Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1131
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, April 18 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1131

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

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:11:00 +0100
From: "Jon Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

George Kirikos wrote:

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

...at US$10,000 per licensee per annum for providing access to a database
that only need be updated once weekly, I would think that the obligation
to provide bulk whois access is for many registrars a very high margin profit
centre indeed.

regards
jon lawrence

- --
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 09:14:54 +0100
From: "Jon Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] On Transfers and Slamming

Danny Younger wrote:

>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.

...presumably they licensed the bulk whois data from the registrars you
had names registered with?

jon

- --
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 04:33:17 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

George Kirikos
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 12:32 AM
> 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.

What the vast majority of those currently involved in ICANN understand about
publishing can be written on a postage stamp. Do you really believe that an
individual with only one address and phone number should be denied
registration services unless they publish their home address and phone
number for all the world to see? If those are the rules, what kind of public
resource would that be?

>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.

You have completely missed the point. It is a fundamental requirement of any
publisher that the personal data of a contributor (one who is representing
themselves as a private individual) is not disclosed in the public domain to
the extent that direct contact could then be made by a nutcase, and in my
experience, it never happens. Consequently, I have never known of a case
where the publisher was held liable for harm done to the contributor as a
result of such disclosure, but I imagine that's precisely the reason why the
traditional media do not publish personal contact data when, for instance, a
member of the public steps into the public arena.

To verify this, please retrieve the last issue of your local rag from your
recycle bin, dry it off and check the Letters column. You will see only the
name and town, or State of the writer, never street address and phone
number. Submission guidelines stipulate contact details must be provided as
a condition to publication, but will not actually be published. In the same
way, the Registry should hold the Registrants details in private beyond the
most basic identifier, a name, State, or Town and Country, possibly an
email, but that's all.

This is more than slightly off-topic, but since you mention it, allow me to
correct you about "fair use" guidelines in traditional media coverage -
these would cover the situation where, for example, a member of the public
should give up their privacy, a situation you claim arises as a result of
registering a domain, whereas I would say generally occurs only when a
person becomes the subject in a human interest story (man bites dog and so
on). Even then, loss of privacy is confined to identification in the form of
a name caption and vague qualifying status (Local shopkeeper, victim's
brother-in-law, defendant's lawyer, town resident etc) - no phone number or
specific street address that could point to the person's physical location.

There are exceptions, but typically this would be where the individual is
representing an organization or corporation and has themselves requested
contact details be published for the community's benefit, such as for a
Crisis Center.

Also, one has to be particularly careful about disclosing personal data
about well known personalities. Photos of secret lovers caught leaving home
in a barrage of flashlight is fair game, but I defy you to produce a copy of
even one article by the gutter press that discloses any precise location and
contact details - a house number, a zip code, a private phone number, it
simply is *not done* in traditional media - however inaccurate or defamatory
the article about that person may be. I don't care whether it is a private
citizen or a public figure, if you can find me just *one* such example, that
is not related to self-promotion events, crime-related incidents, or
involving a corporate address or public area, (theaters, restaurants,
hotels, TV studio, airport, government building, car park, etc.), then I am
willing to consider changing my position on the WHOIS database.

> 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.

The real issue is about too much influence by the trademark lobbies and too
little representation of the public interest in the process, resulting in
policies that abuse the rights and freedoms of private citizens.

> 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.

ICANN is not in the business of website content regulation, but I think you
need to spend a little more time with a few media types before you start
introducing terms under which private citizens should be allowed to enter
the public arena.

Consider the little old lady who gains access to the internet through her
local library and wants to log onto a family website to see her
grandchildren. The latest statistics I have for online stalking in the US
claim 1 in 5 teenagers have been solicited online by a pedophile through
instant messaging. Shocking as this is, the risks pale into insignificance
compared to joining all the dots between website content (photos of young
children) and contact details for the owner (the parent's home address.)

The bottom line is that individuals who register unchartered domains for non
commercial purposes must have the absolute right to withhold details of
their physical location from the public domain. Stuff the trademark lobby.
They are putting people, and especially children, at risk of physical harm.

Regards,
Joanna

> 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: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 03:34:34 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Thursday, Thursday, April 18, 2002, 1:33:17 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> George Kirikos
>> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 12:32 AM
>> 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.

> What the vast majority of those currently involved in ICANN understand about
> publishing can be written on a postage stamp. Do you really believe that an
> individual with only one address and phone number should be denied
> registration services unless they publish their home address and phone
> number for all the world to see? If those are the rules, what kind of public
> resource would that be?

Why not?  They can't own real property without the same restriction.

- -- 
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: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 03:28:44 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Wednesday, Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 9:10:37 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> 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.

Just as there are examples supporting your view, there are better
ones supporting the opposite view.

In the US, every state makes property ownership information available
as a matter of public record.  They are required by statute to provide
that information in bulk format for a fee, and there are companies out
there who specialize in providing that data in a searchable and
downloadable database format.

You cannot own property without having it listed publicly.  If you
want to own it and protect your privacy, it is entirely up to you to
do what is necessary to do that, by forming a shell company for
instance.

Access to those databases are not expensive at all, as a matter of
fact.

When you own property, people have the right to be able to get that
information.  The same with a domain name, which is the internet form
of "property."

- -- 
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: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:01:08 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WLS and Transfers TF

Marilyn,

Louis Touton, in his "General Counsel's Analysis of VGRS's Request for 
Amendment to Registry Agreement" at 
http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm states:

<<This judgment is reinforced by the Registrars Constituency vote opposing 
implementation of WLS and the fact that the Names Council Transfer Task Force 
is currently considering the WLS issue, with a report to the Board expected 
in June.>>

I was not aware that your TF is currently considering the WLS issue as I have 
not noted even one single comment on this topic in the TF archives.  Is Mr. 
Touton correct?  Are you currently considering the WLS issue, and is a report 
to the Board scheduled in June?  Can you perhaps provide us with an update on 
TF discussions on this topic?  When exactly did the Council authorize this TF 
to add WLS to its list of responsibilities?  Can you provide a URL for 
reference?
- --
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 07:26:23 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

William, you wrote:

<< When you own property, people have the right to be able to get that
 information.  The same with a domain name, which is the internet form
 of "property." >>

Are you arguing that the registration of a domain name constitutes the 
creation of "property" as opposed to the establishment of a "service 
contract"?
- --
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 07:38:48 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

> When you own property, people have the right to be able to get that
> information.  The same with a domain name, which is the internet form
> of "property."

Real property is very far removed from the DNS. One is bricks and mortar,
the other is electronic data. I don't pay fees to keep the address of my
building, neither the building or it's address are subject to possible
trademark infringement, and I have to leave both behind when I move
jurisdictions. Domain Names should be treated like cell phone numbers, which
as Bill correctly points out, can be unlisted at the sole discretion of the
registrant. In fact, when ENUM gets going, Domain Names and Phone Numbers
will merge, then the WHOIS will evolve into a global database of personal
identifiers that will not change from moving around over the course of a
lifetime, which is one very big difference between the WHOIS and Real
property databases and one very good reason to insist the unlisted option is
retained for personal domain names as well as phone numbers.

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: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 04:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Actually a very solid point.
e

> Wednesday, Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 9:10:37 PM, William S. Lovell
> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Just as there are examples supporting your view, there are better
> ones supporting the opposite view.
> 
> In the US, every state makes property ownership information available
> as a matter of public record.  They are required by statute to provide
> that information in bulk format for a fee, and there are companies out
> there who specialize in providing that data in a searchable and
> downloadable database format.
> 
> You cannot own property without having it listed publicly.  If you want
> to own it and protect your privacy, it is entirely up to you to do what
> is necessary to do that, by forming a shell company for
> instance.
> 
> Access to those databases are not expensive at all, as a matter of
> fact.
> 
> When you own property, people have the right to be able to get that
> information.  The same with a domain name, which is the internet form
> of "property."
> 
> -- 
> 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

http://www.Hi-Tek.com
Reality in a Digital World

The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
this material from any system.  Thank you!

- --
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 05:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS and Transfers TF

Hello,

- --- [email-masked] wrote:
> Louis Touton, in his "General Counsel's Analysis of VGRS's Request
> for 
> Amendment to Registry Agreement" at 
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm states:

That's excellent news, that ICANN hasn't let Verisign ram through WLS
as a done deal. Chalk one up for the little guys. All those emails to
the US DoJ might have worked. ;)

> I was not aware that your TF is currently considering the WLS issue
> as I have 
> not noted even one single comment on this topic in the TF archives. 
> Is Mr. 
> Touton correct?  Are you currently considering the WLS issue, and is
> a report 
> to the Board scheduled in June?  Can you perhaps provide us with an

I'm reading the TF archives at:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/nctaskforcesindex.html

(bottom group) and don't see much about WLS.

Also, how can one (i.e. myself, and others not currently on the task
force) join the TF, or provide input? I'm sure that I'm not alone in
wanting to help the task force do a thorough analysis, and now that
Verisign no longer controls the process (finally!) it is the
appropriate time for others to provide all the background and insights
required that Verisign omits from its proposal.

Also, for Chuck Gomes and/or Louis Touton, can we have a public copy of
the "attached proposal" in Chuck's email to the Board dated March 21?
If it's identical to:

http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_revised_proposal.pdf

please advise. There was concern in many quarters that "the devil was
in the details" with regards to many aspects of the proposal, and since
the proposed Registrar contracts with regards to WLS were not present,
one could not properly evaluate the proposal.

Also, I think VGRS should state for the record whether that proposal is
the one we should be evaluating -- if they intend to revise it again,
based on ICANN's analysis, we should be told this up front, instead of
wasting valuable time dissecting a "dead horse".

Sincerely,

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

P.S. Since I'm close to my 5 post limit, I'll have to wait until later
to respond in the WHOIS thread, re: privacy, grrrr. See ya at 12:01 am
tomorrow. :)

__________________________________________________
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 08:48:06 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS and Transfers TF

George Kirikos writes:  << Also, how can one (i.e. myself, and others not 
currently on the task force) join the TF, or provide input? >>

George,

Regarding input and participation in the TF, our bylaws state:

<<Each of such bodies shall provide appropriate means, as determined by the 
NC, for input and such participation as is practicable under the 
circumstances by other interested parties.>>  

You would logically think that this means that all of us could join in the 
efforts of whatever group is assigned to handle any particular problem.  
Unfortunately, the Names Council has perverted the intent of the bylaws and 
routinely denies participation to all interested parties.  We have previously 
attempted (through at least three separate proposals) to have registrants 
represented in the Transfers Task Force.  Marilyn Cade (BC), chair of this 
TF, has seen fit to repeatedly deny such participation and representation.  

At the moment, we are restricted to providing "input" via the sole GA 
representative (who if he doesn't like your comments will not forward them to 
the TF for consideration).  In the future we are scheduled to have the 
opportunity to answer survey questions, and that is the total extent of our 
allowable participation... oh, I forgot... the TF always issues a final 
report that is put out for public comment (that no one on either the TF or 
the Names Council ever reads or reviews these comments is immaterial... god 
forbid that they would ever change a recommendation based on public input!)

So, basically the situation sucks for those that truly want to participate.  
The group that controls the Council doesn't want your input... it only gets 
in the way of their top-down plans.  

Footnote:  To better understand what the BC in particular thinks of our 
contributions, please consider this quote from their website that 
characterizes such commentary:  
"the unnecessary and untidy correspondence characteristic of certain e-mail 
lists within the ICANN world."  -- http://www.bizconst.org/bccomms.htm
- --
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 17:44:47 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Notes from today's NC call.

Please listen to today's MP3 recording.  It's interesting.  In  
particular, we'd recommend the last 30 minutes of the call.

<tlr>
To begin with, the council got stuck with agenda item 2 on the  
original agenda, Approval of Draft Conclusions to date.  There were  
suggestions from the Business Constituency which had been circulated 
in advance, and there were numerous suggestions by Roger Cochetti on 
behalf of the gTLD registries constituency made during the call.  
Some of these suggestions consisted in entirely removing  
recommendations which had evolved during earlier calls.  (Mr  
Cochetti joined the call only after a substantive portion of the BC  
edits had been discussed, and after another member of the council  
had called him, BTW.)

To make a long story short, the single most important comment made 
by Mr Cochetti was in reference to the following recommendation (as  
amended by the business constituency):

	The DNSO and the other policy advisory bodies should remain  
	essentially intact in function, and their effectiveness and  
	process be improved.

The comment:

	"The gTLD registries constituency doesn't think so."

Mr Cochetti then explained that the gTLD constituency was rather  
thinking along the lines of the Lynn proposal, with small groups of  
likeminded stakeholders discussing policy.

When asked how policy development should then be performed, Mr  
Cochetti was not able to comment on that at this point of time.
</tlr>

<asv>
J. Scott Evans of the Intellectual Property constituency gave some 
insights about the current IPC thinking about future policy 
development. One proposal seems to be to move it to the Board level 
and to create ad hoc and/or standing committees with members picked 
based on expertise, with staff and board liaisons. This model looks 
like a more traditional trade association (and the current Board 
committees already seem to replace DNSO policy-making in the way 
proposed by the IPC). Another approach discussed by the IPC is to 
"export" issues to other organizations: The Board decides to send an 
issue on to e.g. the IAB or other established specialized 
organizations.

(From an Intellectual Property standpoint, this obviously makes 
sense, since ad hoc committee members on IPC-relevant topics might 
require familiarity with IP law as expertise -- or IPC-relevant 
issues could be exported to organizations such as WIPO.)
</asv>

Kind regards, Thomas & Alexander
- --
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 18:35:30 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconference MP3 recording April 18, 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

The MP3 recording of the Names Council teleconference is now available at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020418.NCteleconf.mp3

Happy listening!

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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 13:41:53 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

At 06:04 PM 4/17/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>Please note the following comment posted by Tim Ruiz to the registrars list:
>
><< I understand the reasoning behind public disclosure of registrant data but
>it seems to have gone too far. In this day and age of privacy concerns it's a
>little insane that Registrars are required to make their customer data
>available to the public in bulk.  One-offs through a Web interface are one
>thing. Requirements for bulk access, including open ports, to the data are
>just too much. It's an open invitation to abuse with no one really willing to
>enforce proper use of the data. In fairness, I'm not sure there is any way to
>enforce it given the international nature of what we do. I believe there
>should NOT be any requirement for open port, or bulk, access to this data.>>
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02333.html
>
>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).

Danny,

I fantasize about not receiving SPAM, how much faster everyone's Internet 
Access could be without all the junk mail cluttering up our bandwidth, how 
much better the world would be if people just backed off and let us find 
them when we WANT/NEED their service, not being found by them.  They don't 
know what we want or what we need.  They don't know if we are male or 
female, single or married, promiscuous or frigid, 8 years old or 50, etc.

In response to your more specific question:

My preference would be:

Registrants are provided the opportunity
to OPT-IN for inclusion in the bulk access process
either at the time of registration
or as a modification option via Web GUI.

OPT-OUT is really not a good philosophy.

I would prefer there were no,
"requirement for open port, or bulk, access to this data" (from above);
however, I more prefer the WHOIS database be
as available as possible
to folks other than Bulk Marketers
and therefore support the convenience be provided to them,
especially at a price which enables the Registrars
to make a little more money
so the services I need
can continue to be as cost effective as possible.

So, I neither have the best solution; but am willing to listen and 
learn.  And I want a Great Solution to present during the next meeting 
which I believe we are working toward.

:)

~k

Kristy McKee

- --
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 11:45:18 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

- --------------040703080009000709050001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

'Fraid not, Eric.  What WXW refers to are tax records on real property,
which have been a part of the law since day #1. When the Feds start thinking
about taxing domain name ownership, then maybe the issue will arise.

And fall like a lead balloon.

There was a poll taken by ICANN some time back in which all who
wanted to filled out and sent in a survey on the precise subject of what
data should be publicly available from WHOIS, but in this current
go-round I've not seen anyone refer to it. If somebody could come up
with the URL for that, it should now be interesting reading.

Bill Lovell

Eric Dierker wrote:

>Actually a very solid point.
>e
>
>>Wednesday, Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 9:10:37 PM, William S. Lovell
>>wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>Just as there are examples supporting your view, there are better
>>ones supporting the opposite view.
>>
>>In the US, every state makes property ownership information available
>>as a matter of public record.  They are required by statute to provide
>>that information in bulk format for a fee, and there are companies out
>>there who specialize in providing that data in a searchable and
>>downloadable database format.
>>
>>You cannot own property without having it listed publicly.  If you want
>>to own it and protect your privacy, it is entirely up to you to do what
>>is necessary to do that, by forming a shell company for
>>instance.
>>
>>Access to those databases are not expensive at all, as a matter of
>>fact.
>>
>>When you own property, people have the right to be able to get that
>>information.  The same with a domain name, which is the internet form
>>of "property."
>>
>>-- 
>>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
>>
>
>
>http://www.Hi-Tek.com
>Reality in a Digital World
>
>The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
>entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
>privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
>taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
>entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
>you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
>this material from any system.  Thank you!
>
>
>--
>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
>
>

- --------------040703080009000709050001
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
'Fraid not, Eric. &nbsp;What WXW refers to are tax records on real property,<br>
which have been a part of the law since day #1. When the Feds start thinking<br>
about taxing domain name ownership, then maybe the issue will arise.<br>
<br>
And fall like a lead balloon.<br>
<br>
There was a poll taken by ICANN some time back in which all who<br>
wanted to filled out and sent in a survey on the precise subject of what<br>
data should be publicly available from WHOIS, but in this current<br>
go-round I've not seen anyone refer to it. If somebody could come up<br>
with the URL for that, it should now be interesting reading.<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
<br>
Eric Dierker wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
  <pre wrap="">Actually a very solid point.<br>e<br><br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Wednesday, Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 9:10:37 PM, William S. Lovell<br>wrote:<br><br></pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">Absurdity reaches new heights.  One can also keep one's name out of<br>the phone book by not having a phone, or out of the Motor Vehicle<br>Department's lists by having neither a driver's license nor a car. But<br>both of those  entities<br>have procedures for protecting their user's privacy. The Internet, or<br>indeed a domain name, are rapidly becoming necessary parts of doing<br>business, and indeed a healthy means for self expression by private<br>citizens. To  suggest that<br>one must necessarily give away all rights of privacy just because some<br> registrar<br>sees yet one more way to squeeze out a buck is unconscionable.<br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">Just as there are examples supporting your view, there are better<br>ones supporting the opposite view.<br><br>In the US, every state makes property ownership information available<br>as a matter of public record.  They are required by statute to provide<br>that information in bulk format for a fee, and there are companies out<br>there who specialize in providing that data in a searchable and<br>downloadable database format.<br><br>You cannot own property without having it listed publicly.  If you want<br>to own it and protect your privacy, it is entirely up to you to do what<br>is necessary to do that, by forming a shell company for<br>instance.<br><br>Access to those databases are not expensive at all, as a matter of<br>fact.<br><br>When you own property, people have the right to be able to get that<br>information.  The same with a domain name, which is the internet form<br>of "property."<br><br>-- <br>Best regards,<br>William X Walsh <a class="moz-txt-l
ink-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a><br>--<br>Save Internet Radio!  <br>CARP will kill Webcasting!<br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.saveinternetradio.org/">http://www.saveinternetradio.org/</a><br><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></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap=""><!----><br><br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.Hi-Tek.com">http://www.Hi-Tek.com</a><br>Reality in a Digital World<br><br>The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or<br>entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or<br>privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or<br>taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or<br>entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If<br>you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete<br>this material from any system.  Thank you!<br><br><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>

- --------------040703080009000709050001--

- --
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 11:50:30 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

And, Jon, I think one will find that the majority of those who support
bulk access are doing so with their own pocket book in mind, with no
mind whatever to the right of privacy.  Make that buck at any cost to
anyone else. The misinformation being spewed out by them rivals that
of Al Queda in its audacity.

Bill Lovell

Jon Lawrence wrote:

>George Kirikos wrote:
>
>"Providing bulk access to the WHOIS is hardly a profit center for
>registrars..."
>
>...at US$10,000 per licensee per annum for providing access to a database
>that only need be updated once weekly, I would think that the obligation
>to provide bulk whois access is for many registrars a very high margin profit
>centre indeed.
>
>regards
>jon lawrence
>
>--
>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: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:49:22 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Notes from today's NC call.

Thomas has mentioned a proposal put forth by the IPC:

<< J. Scott Evans of the Intellectual Property constituency gave some 
 insights about the current IPC thinking about future policy 
 development. One proposal seems to be to move it to the Board level 
 and to create ad hoc and/or standing committees with members picked 
 based on expertise, with staff and board liaisons. >>

Allow me to comment on why this is a horribly bad proposal (using a real-life 
example).

Ms. YJ Park was nominated to participate on the President's TLD Evaluation 
Task Force.  YJ is known to many of us for her critical observations.  In a 
letter posted today to the NCDNHC at 
http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-April/001951.html YJ states:  

<>

Here is an instance where a well-respected member of our community was 
ejected from a meeting that she had every right to attend by ICANN 
Management.  I wrote to YJ to make sure that I had correctly understood her 
comment, asking:

<< Are you stating that Stuart did not want you to attend and participate in 
that meeting, or that you (for some reason) were called away from that 
meeting?>>

She replied:  <<The former.>>

Standing Committees whose participants can be chosen and deselected by ICANN 
management at whim are not in our best interest as structures in a reformed 
ICANN.  

My sympathies go out to YJ.
- --
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 #1131
*************************