Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1133
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, April 20 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1133

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

Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:19:42 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

For those of you who are interested in the legal pursuit of justice by Karl 
Auerbach, here is the response from the possible criminals at ICANN:

http://www.icann.org/legal/auerbach-v-icann/answer-17apr02.pdf

There is nothing surprising about their response.  A surprise would have 
been an apology to Karl, etc. and permitting him to exercise his rights as 
a Director.

:)

~k
  Kristy McKee 612.823.3958
   .W I D G I T A L . ESPware.
.we make widgets help digits.

- --
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:55:43 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

William X Walsh wrote:

>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.
>

So then, are you intimating that domain names are owned properties?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:44:44 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

Can someone please tell me exactly what ICANN
management are protecting here? What parts of
ICANN financial records are confidential and
why?

I can understand ICANN having some obligation to
keep some records confidential. For example, I
don't think they should put the personnel files
on the web site.

I cannot see, however, why parts of the financial
records of an "open and transparent" "bottom-up"
"public benefit" organisation should be hidden.
Perhaps I'm missing some important point. If so,
could someone please explain it to me?

Please treat this as purely a request for factual
information. 

Of course some would argue that current ICANN
management are part of a nasty conspiracy and the
issue is whether they can get away with concealing
evidence. Others might claim Karl is a whacko with
an agenda, out to disrupt ICANN when he should be
supporting it. I could produce plausible arguments 
for either position.

However, I'm asking for "just the facts" here. What
ICANN financial records are confidential and why?
- --
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 16:51:18 -0400
From: Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

hello sandy ..

many your inquiries can be answered by reading the legal briefs prepared by
both sides.

OR, if you wish,  you can request a legal opinion from kristy mckee ( who
seems to have a much deeper legal grasp of the issues than any of the rest
of us as well as the "inside track" on the courts decision on this
litigation)

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

> Can someone please tell me exactly what ICANN
> management are protecting here? What parts of
> ICANN financial records are confidential and
> why?
>
> I can understand ICANN having some obligation to
> keep some records confidential. For example, I
> don't think they should put the personnel files
> on the web site.
>
> I cannot see, however, why parts of the financial
> records of an "open and transparent" "bottom-up"
> "public benefit" organisation should be hidden.
> Perhaps I'm missing some important point. If so,
> could someone please explain it to me?
>
> Please treat this as purely a request for factual
> information.
>
> Of course some would argue that current ICANN
> management are part of a nasty conspiracy and the
> issue is whether they can get away with concealing
> evidence. Others might claim Karl is a whacko with
> an agenda, out to disrupt ICANN when he should be
> supporting it. I could produce plausible arguments
> for either position.
>
> However, I'm asking for "just the facts" here. What
> ICANN financial records are confidential and why?
> --
> 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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:53:29 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

Ken Stubbs wrote:
> 
> hello sandy ..
> 
> many your inquiries can be answered by reading the
> legal briefs prepared by both sides.

I see nothing in either brief that answers my question.
 
> > Can someone please tell me exactly what ICANN
> > management are protecting here? What parts of
> > ICANN financial records are confidential and
> > why?
- --
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:47:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

Maybe we should ask how much the lawusuit will end up costing ICANN...
seems like the ICANN management doesn't like Karl very much, and is going
to spend a lot of money on this seemingly pointless lawsuit.   I can't
imagine anything that ICANN couldn't show its board members....The salaries
aren't secret are they?    Jamie

> Ken Stubbs wrote:
>>
>> hello sandy ..
>>
>> many your inquiries can be answered by reading the
>> legal briefs prepared by both sides.
>
> I see nothing in either brief that answers my question.
>
>> > Can someone please tell me exactly what ICANN
>> > management are protecting here? What parts of
>> > ICANN financial records are confidential and
>> > why?
> --
> 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

- -- 
James Love
http://www.cptech.org mailto:[email-masked]
mobile +1.202.361.3040

- --
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:50:03 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

Which begs the question, which document is so incriminating that they would
want to go to this extreme? Maybe a document by document request would
narrow down the field.

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of James
> Love
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:48 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update
>
>
> Maybe we should ask how much the lawusuit will end up costing ICANN...
> seems like the ICANN management doesn't like Karl very much, and is going
> to spend a lot of money on this seemingly pointless lawsuit.   I can't
> imagine anything that ICANN couldn't show its board
> members....The salaries
> aren't secret are they?    Jamie
>
>
> > Ken Stubbs wrote:
> >>
> >> hello sandy ..
> >>
> >> many your inquiries can be answered by reading the
> >> legal briefs prepared by both sides.
> >
> > I see nothing in either brief that answers my question.
> >
> >> > Can someone please tell me exactly what ICANN
> >> > management are protecting here? What parts of
> >> > ICANN financial records are confidential and
> >> > why?
> > --
> > 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
>
>
> --
> James Love
> http://www.cptech.org mailto:[email-masked]
> mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:24:42 -0400
From: Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

it would seem to me that maybe your pointing the finger in the wrong
direction here Jamie.  We might also question whether the suit was frivolous
to begin with.

you accomplish very little by trying  to personalize this litigation..
(unless your just trying to keep the pot at a boil...)

also... your selective generalizations tend to reflect a bit of a bias here
jamie..

ken

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

> Maybe we should ask how much the lawusuit will end up costing ICANN...
> seems like the ICANN management doesn't like Karl very much, and is going
> to spend a lot of money on this seemingly pointless lawsuit.   I can't
> imagine anything that ICANN couldn't show its board members....The
salaries
> aren't secret are they?    Jamie
>
>
> > Ken Stubbs wrote:
> >>
> >> hello sandy ..
> >>
> >> many your inquiries can be answered by reading the
> >> legal briefs prepared by both sides.
> >
> > I see nothing in either brief that answers my question.
> >
> >> > Can someone please tell me exactly what ICANN
> >> > management are protecting here? What parts of
> >> > ICANN financial records are confidential and
> >> > why?
> > --
> > 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
>
>
> --
> James Love
> http://www.cptech.org mailto:[email-masked]
> mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:58:50 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

The response from the defense counsel is to be expected. Even rapists
and murderers are entitled to a zealous legal defense under the US
form of government.

Although we may find that either the plaintiff's counsel or the
defense' counsel are creative, that's to be expected, too. Both
opposing law firms are just doing their jobs. We don't have to like
it, but that's just the way it is.

Personally, I'm on Karl's side.

I'm not a lawyer, but even if I was, suffice it to say that it will
either be the opposing counsels who work out a settlement or the
courts which adjudicate a resolution.  We may not like it either, but
we will never know all of the facts and what led up to the settlement
or resolution, either.

Face it.  Sometimes, the bad guys, in our eyes, win.  Although,
because we don't know all the fact and because we are not lawyers, our
eyes may not be 20-20, either.

This will shake out on its own and any noise we make about it on this
list will not serve any good purpose, in the final analysis.

We're on the sidelines.  I'm pulling for Karl, because I think he was
right in what he did -- provided his plaintiff's counsel wasn't too
creative with the petition.  Time will tell.

Thanks,

Friday, April 19, 2002, 7:24:42 PM, Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]> wrote:
KS> it would seem to me that maybe your pointing the finger in the wrong
KS> direction here Jamie.  We might also question whether the suit was frivolous
KS> to begin with.

KS> you accomplish very little by trying  to personalize this litigation..
KS> (unless your just trying to keep the pot at a boil...)

KS> also... your selective generalizations tend to reflect a bit of a bias here
KS> jamie..

KS> ken

KS> ----- Original Message -----
KS> From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
KS> To: <[email-masked]>
KS> Cc: <[email-masked]>
KS> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:47 PM
KS> Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

>> Maybe we should ask how much the lawusuit will end up costing ICANN...
>> seems like the ICANN management doesn't like Karl very much, and is going
>> to spend a lot of money on this seemingly pointless lawsuit.   I can't
>> imagine anything that ICANN couldn't show its board members....The
KS> salaries
>> aren't secret are they?    Jamie
>>
>>
>> > Ken Stubbs wrote:
>> >>
>> >> hello sandy ..
>> >>
>> >> many your inquiries can be answered by reading the
>> >> legal briefs prepared by both sides.
>> >
>> > I see nothing in either brief that answers my question.
>> >
>> >> > Can someone please tell me exactly what ICANN
>> >> > management are protecting here? What parts of
>> >> > ICANN financial records are confidential and
>> >> > why?
>> > --
>> > 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> James Love
>> http://www.cptech.org mailto:[email-masked]
>> mobile +1.202.361.3040
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:27:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

How can a suit to exercise an "absolute" right without additional
conditions be "frivolous"?  

There may or may not be technicalities that decide whether ICANN's
position is valid, invalid, or a reason for them to pay sanctions, but on
no account whatsoever could this suit possibly be called "frivolous".

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> it would seem to me that maybe your pointing the finger in the wrong
> direction here Jamie.  We might also question whether the suit was frivolous
> to begin with.
> 
> you accomplish very little by trying  to personalize this litigation..
> (unless your just trying to keep the pot at a boil...)
> 
> also... your selective generalizations tend to reflect a bit of a bias here
> jamie..
> 
> ken
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update
> 
> 
> > Maybe we should ask how much the lawusuit will end up costing ICANN...
> > seems like the ICANN management doesn't like Karl very much, and is going
> > to spend a lot of money on this seemingly pointless lawsuit.   I can't
> > imagine anything that ICANN couldn't show its board members....The
> salaries
> > aren't secret are they?    Jamie
> >
> >
> > > Ken Stubbs wrote:
> > >>
> > >> hello sandy ..
> > >>
> > >> many your inquiries can be answered by reading the
> > >> legal briefs prepared by both sides.
> > >
> > > I see nothing in either brief that answers my question.
> > >
> > >> > Can someone please tell me exactly what ICANN
> > >> > management are protecting here? What parts of
> > >> > ICANN financial records are confidential and
> > >> > why?
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Love
> > http://www.cptech.org mailto:[email-masked]
> > mobile +1.202.361.3040
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
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 hot 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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:57:23 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

We might also question whether the suit
> was frivolous
> to begin with.

I quite agree Ken, one really must think twice about any old member of the
Board keeping tabs on what the Staff are doing. I mean, it's not as though
they have an absolute right to know what's going on ...wait a minute...yes
they do! Well, aside from that, it's not as though they are personally
liable for Staff incompetence....uh oh...wait a minute... yes they are!

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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:45:07 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Friday, Friday, April 19, 2002, 9:55:43 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> So then, are you intimating that domain names are owned properties?

I'm saying that the reasons why it is in the public interest for
property information to be public, are similar to the reasons why
domain registration information should remain public.

What I am saying is that it is in the public interest for this
information to be, and remain to be, public.

- -- 
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: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:59:51 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

> What I am saying is that it is in the public interest for this
> information to be, and remain to be, public.
>

Well a person who enjoys endless hot live sex, cheap mortgages and get rich
quick stock picks would say that wouldn't they.

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: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 01:18:28 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

William X Walsh wrote:

>Friday, Friday, April 19, 2002, 9:55:43 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
>>So then, are you intimating that domain names are owned properties?
>>
>
>I'm saying that the reasons why it is in the public interest for
>property information to be public, are similar to the reasons why
>domain registration information should remain public.
>
How are they similar exactly?  Please specify.

>
>
>What I am saying is that it is in the public interest for this
>information to be, and remain to be, public.
>
How is it in the public interest exactly?

I should think that if a domain name is *not* property, there's really 
no need for a public interest WHOIS.  Wouldn't you?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

- --
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: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 13:48:57 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

On 17:19 19/04/02, Kristy McKee said:
>For those of you who are interested in the legal pursuit of justice by 
>Karl Auerbach, here is the response from the possible criminals at ICANN:
>http://www.icann.org/legal/auerbach-v-icann/answer-17apr02.pdf
>There is nothing surprising about their response.  A surprise would have 
>been an apology to Karl, etc. and permitting him to exercise his rights as 
>a Director.
>:)://www.dnso.org/archives.html

I did not read Karls position. Reading in detail Lynn's response I have odd 
feelings.

1. I understand that the Californian law makes an absolute right (and then 
I suspect a duty) for the Directors to review the books. Yet NONE in his 
Directors ever did. Lynn writes them as a President and Davidson inspeted a 
small part of them at a given date, but not as a BoD Member.

I read this as a general fault of the BoD Members.

2. I understand that the ICANN can have rules to protect its documents. But 
that since no Director had attempted to review them, the BoD nor the ad-hoc 
committe had ever draft them. Because of the request of Karl they drafted 
one "ad hominem". Then they discovered it was not "ad hominem" enough and 
added to it when Karl accepted to use it.

3. I understand that the BoD is deemed to have approved a procedure when it 
has been circulated and not voted against. Diverses other mentions lead to 
think that Lynn and Touton are the references of the BoD rather than the 
other way around: on a delegated controvereted issue of importance to every 
Director they never even asked the BoD. The only response they propose is 
"try it the way we designed them to block you, if you are not happy ask the 
BoD who will ask us, and then go to courts, but we consider that you are 
not a law abiding person because you say we might not respect the law". As 
everybody knows that the process will take enough time for Karl not to be a 
member of the BoD any more, it looks like a very opaque and uncooperative 
attitude which should rise supicions.

As if one prefered to violate the law on what may appear as a small 
violation than to see enlighted larger violations?

4. I understand what is mainly opposed to Karl is that he wants to "clean" 
the ICANN situation, that he has been elected to that end, that he wants 
that his successors and BoD fellows to be elected and that he does not 
agree that as an elected person for 2 years he may serve as an alibi for 4 
Directors,  selected for 3 months more than 4 years ago, to stay for ever.

Since Roberst called on a commission to present a clean sheet study on the 
way to reorganize the ICANN and to elect the BoD Members, that Lynn has 
publicly produced an analysis on the State of the ICANN going much farther 
that Karl and called for the Governments to [s]elect Karl's successors, one 
can understand that the only disagreements between Karl and Lynn are [from 
Lynns position reading] :

[I note that all the above has absolutely no interest for non ICANNers and 
non US taxpayers, but that these conclusions are of international interest]:

- - Lynn is entitled to say now that after one year of his own management 
ICANN goes to its doom,  but that Karl was not in a position to tell the 
same under Mike Roberts' management.

- - the [s]election of @large Directors should not be by the Internet 
Participants but by the Govs : so Karl is a "traitor" to the ICANNs 
interests when he proposes that the 550.000.000 stake holders having 
invested hundreds of thousands of milliards of dollars in the Internet 
adventure, be represented directly when Lynn suggest them to be represented 
by Govs also representing citizens who have not invested in the Internet 
and that Govs show no interest in Lynns proposition as such.

- - the Govs delegated BoD Members, as proposed by Lynn, would be subject to 
the same restrictions as Karl when they want to review the ICANN books. No 
opinion is disclosed about the response given to the Gobvs who would like 
to inspect the ICANN books the same way as Karl, before being selected.

These three non US layman's conclusions from the reading of Joe Sims, Louis 
Toton and Stuart Lynn response are so strange that the only conclusion is 
again "get real, guys!".

jfc

- --
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: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 11:23:04 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue

For those who want to be "unlisted" in the telephone white pages listing in the U.S., they pay a special fee. There is no counterpart that I am aware of in the "yellow pages" which is businesses, institutions, organizations, and even individuals who advertise, who hold themselves out to communicate with the public through this medium. 

We really don't know at this  point FOR SURE how many registrants fit which category.  I strongly suspect that at least 80% of .com; .net; .org; .info; .biz are businesses, organizations, institutions, or entities/individuals who are buying names and holding them for resale/warehousing.  It is unclear how many registrants are "individuals"  in generic TLDs or in ccTLDS [Some ccTLDs don't accept ind. registration/others do]. 
 
In any case, an analysis, even rough, of this breakdown would be useful information, even if estimated.  

The WHOIS TF co-chairs have asked the registrar/registry constituency representatives in the TF how they might provide even roughly responsive answers/statistics. This is a work in progress. Do not read into this request that the registries and registrars have agreed to any kind of analysis, only that that the request has been made inside the TF. 

Any analysis, or statistics would be greatly appreciated by the WHOIS TF as a more than useful data point... (s).

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:29 AM
To: William S. Lovell
Cc: [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

- --
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 #1133
*************************