Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1130
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, April 18 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1130

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

Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:02:18 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] On Transfers and Slamming

Reposted from the registrar list:

<<Bruce,

could you enlighten us as to how VeriSign got the contact information
[including mine] to mail out your fraudulent slamming campaign.

Just so you know I have domains registered at several registrars with
bogus surnames. when I get a piece of snail mail that contains one of
those surnames I know the address was collected by mining the whois as the
registration is the ONLY place that surname and my address exists.

the letter from VeriSign requesting that I transfer my domains included
one of those bogus surnames.

Could you address why the letter appears to be a bill but is in fact a
solicitation? Also, could you explain why the letter violates 39 USC
3001(d)(2)(A) of the Domestic Mail Manual by not providing an appropriate
disclaimer? see http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm/c031.htm

Many times you have stated SLAMMING as an industry wide problem without
ever providing an example of SLAMMING occurring in our industry.

I thank you for finally providing a clear case of slamming and registrant
confusion. We look forward to your explanation of the VeriSign Registrars
behavior in this matter.>>
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02348.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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:15:42 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

> [email-masked]
> I share Tim's point of view, and would appeciate hearing the
> position of GA
> members on this topic (especially the views of those members that now
> participate on the WHOIS Committee).
>

Disclosing personal data in the Whois is unlawful in the 15 member nations
of the European Union. What the WHOIS Committee and the GA thinks is
irrelevant.
Regards,
Joanna

- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Hello,

- --- Joanna Lane <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Disclosing personal data in the Whois is unlawful in the 15 member
> nations
> of the European Union. What the WHOIS Committee and the GA thinks is
> irrelevant.

What would folks do who are after abusive registrants (e.g. UDRP cases
for TM infringement, or other matters), without the public WHOIS info?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:45:24 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Joanna writes:

<< What the WHOIS Committee and the GA thinks is irrelevant. >>

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.  This issue was turned 
over to the DNSO on January 22nd by the ICANN Board for resolution.  Please 
note "ICANN Board Referral of Bulk Whois Issue to DNSO"  posted at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00061.html

Neither the DNSO generally, or the WHOIS Committee specifically (to whom this 
job was redelegated) has done anything so far to address the issue... and 
that makes it a problem that should concern the GA.

- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:50:25 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Wednesday, Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 4:15:42 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

>> [email-masked]
>> I share Tim's point of view, and would appeciate hearing the
>> position of GA
>> members on this topic (especially the views of those members that now
>> participate on the WHOIS Committee).
>>

> Disclosing personal data in the Whois is unlawful in the 15 member nations
> of the European Union.

Actually, I've heard differing viewpoints from real attorneys, not
just people who play one here on the GA.

But let's say you are right, all this will do is require ICANN to not
accredit European registrars.

The whois data is, and ought to remain, public, without exception.

Now, to the issue of bulk whois output.  ICANN permits registrars to
offer an "opt-out" to registrants from the bulk whois output.

The downside to not allowing bulk whois access is that it will bring
back the massive automated mining of the whois databases again.

I'm sympathetic to the opinion of the Registrar who brought this up,
but I'm not so sure that his position is practical, or that the
withdrawal of the policy will not result in a much worse problem.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:57:50 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] CNN v. cnnews.com Case

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Louis Touton" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:09 PM
Subject: CNN v. cnnews.com Case

Jamie,

Here is the summary you requested regarding the CNN v. cnnews.com case:

A central feature of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy is that
registrars will remain neutral concerning trademark-based disputes over
domain names.  (This was a major change from the prior Network Solutions
dispute policy.)  Instead, these disputes are to be resolved by courts
or, in cases of abusive registrations, administrative panels (see
paragraph 4, UDRP).

To promote registrar neutrality, the policy contemplates that registrars
need not be brought in as parties to the disputes.  (In fact, paragraph
6 of the policy specifically states that domain-name holders will not
name their registrars as parties.)  In this vein, paragraph 3 of the
UDRP requires that registrars implement court orders and administrative-
panel decisions in trademark/domain name disputes even though the 
registrars are not parties to the proceedings:

   3.  Cancellations, Transfers, and Changes. We will cancel, transfer 
   or otherwise make changes to domain name registrations under the 
   following circumstances:

      * * *

      b. our receipt of an order from a court or arbitral tribunal, in 
      each case of competent jurisdiction, requiring such action; and/or

      c. our receipt of a decision of an Administrative Panel requiring
      such action in any administrative proceeding to which you were a 
      party and which was conducted under this Policy or a later version 
      of this Policy adopted by ICANN.

In the CNN v. cnnews.com case, the registrar for the domain name,
Eastern Communications (also known as Eastcom), filed a "Registrar 
Certificate" with the United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of Virginia on 14 March 2001 stating:

   Through the deposit of this Registrar Certificate with the Registry
   of the Court, EASTCOM hereby tenders to the Court complete control 
   and authority over the registration for the CNNEWS.COM domain name
   registration record.  

This type of registrar certificate provides the court with "in rem" 
jurisdiction over the domain name, but is not intended to consent to
the court's exercising "in personam" jurisdiction over the registrar.

After various hearings (attorneys for both disputing parties were 
present) the court issued an order on 11 January 2002 transferring 
the domain name:

   It is now hereby ORDERED that the domain name CNNEWS.COM is
   transferred to Plaintiff Cable News Network LP, LLLP.

This form (particularly the phrase "is transferred") of order indicates
that the court is exercising its in rem jurisdiction to transfer an 
item (here, the domain name) that has been placed within the court's 
control.

Because the registrar had expressly placed the domain name cnnews.com 
under the "complete control and authority" of the court, and that court 
had entered an order of transfer, paragraph 3(b) of the UDRP (see above)
provides that the regisrar will comply with that order. 

The domain-name holder has appealed the Virginia district court order to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  Under
federal court procedures in the United States, the filing of an appeal
does not stop the effectiveness of a district court order.  

Registrars are obligated by their registrar accreditation agreements
with ICANN to abide by the UDRP (and other consensus policies as well). 
Section 3.8 of the current version of the registrar accreditation
agreement states:

   3.8 Domain-Name Dispute Resolution. During the Term of this
   Agreement, Registrar shall have in place a policy and procedures 
   for resolution of disputes concerning Registered Names. Until 
   different policies and procedures are established by ICANN under 
   Section 4, Registrar shall comply with the Uniform Domain Name 
   Dispute Resolution Policy identified on ICANN's website
   (www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm).

ICANN received a letter from an attorney for CNN enclosing the registrar
certificate and the court order, reporting difficulties in communicating
with the registrar.  On 2 April, we forwarded the letter and its
enclosures to Eastern Communications (the registrar) requesting, "Please 
look into this right away and ensure that Eastern Communications 
promptly fulfills its responsibilities."

In response to an inquiry from a US lawyer representing the
domain-name holder, on 4 April we advised that attorney that "Absent a
stay of the effect of this [11 January] order, EastCom is obliged to
comply with that order under its accreditation agreement with ICANN." 
On 12 April, the domain-name holder obtained a stay from the Virginia
district court.  On 13 April 2002 we advised the parties (through their 
attorneys) that, because the Virginia court had ordered a stay of its 
11 January order, the domain name should not be transferred under 
paragraph 3(b) of the UDRP at this time.

Best regards,

Louis Touton

- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:01:08 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue

Dear all

I am not sure that it is yet clear where WHOIS databases fall, in terms of the European data privacy directives; there are two, as most of you know. The present online data directive is up for evaluation/assessment and that is work in progress. The E-Communications directive is still in play.  Determining where WHOIS databases fall, in terms of jurisdiction, is still work in progress, I believe.  However, as important as Europe is in the grand scheme of things, stronger Internet growth is underway in Asia Pacific and Latin America, far surpassing North America and Europe.  :-)  

However, I also suggest that more work and dialogue is needed on the difference between data about institutions, companies, organizations, versus real individuals. Public access to WHOIS data has been a key resource to law enforcement, ISPs, trademark holders, everyday users of the Internet to assess who they are doing business with.... entities, whether individual or institutional, about whether a name is available.

It is hard to make blanket statements at this point about a resource used for many and diverse purposes. 

Regards, Marilyn 

- -----Original Message-----
From: George Kirikos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 7:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Hello,

- --- Joanna Lane <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Disclosing personal data in the Whois is unlawful in the 15 member
> nations
> of the European Union. What the WHOIS Committee and the GA thinks is
> irrelevant.

What would folks do who are after abusive registrants (e.g. UDRP cases
for TM infringement, or other matters), without the public WHOIS info?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:10:22 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

The same as they do for TM infringement in any other media. Protecting
intellectual property is no defense for breaking the law. Your argument
amounts to demanding my unlisted phone number and home address because you
don't know whether or not I am a criminal.

And in anticipation of your next response, Post Office boxes are not
available in all parts of the world, not everybody can afford two phone
lines and the elusive registrant data escrow services that Registrars are
supposed to offer have never materialized.

Regards,
Joanna

> What would folks do who are after abusive registrants (e.g. UDRP cases
> for TM infringement, or other matters), without the public WHOIS info?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>

- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:17:18 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Actually, I've heard differing viewpoints from real attorneys [....] 

Cite them.

Regards,
Joanna 
- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:37:54 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Well that is perhaps a simplistic approach to a complex situation.

Just because whois data is visible in the EU via the internet does not
necessarily give them jurisdiction in this matter.

Its probably a safe bet that someone like a registrar or registry that
is operating in Europe would have to modify things somewhat. But people
operating in Europe already know how to comply.  Its not a new issue for
them.

But if I were a registrar or other entity running a whois service on my
box here in canada, I seriously doubt the EU could do anything about it.
I would not be in their jurisdiction.
What I would be doing would not be illegal here.
Good luck getting enforcement on any judgement.

Dan Steinberg

Sythesis: Law & Technology
(613) 794-5356

Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> > [email-masked]
> > I share Tim's point of view, and would appeciate hearing the
> > position of GA
> > members on this topic (especially the views of those members that now
> > participate on the WHOIS Committee).
> >
> 
> Disclosing personal data in the Whois is unlawful in the 15 member nations
> of the European Union. What the WHOIS Committee and the GA thinks is
> irrelevant.
> Regards,
> Joanna
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:40:31 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Bulk Whois Data Issue

Marilyn,

I refer you (as co-chair of the WHOIS Committee) to the February 14 minutes 
of the Names Council:

<<Agenda item 5: WHOIS referral from ICANN
Louis Touton reminded Council of a request from Verio Inc. regarding a change 
in the Registrar's Accreditation agreement about bulk WHOIS data obtained 
from registrars and the marketing uses for it.  The ICANN reconsideration 
committee recommended referring the issue to the DNSO.  Philip Sheppard asked 
if it could be referred to the existing Task Force or would it require a new 
group.  The WHOIS TF Chair said it was an issue that could be taken up by the 
WHOIS task force if the Council requested it.

Philip Sheppard proposed:
To refer the issue to the existing WHOIS TF and for the TF to report back by 
e-mail to the NC within 14 days how they intend to deal with it.
Decision 6: The proposal was adopted. There was one abstention.>>

I have not noticed any message to the Council explaining how or when the 
WHOIS Committee intends to deal with this issue which the Board has referred 
to the DNSO.  Can you provide an update, or an explanation as to why your 
Committee is not acting upon this request from the ICANN Board?
- --
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: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:53:51 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

At 16:34 17/04/02 -0700, George Kirikos wrote:
>Hello,
>
>--- Joanna Lane <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Disclosing personal data in the Whois is unlawful in the 15 member
> > nations
> > of the European Union. What the WHOIS Committee and the GA thinks is
> > irrelevant.
>
>What would folks do who are after abusive registrants (e.g. UDRP cases
>for TM infringement, or other matters), without the public WHOIS info?

This dialog sums it up. There is fundamental tension between two positions 
and ICANN is being asked to come up with a reasonable compromise.
Perhaps registrars should provide the service of a PO Box address, 
specifically for clients who do not wish their home address to be public. 
(at a small additional cost)
Then parties with a legitimate reason to contact the registrant could be 
given the details on a case -by -case basis.

- --Joop

- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:24:59 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

- --------------080804040705080606020503
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

William X Walsh wrote:

>Wednesday, Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 4:15:42 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
>>Disclosing personal data in the Whois is unlawful in the 15 member nations
>>of the European Union.
>>
>
>Actually, I've heard differing viewpoints from real attorneys, not
>just people who play one here on the GA.
>
>But let's say you are right, all this will do is require ICANN to not
>accredit European registrars.
>
This is called "playing lawyer."

[snip] I won't bother with the rest of this.

Bill Lovell

- --------------080804040705080606020503
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
William X Walsh wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
  <pre wrap="">Wednesday, Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 4:15:42 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:<br><br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Disclosing personal data in the Whois is unlawful in the 15 member nations<br>of the European Union.<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!----><br>Actually, I've heard differing viewpoints from real attorneys, not<br>just people who play one here on the GA.<br><br>But let's say you are right, all this will do is require ICANN to not<br>accredit European registrars.</pre>
    </blockquote>
This is called "playing lawyer."<br>
    <br>
[snip] I won't bother with the rest of this.<br>
    <br>
Bill Lovell<br>
    </body>
    </html>

- --------------080804040705080606020503--

- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Hello,

- --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   The complaintant would file for a subpoena to the registrar for the
> information that they are requesting.

This raises legal and business costs enormously. Good for the lawyers,
but not for everyone else.

I think a domain name is a privilege, not a right. Registrants have the
possibility to keep their WHOIS data private simply by not buying a
domain name, in which case they'd not be bound by the registrant
contract.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:10:37 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

- --------------080108070609060404030309
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Absurdity reaches new heights.  One can also keep one's name out of the
phone book by not having a phone, or out of the Motor Vehicle Department's
lists by having neither a driver's license nor a car. But both of those 
entities
have procedures for protecting their user's privacy. The Internet, or indeed
a domain name, are rapidly becoming necessary parts of doing business, and
indeed a healthy means for self expression by private citizens. To 
suggest that
one must necessarily give away all rights of privacy just because some 
registrar
sees yet one more way to squeeze out a buck is unconscionable.

I guess that's the kind of thing one learns in Economics/Finance schools.

Bill Lovell

George Kirikos wrote:

>Hello,
>
>--- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>  The complaintant would file for a subpoena to the registrar for the
>>information that they are requesting.
>>
>
>This raises legal and business costs enormously. Good for the lawyers,
>but not for everyone else.
>
>I think a domain name is a privilege, not a right. Registrants have the
>possibility to keep their WHOIS data private simply by not buying a
>domain name, in which case they'd not be bound by the registrant
>contract.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>--
>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
>
>

- --------------080108070609060404030309
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
Absurdity reaches new heights. &nbsp;One can also keep one's name out of the<br>
phone book by not having a phone, or out of the Motor Vehicle Department's<br>
lists by having neither a driver's license nor a car. But both of those entities<br>
have procedures for protecting their user's privacy. The Internet, or indeed<br>
a domain name, are rapidly becoming necessary parts of doing business, and<br>
indeed a healthy means for self expression by private citizens. To suggest
that <br>
one must necessarily give away all rights of privacy just because some registrar
<br>
sees yet one more way to squeeze out a buck is unconscionable.<br>
<br>
I guess that's the kind of thing one learns in Economics/Finance schools.<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
<br>
George Kirikos wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
  <pre wrap="">Hello,<br><br>--- Jeff Williams <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a> wrote:<br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">  The complaintant would file for a subpoena to the registrar for the<br>information that they are requesting.<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!----><br>This raises legal and business costs enormously. Good for the lawyers,<br>but not for everyone else.<br><br>I think a domain name is a privilege, not a right. Registrants have the<br>possibility to keep their WHOIS data private simply by not buying a<br>domain name, in which case they'd not be bound by the registrant<br>contract.<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>George Kirikos<br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.kirikos.com/">http://www.kirikos.com/</a><br><br>__________________________________________________<br>Do You Yahoo!?<br>Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax<br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://taxes.yahoo.com/">http://taxes.yahoo.com/</a><br>--<br>This message was passed to you via the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> list.<br>Send mail to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> to unsubscribe<br>("unsubscribe 
ga" in the body of the message).<br>Archives at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a><br><br><br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    </body>
    </html>

- --------------080108070609060404030309--

- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Hello,

- --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   The legal costs as a result of the UDRP I would argue now much
> higher
> than without the UDRP.  In any event George, I do understand your

Firms have a choice, and acting rationally they would choose the lowest
cost means to effect a desired outcome. Without the public WHOIS info,
one would need to seek a subpoena much too often to counter abusive
behaviour, without the ability to sort things out privately with the
other party. It would be a make work project for lawyers, wasting
thousands of dollars. OR, folks would have to suffer greater amounts of
damages, before having to seek out the subpoena (i.e. if it costs
$5,000 for a subpoena, if my damages were only $3,000 it wouldn't make
sense to seek a subpoena). $5,000 might be a low estimate, given
international elements of these matters (e.g. a person seeking a
subpoena in Toronto for a domain registered in Italy to a registrant in
Brazil).

> argument.  I do believe that Privacy trumps Whois information listed
> in a registration of a Domain Name.  Hence the need for a UDRP

Why would privacy trump taking responsibility for one's domain in front
of society? I think that's the political issue, whether there is
someone who's taking responsibility for behaviour originating from a
domain. Owning a domain is inherently a public act, in my view. If
you're a public actor, you've already made the choice of going into the
public arena, and the privacy argument is moot. Users within a domain
name (e.g. individual email address holders) aren't required to provide
their details to the public at large -- just the owner of the domain
itself. 

If someone truly wants anonymity, they can appoint a lawyer or someone
else to hold the domain name "in trust" on their behalf. Then,
trademark holders, or other parties, can contact the true domain name
holder's representative as required. That representative would be
responsible for the affairs and damage arising from the domain. Good
and responsible domain users wouldn't have to pay that representative
very much, since they wouldn't cause that representative to suffer any
damage. Abusive registrants would have to pay a high price for that
privacy, just like high risk drivers pay more for car insurance. It's
economically desirable to shift the costs of that abusive behaviour to
abusers, and not to society at large. By allowing abusive people to
have anonymity for "free", it shifts the costs of their abuse to
someone else. Why should all the non-abusive people face those costs?
The benefits of absolute privacy for 100% of domain holders are just
not that great (most people will give up their privacy if Amazon.com
offers them a $5 coupon, or a chance to win a lottery -- remember
this!).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Hello,

- --- "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> have procedures for protecting their user's privacy. The Internet, or
> indeed
> a domain name, are rapidly becoming necessary parts of doing
> business, and
> indeed a healthy means for self expression by private citizens. To 
> suggest that
> one must necessarily give away all rights of privacy just because
> some 
> registrar
> sees yet one more way to squeeze out a buck is unconscionable.

Providing bulk access to the WHOIS is hardly a profit center for
registrars...

Legitimate businesses should have no problems in providing their info
in a public WHOIS. 

As for self-expression by private citizens, at that point they're
becoming "publishers", and have entered the public arena, and left the
private one. Most newspapers don't allow anonymous editorials/letters
to the editor, and if they did, they would take responsibility for the
contents of those anonymous publications.

I think the real issue is abuse of the bulk access to the information.
Have stiff penalties for the abuse (e.g. spamming using the list
created from the bulk WHOIS), and that would cause it to end.

Suppose you get spammed by the domain wearethetopspammers.com, who only
cause you, individually, $0.01 in damage. Yet, their WHOIS information
is private. Are you saying that we need a class action lawsuit, with
500,000 affected individuals to cover the $5,000 costs of serving their
Italian registrar a subpoena to find out who owns the domain
"wearethetopspammers.com"? And then when we find that the individual
who owns the domain is in Brazil, what next? Better to have domain
owners give up a tiny piece of privacy, which they don't value very
much in any event, in order to reduce the abuses that come when folks
are able to enter the public arena anonymously, not taking
responsibility for their actions.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
- --
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: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 01:10:02 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] A Case Study of Domain Reregistrations - 4525 distinct domains that yield "Tina's Free Live Webcam"

Thanks to all who contributed suggestions and feedback in response to my
inquiry over the weekend re domain reregistrations.

Given the apparent timeliness of the topic, especially for its relationship
with the Redemption Grace Period Technical Steering Group
(<http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-04apr02.htm>) and with
various allegations of confusing mailings to registrants (mailings which no
doubt make it harder to promptly and correctly pay the *actual* bill!), I
thought I'd go ahead with making available my research findings on a
somewhat faster schedule than I had previously anticipated.

My work to date has focused on a single case study -- the "Tina's Free Live
Webcam" site I personally stumbled into earlier this month.  I have
documented a total of 4525 distinct domains that redirect to this site, and
I've assembled extensive information about each (thanks to Google, Yahoo,
and archive.org) to help inform an inference that many of these domains (if
not most or even all) were previously used by other registrants.

The inference of reregistration is imperfect and in some cases uncertain, so
I want to encourage readers to take a look through the list on their own.
To that end, I have posted the entire listing of specific domains that point
to Tina's Webcam as well as the dossier of additional information about
each.  This turns out to be quite an entertaining read -- for Tina has come
to hold domains previously used not just by a bicycle store but also by a
BBB, a French school, several bands, many personal home pages, and all
manner of software companies, ISPs, retailers, and other commercial
interests.

My complete listing & analysis are available at:
   <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/renewals/?ga>

I'll be interested to hear from those on the list re critiques, helpful
focus areas going forward, possible improvements to methodology and, I still
hope, more examples of other domains with similar phenomenon.  (I'll
continue to review and process submissions from
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/renewals/submit/?ga>.)

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman>

- --
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think we're getting somewhere after
the longer posts, which might have cleared up some of the problems in
the shorter posts that were left open to wacky interpretations.

Here's my main point: there are benefits AND costs to privacy.

If one does an online search, one can verify this is a topic of huge
debate. For example, one scholarly papers is:

http://www.aei.brookings.org/publications/working/working_01_14.pdf

Or in pop-media:

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,43654,00.html

(those particular articles aren't directly relevant to domain
registrant WHOIS info, but shows that there's passions on both sides)

No one is advocating that we be publishing private medical records in
the WHOIS. But, the arguments of some camps are at the opposite
extreme, saying no information whatsoever should be published about a
registrant (yet the proponents of this argument don't seem to realize
that it is at the opposite extreme, an absolute).

> for my own hobby, for instance.  Hence my or any other registrant
> has a right to their personal privacy.  The current data structure
> used
> in WHOIS records for a Domain Name registration is violating
> the 1st amendment right to my privacy and unduly restricting me
> as a result if I should choose to register a domain name(s)...

Now here's a chance to help me -- we've seen in Marilyn's post

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00337.html

just a few of the "costs" that would occur if there was absolute
privacy for domain registrants (in addition, the criminal element would
tend to value that ability to be anonymous much more than a typical
registrant).

Folks on the "pro-privacy" camp should provide a list of the benefits
of greater WHOIS privacy.

On a pragmatic basis, if the benefits of the greater WHOIS privacy
exceed the costs, then I'd be more convinced that greater privacy is
desirable.
 
> > If someone truly wants anonymity, they can appoint a lawyer or
> someone
> > else to hold the domain name "in trust" on their behalf.
> 
>   Yes they sure can.  But such is also an undue restriction upon the
> potential registrant.

Even folks that want to become unlisted in the telephone book typically
pay extra fees to do so. Is every small cost an "undue restriction"? In
many states, it's illegal to drive a car without insurance. Is that an
undue restriction?

I've not advocated absolute disclosure, or publication of DNA/health
records -- the first amendment doesn't advocate absolute freedom,
either (it's tempered by various laws, like trademark infringement,
defamation law, etc.). There's a natural balance, with society weighing
the costs and benefits. Folks are giving up some more freedom these
days, for instance, when they visit the airports, due to costs
associated with terrorism. One isn't searched entering a public bus,
but is when boarding a public airline.
 
>   I am not advocating anonymity by any means.  Just simple personal
> privacy regarding personal information such as home address, home
> phone Number and personal E-Mail address.

I'd argue that basic information, such as name and contact info, are
quite sensible and balanced compromises.

However, as I said above, I'd be swayed more if folks can tell me what
possible benefits there are to being able to register a domain name
without providing such information. Marilyn, I and I'm sure many others
can easily supply examples of costs associated with blank WHOIS data,
but perhaps if others would supply some of the benefits, and try to
quantify them, we can move forward and undertand each other better.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
- --
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 #1130
*************************