and shift control of public
policy from democratically elected governments to powerful
industry trade groups.

It is also relevant that these proposals are being taken at a
time when large ecommerce firms are asking US State governments
to enact a controversial "Uniform Computer and Information
Transactions Act," known as UCITA, that will greatly expand the
domain of contracts of adhesion in the United States.

Under a system of Hague Convention exceptions from national
jurisdiction and UCITA-style contracts of adhesion, one can
imagine a future where consumer rights will be extremely limited
and sellers of ecommerce services will write their own private
laws.

It is of course difficult to address global jurisdictional issues
in cyberspace, and there are good reasons to seek more uniform
rules for electronic ecommerce.  However, we are also mindful of
the benefits of democratic governance, and national laws to
protect consumers from abusive practices by businesses.  Greater
efficiencies in global ecommerce business are not a rationale for
stripping consumers of their rights, including the right to elect
the governments that determine the rules of commerce.

     Discussions with TACD

After several years of meeting with various business lobbyists,
the negotiators for the Hague Convention would benefit from a
broader engagement with consumer interests.  

The Hague Convention should schedule a meeting with the Trans
Atlantic Consumer Dialogue and other consumer interests to
address issues concerning the appropriate forums for setting
norms for consumer and privacy protection.  The TACD has adopted 
statements on electronic commerce for unfair contracts,
intellectual property rights, the appropriate framework for
alternative dispute resolution systems, jurisdiction of law and
other topics.  These are found on the TACD web page at:
http://www.tacd.org.  TACD is also working on a statement
regarding self regulation and consumer protection, and the
development of international institutions that address global
consumer protection issues. 

While this Hague convention is focusing on issues relating to
private judgements, it would be useful to consider a joint
workshop on jurisdiction issues, where there would be discussion
of the special issues of cross national jurisdiction for laws
dealing with unsolicited commercial mail, consumer privacy, the
marketing of securities on the Internet, and the difficulties of
regulating Internet marketing practices for a wide range of goods
regulated in non-internet media.  It would also be useful to
compare the approaches in the consumer protection and privacy
area to the approaches in the area of Intellectual property, and
to explain why self regulation should be accepted in areas of
consumer protection and privacy, but rejected in matters
concerning intellectual property rights.  We suggest the Hague
Convention approach the TACD about joint sponsorship of a meeting
on this topic.

Background Information:

http://www.hcch.net/e/events/press01e.html
http://cuiwww.unige.ch/~billard/ipilec/
http://www.hcch.net/e/members/members.html
http://www.state.gov/www/global/legal_affairs/whats_new.html
http://www.state.gov/www/global/legal_affairs/991030_forjudg.html

=======================================================
James Love, Director           | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:[email-masked] 
P.O. Box 19367                 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036           | fax:   1.202.234.5176
=======================================================

_______________________________________________
Info-policy-notes mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/info-policy-notes

- --------------3F25697E431B1FA2B04411D0--

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

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #14
***********************