Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1136
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, April 21 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1136

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

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

Joanna,

I reviewed the postings on icannatlarge.com about finance just a few hours
ago and the forums were not password protected.

Either this stuff is out in the open or it isn't and putting it behind a
password is not justified. As one of the listed members of
icannatlarge.com I'm concerned.

open it back up and stand up to the public eye, or do you agree with ICANN
in that they too should not allow a public eye to come in contact with
their financial records.

- -rick

On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Joanna Lane wrote:

> > At 11:24 PM -0700 4/20/02, William X Walsh wrote:
> > >BTW, now the forum is password protected, since this was exposed.
>
> The forum has always been password protected, nothing new there. Thanks are
> in order to Joop for a speedy reaction to fix a small problem. Well done!
>
> 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: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

well, i just checked again and there is no password required now.

thanks,

- -rick

On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

> Sunday, Sunday, April 21, 2002, 12:07:00 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> >> At 11:24 PM -0700 4/20/02, William X Walsh wrote:
> >> >BTW, now the forum is password protected, since this was exposed.
>
> > The forum has always been password protected, nothing new there. Thanks are
> > in order to Joop for a speedy reaction to fix a small problem. Well done!
>
> No, it hasn't Joanna.
>
> This is a blatant lie.  From inception until earlier this evening
> after this all came out on here, the forums were publicly available,
> you had to login via a web script to post, but anyone could read.
>
> Do not lie to defend your buddy, Joanna, it only ruins your own
> credibility, and doesn't help Joop's any.
>
> What probably happened here is the same thing that happened when the
> IDNO.org website mysteriously disappeared one night after Joop got mad
> at the the growing calls for his resignation from the IDNO, someone
> pointed out how bad it made him look, and told him that if he
> brought it back, they would make a post making it look like a
> technical glitch.
>
> --
> 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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:29:38 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

Sunday, Sunday, April 21, 2002, 12:23:55 AM, Rick Wesson wrote:

> Joanna,

> I reviewed the postings on icannatlarge.com about finance just a few hours
> ago and the forums were not password protected.

> Either this stuff is out in the open or it isn't and putting it behind a
> password is not justified. As one of the listed members of
> icannatlarge.com I'm concerned.

> open it back up and stand up to the public eye, or do you agree with ICANN
> in that they too should not allow a public eye to come in contact with
> their financial records.

It's back open now.  Hopefully it will stay that way.

- -- 
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: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 03:37:14 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

Rick,
The forums are freely available to read, but password protected to post a
message. There's no change there so far as I can tell. Sorry for the
confusion.
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 3:24 AM
> To: Joanna Lane
> Cc: Andy Gardner; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked
>
>
>
> Joanna,
>
> I reviewed the postings on icannatlarge.com about finance just a few hours
> ago and the forums were not password protected.
>
> Either this stuff is out in the open or it isn't and putting it behind a
> password is not justified. As one of the listed members of
> icannatlarge.com I'm concerned.
>
> open it back up and stand up to the public eye, or do you agree with ICANN
> in that they too should not allow a public eye to come in contact with
> their financial records.
>
>
> -rick
>
>
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > > At 11:24 PM -0700 4/20/02, William X Walsh wrote:
> > > >BTW, now the forum is password protected, since this was exposed.
> >
> > The forum has always been password protected, nothing new
> there. Thanks are
> > in order to Joop for a speedy reaction to fix a small problem.
> Well done!
> >
> > 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: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 02:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue

When Sotiris is right he is usually right;-}

Apples and oranges are only helpful to compare when you realize you are not 
trying to derive certainty but only trying to broaden the curb of 
understanding.

Some people think the Intellectual property rights in Trademarks are a 
certain type of deal and they are not.  Others forget that the reason for 
having such protectionism on trademarks is a very solid premise of 
protecting those who risk by trying.

Domain Names are simply what a contract says they are -- whatever that is.

In another two too three years we will have enough hisotry to act with more 
certainty until then we must remain vigilante that no one interest takes 
control as would appear to be the case now with gTLDs.

Sincerely,
Eric 
> 
> George Kirikos wrote:
> 
>><big snip> :-)
>>
>>
>>Reading through even more posts, people seem to be struggling for
>>metaphors. The telephone example tends to be overused. If we look at
>>the example in trademark registries, there's sufficient "whois" data
>>for a trademark to be able to serve someone. Individuals, companies,
>>and other entities register trademarks, without some of the personal
>>safety issues that freaks out some individuals. Trademarks represent
>>division of a public resource/namespace, like domain names. 
>>
> Not quite.  I agree with much of what you wrote in your "audacious 
> post", but trademarks are not "like domain names" as you say here. 
> Trademark interests have been granted a de facto formal [and dare I say
>  "moral"] precedence of claim over mere "registrants" or
> "cybersquatters"  [as registrants sometimes get _libeled_].  The
> trademark interests'  abuse of process is staggering to consider when
> viewed through a wider  lense.  
> 
> You want an economic argument (leaving aside the privacy issue for a 
> moment), let us consider the very nature of ICANN's heretofore
> technical  coordination role, its benefits and costs.  What have they
> coordinated,  what has it cost, and who has benefited?   As we all
> know, the scarcity  of domain names is artificial.    Their
> "coordination" has not had  anything to do with anything of a strictly
> "technical" nature unless we  mean the artifical scarcity of dn
> suffixes.  The ICANN's entire role  to-date has been on the policy side
> of "technically coordinating" the  DNS. Through the sheer technicality
> of their jargon most people can't be  bothered to even attempt to
> understand what the true role of ICANN has  been heretofore vis a vis
> the Internet as a whole.  What is the benefit  in the artificial
> scarcity of domain name suffixes? Who benefits from  this scarcity? 
> What is the cost of such protectionism?  Who pays for it  all?  
> 
> The ICANN as regulator of this market has taken on a certain 
> extra/supralegal dimension of nebulous unaccountability which imposes 
> upon what should be a free and unfettered medium of information flow
> and  exchange.  Can you estimate what their imposition has cost the
> Markets  of the World?
> 
>>Similarly, 
>>in the case of licensing of radio or TV stations -- it's made easy for
>>the public to look up the owner of that frequency/station.
>>Registrations of corporations, personal businesses, etc. are another
>>metaphor. Some folks seemed to have attempted to make the domain itself
>>a unique legal entity unto itself, and that argument is deeply flawed.
>>One can't "serve" a domain or find it responsible for itself.
>>
> I, for one, agreed with your comments on the Technical Contact becoming
>  the de facto legal contact and only required listing in the WHOIS.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 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

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: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 02:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

First off, a lawsuit is frivilous if the plaintiff has no case.

A defense is frivolous, if it is asserted with no basis in fact.

Karl's lawsuit is in no way frivilous however ICANN has no defense based in 
fact.

Would anyone here work for a company as a director without having access, 
full and complete without restriction, to finances?  Especially when they 
are not filing timely.

If ICANN has major tax or liability problems Karl is at least somewhat 
responsible - Therefor he had to file the lawsuit, no choice, not moral, 
not legal and certainly not financially.

Sincerely,
Eric

> 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

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: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:32:06 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue

Dear Michael, Mailyn Jeff and all,
are really relevant these discussions on local details and personal 
feelings? We have a case were the US law conflicts with other country's 
laws. The root of Lynn's call.

On 03:21 21/04/02, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law said:
>Plus, here in Florida we have strong laws prohibiting telemarketing (you
>sign up for a list, and then they may not bug you).
>On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > Jeff, do elaborate on the differences on what is listed in a "white
> > pages" listing and WHOIS.
> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >   In any event comparisons of a phone # listing and private information
> > listed in WHOIS data are not really comparable, and therefore making
> > such comparisons is felonious at best.

We are right now facing a simple situation:

- - ICANN has confused International services with American control. The 
result is the current mess and its call on International help at proper 
level, ie Govs.
- - ITU/T responds with a true internatioinal management solution at Govs 
level. And we are wandering.

The reason why is that neither American control, nor International 
management fits the Intenet. The internet is a people's consensus and as 
such includes the Govs as well as many other organizations, but as users. 
Among the other participating investors, but not above them: part or 
leaders of the @large national Internet communities, not a replacement for 
it. The reaon why is that the Intenet is multinational, at individual level 
(while govs by nature are national/international). This multinational 
aspect is its specific interest. Remove it from the Intenet: you will keep 
a lot of interesting features but you will have killed the soul of the system.

So, we are to convince the goodwilling USG, EEC, ITU/T that the only 
solution is that the real oragnizers of the Internet (physical adressing 
plans, naming spaces and all the other stakehodles) may concert in an 
international Gov approved way. And that they may use this concertation of 
them, with a built-in help of the Govs through the ITU/T,  to dig out their 
consensuses and fight their hijackers.

If we do not succeed in convincing them, the future is clear. The Internet 
will only be a major value added Telco service among others, under the 
control of the local regulation authorities and subject to endless 
stardization committees. Everything by the people will have to be remade. 
And every one, including ATT, MS, SAIC, IBM etc will have wasted a huge 
business opportunity.

If we succeed in having the ITU/T acting only as an host and an equal 
member of a concertation among   every actor really concerned, without them 
having to be a Member of the ITU/T, with a rotating Chair showing that no 
one has the lead, then there are huge developments ahead, for Internet and 
for Telcos supporting the Intenet alike.

The decision IMHO is pending: Govs favor or accept the ITU/T solution. The 
ITU/T is considering how to best tune it. The real problem is Verisign, and 
to some extent MS. No Gov is sure that the current consensus system (they 
obviously see as in tune with the Intenet project and as an help to its 
development) is strong enough to stop Verisign and MS from hijacking the net.

1. IMHO the first reason why is that the ICANN has limited the number of 
opponents in trying to stay exclusive (ICP-3 oddity), probably with ATT and 
others helps confusing statu quo with market share protection. So we have 
to make clear and real that there are several large name spaces that 
Verisign has to deal with : legacy by ICANN, ccNET by the ccTLDs, Govnet 
(gov/mil/edu) by the USG, Newnet, the Open Systems, the ITU/T with the 
telephone/mobile numeric names, many large plans like ISSN, ISBN, TM 
registrations etc... This makes a more serious protection against Verisign 
WLS/Whois fancies and a better help for them to understand where is their 
market and their support.

2. The second reason is the ability of smart people like you, BoD Members, 
Esther, Mike, Joe, Straton, Lynn, Louis, etc. etc. daily implied in the 
nets gouvernance to understand where is the real global common interest. No 
one wants to kill the Internet. I am sure that even Bill Gates and Straton 
Sclavos may understand when they go a step too far and they start spoiling 
their own market rather than developping it. We have to show now that this 
kind of auto-limitation may happen : WLS and Whois are good cases. 
Otherwise no one will believe we are grown enough for this to ever happen 
and no one will take the risk. Also, many will question the reasons of 
Verisign and will feel un secure about their good health if they 
desesperately need such short term sales.

I am sure that most of the Govs will favor a slower, harder, more limited 
development under nations control than a brillant, easy, great development 
... of the Redmond and the Herndon monopolies. And if Bill Gates and 
Starton Sclavos do not understand this is the way the world sees it, we 
have to help them understanding. Frankly we would all prefer to develop 
with them in the years to come, than spending our life figting them.

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: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:35:38 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

At 3:21 AM -0400 4/21/02, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Look Andy, why don't you and William go and play King and Queen of the
>castle in your little IDNO sandbox which you fought so hard to win, and stop
>trying to poison yet another mailing list with your vitriolic hatred. It
>gets very old.

As per usual, I'm here to protect the little guy.

When your buddy starts acting like he's running a autocracy, and starts
censoring material without getting any kind of consensus first, then I
start waving double-yellows. He's done it before, and that organisation is
still healing itself after he almost destroyed it.

Is it the atLarge or the i'mJoop ???

Just be really careful. If he spits the dummy (again), you'll find the
atLarge website will disappear, just like the IDNO one did once. Then where
will your donations be?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 10:58:53 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue

For an example of what I was talking about, see
http://www.publicdata.com/ and click on the current database
offerings.  You will find a db for Driver's License, License Plates,
Vehicle Identification Number, Voter Registration, Real Estate.  The
DMV information is subject to the terms and conditions, which are
restrictive, but they do not require the user to be a Peace Officer,
as was stated.

With respect to real estate, go to this URL
http://www.dallascad.org/dcadressearch.html
and just enter the street name of clubhouse.

Public information, such as what I mentioned in this and the prior
post, is generally available to the public. There are some
restrictions (the driver's Privacy Protection Act, for one) imposed
upon its use in certain cases.

I do agree that some of the information is subject to restricted
use and that some of the information is not uniformly available.
However, that doesn't equate to being "way off base."

It is difficult to comprehend how one's identity could be stolen through
the use of the current whois data.  There is no more information in
the current whois than is available from a telephone book, Church
directory, neighborhood directory, or voter registration databases,
( see http://www.dalcoelections.org/voters.asp ).  In fact, the voter
registration and real estate links cited above, even include a map.

I am, however, aware of a few stalking incidents due to the publicly
available whois data.  The perpetrators were VeriSign, Register.com, Domain
Registry of America, Domain Registry of Canada and others, who did
their stalking by mailing a solicitation, which appeared to be an
invoice, for the renewal of domain names.

Again, I don't consider the publication of whois information as any
real transgression of privacy and confidentiality or that it
potentially exposes one to life threatening criminal activity.  I
respect your opinion to the contrary, even though your post did not
meaningfully support it very well.

Sunday, April 21, 2002, 12:37:24 AM, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
JW> Don and all assembly members,

JW> Don Brown wrote:

>> O.K.  Let's see.  If you have the license plate number, you can look
>> up the owner.

JW>   Not in Texas unless you are a member of law enforcement and have
JW> a need to know, such as a potential traffic violation in progress, ect...
JW> Same in California, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri,
JW> Georgia, and I believe also Nevada.

>>  If you have the driver license number, you can look up
>> the owner.

JW>   Again not in Texas or California unless you are a member of law
JW> enforcement without the drivers license holders expressed written
JW> permission.

>>  If you have the property address, you can look up the
>> owner.

JW>   Again not true in 11 states, including Texas in some instances...

>>  I'm not totally sure about SS number, but I wouldn't doubt if
>> a database is available on the net, as well.  If you have the phone
>> number, even in some cases where they have not opted in, in TX, you can
>> look up the owner.

JW>   Yes in some states this is true.  In many countries it is not true...

>>
>>
>> Are we getting bundled up in our socks over the confidentiality of the
>> Registrant of a domain name?  Really?  Well, let's not.

JW>   I respectfully disagree.  I am not interested in again going to court
JW> over identity theft like I had to do in 1989.  I am not interested in having
JW> myself or my daughters stalked due to some "Control Freak" Nut Job
JW> looking up on WHOIS my name and finding personal private information
JW> listed for me to make such a situation much easier for that "Control Freak"
JW> Nut Job to do...

>>
>>
>> Is this other information comparable to the available information
>> about the registrant of a domain name?

JW>   No it is not..  (See above again)

>> Is the Pope Catholic?

JW>   No he is Polish.  >;)

>> Of course
>> it is!  It is, indeed, the same kind of personal information one would
>> find about the owner of a license plate, driver license, etc.

JW>   Again not correct Don.  See above...  See state statutes for Texas,
JW> California, Georgia, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, ect, ect...

>>
>>
>> However, my registration of a domain name is one heck of a lot more
>> trivial than my license plate, driver license, social security number
>> or the appraised value (yep, that's there, too) of my property.

JW>   But neither the license plate, driver license, social security number
JW> are as easily accessible as a Whois listing by name or Domain Name.

>>
>>
>> I think some are hunting mosquitos with 00 buck shot rather than
>> living in the real world. There is no confidentially issue here which
>> will harelip the Governor, so let's move on.

JW>   Well Don you wayyy off base.  Again see above...  <sigh>

>>
>>
>> Saturday, April 20, 2002, 6:26:27 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> CMSL> Jeff, do elaborate on the differences on what is listed in a "white pages" listing and WHOIS.
>>
>> CMSL> In white pages, name, address and telephone number is the typical listing. [unless there is an opt out, or situation Jeff described for Texas which requires opt in].
>>
>> CMSL> What is the difference with WHOIS listings?
>>
>> CMSL> -----Original Message-----
>> CMSL> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> CMSL> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 8:25 PM
>> CMSL> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
>> CMSL> Cc: [email-masked]; Alexander Svensson; Dan Halloran; Louis Touton; Mike
>> CMSL> Palage; Antonio Harris; icann board address
>> CMSL> Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue
>>
>> CMSL> Marilyn and all assembly members,
>>
>> CMSL>   Your of course very welcome Marilyn.  It is very important that
>> CMSL> accurate information is decimated when making such comments
>> CMSL> or statements.
>>
>> CMSL>   In any event comparisons of a phone # listing and private information
>> CMSL> listed in WHOIS data are not really comparable, and therefore making
>> CMSL> such comparisons is felonious at best.  Same of course is true with
>> CMSL> property ownership listings.  Apples and tomatoes...
>>
>> CMSL> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>>
>> >> Jeff, thanks for  providing more accurate information about a practice in one state at least.  I wasn't aware of that but I am sure that residents of Texas appreciate it!  Marilyn
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> >> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 3:28 PM
>> >> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
>> >> Cc: [email-masked]; Alexander Svensson; Dan Halloran; Louis Touton; Thomas
>> >> Roessler; Mike Palage; Antonio Harris
>> >> Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue
>> >>
>> >> Marilyn and all assembly members,
>> >>
>> >> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > For those who want to be "unlisted" in the telephone white pages listing in the U.S., they pay a special fee.
>> >>
>> >>   This statement is incorrect of course.  Some states, such as Texas where
>> >> I reside the situation is just the opposite.  If you wish your phone number
>> >> to be listed in the white pages than you pay and additional monthly charge
>> >> that will appear on your phone bill every month.  My personal Phone
>> >> # is NOT listed as I did not opt-in to have it listed.  You may check
>> >> the Frisco Texas White pages to see for yourself of course.
>> >>
>> >> > 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
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> --
>> >> Jeffrey A. Williams
>> >> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
>> >> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>> >> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>> >> E-Mail [email-masked]
>> >> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
>> >> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>>
>> CMSL> Regards,
>> CMSL> --
>> CMSL> Jeffrey A. Williams
>> CMSL> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
>> CMSL> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>> CMSL> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>> CMSL> E-Mail [email-masked]
>> CMSL> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
>> CMSL> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>>
>> CMSL> --
>> CMSL> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> CMSL> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> CMSL> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> CMSL> 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

JW> Regards,

JW> --
JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
JW> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
JW> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
JW> E-Mail [email-masked]
JW> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
JW> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- ----
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: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:00:08 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:24 PM
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, I have to tell you this is a strange response to the ICANN brief.
If you haven't read it, read it.  You say I am trying to  "personalize this
litigation" ???   Did you read what ICANN said about Karl?

      With regard to "bias"?   That exactly does this mean?   I have
opinions.  So do you.  The ICANN brief says they shouldn't have to give Karl
the records because he rocks the boat, even noting how many times he doesn't
vote in the majority as a reason for not giving him access to the records.
Does this strike you as OK?     And the gall of ICANN lawyers to quesiton
Karl's mandate on the basis of the votes......  What was that about?  This
is an organization who can't explain to anyone how the board is picked.

   ICANN is not a start up Internet company... it is an organization that
seeks a global mandate to govern .  Govern what?  is yet to be decided.
Stuff like this lawsuit doesn't provide alot of trust.    Why doesn't the
ICANN board tell Karl they can settle this informally, and fix the problem.
Why do we need lawyers for this?  Give him what he is asking for, or at
least set up a reason process to make it happen in our lifetimes.    This
has to be less work than the litigation.

  Jamie

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 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: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:39:14 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

James Love wrote:

>
>   ICANN is not a start up Internet company... it is an organization that
>seeks a global mandate to govern .  Govern what?  is yet to be decided.
>Stuff like this lawsuit doesn't provide alot of trust.    Why doesn't the
>ICANN board tell Karl they can settle this informally, and fix the problem.
>Why do we need lawyers for this?  Give him what he is asking for, or at
>least set up a reason process to make it happen in our lifetimes.    This
>has to be less work than the litigation.
>
Jamie et al.,

It's not about what is cheaper for ICANN at this junctue; it's about 
maintaining ICANN's unaccountability.  If Karl's suit fails, this will 
basically send a strong signal to everyone critical of ICANN that the 
organization in question is beyond the pale of law and order, and is 
effectively autocratic.  Such a message would go a long way towards 
disheartening any meek opposition to the status quo.

Sincerely,

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: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 10:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue

Hello,

- --- Don Brown <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Again, I don't consider the publication of whois information as any
> real transgression of privacy and confidentiality or that it
> potentially exposes one to life threatening criminal activity.  I

Indeed. And for those who do own the $250,000 home security systems and
$1 million cars with 40 air bags, they can afford the $5 or so to have
a representative stand in for them in the WHOIS, one that can suffer
the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". ;)

One of the other "costs" of making the WHOIS completely private is what
happens when folks want to do a transfer? A registrar like OpenSRS,
wanting to initiate a transfer of a name currently at Network Solutions
would typically send an email to the admin contact for verification.

Oopps, for the absolute privacy advocates, there's no email address! Oh
no, well, how about you sign and fax a notarized document, and we'll do
the transfer anyway? "Sure, my domains are Microsoft.com, Yahoo.com,
Amazon.com, Sex.com, and here's the fax, from China, with a Chinese
signature -- looks legit to me....."

Or, the domain does show an email address, and it happens to be
[email-masked], or [email-masked] (@home is defunct
now). Oops, I want to change the email, but NSI won't let me....

There are some nice checks and balances to having the real WHOIS data,
to the minimum extent possible, that ties it to a real legal person
(i.e. individual, corporation, etc.), or a unique real proxy of that
person (agent, representative, etc.).

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.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 #1136
*************************