Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1137
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, April 22 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1137

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

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 21:16:00 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

It's unfortunate that icannatlarge.com got hacked
- -- now it's on par with icann.org... ;)
(http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/2000/12/13/www.icann.org/)

For all those currently worrying about icannatlarge.com:
The interim steering panel will soon be chosen by all 
those who have signed up. I find the list of candidates
quite impressive:

 Izumi Aizu
 Vittorio Bertola 
 Daniel Chalef 
 Dr Johannes K Chiang
 Eric Dierker
 Vivek Durai
 James Fiander
 Robert Gray
 Satyajit Gupta
 Richard Henderson
 Wolfgang Kleinwaechter
 Alan Levin
 James Love
 Veni Markovski
 Wawa Ngenge
 YJ Park
 Roozbeh Pournader
 Ron Sherwood
 Sotiris Sotiropoulos
 Bretton Vine

Soon icannatlarge.com will have an international volunteer 
steering team, probably with donated server space because
we already have some offers. So: Fear not, we will sort it out! :)

Best regards,
/// 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: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 15:59:15 -0400
From: Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

>       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.

an interesting interpretation of the icann response Jamie... i am sorry but
i dont happen to agree at all with your "read" here..

> Why doesn't the
> ICANN board tell Karl they can settle this informally, and fix the
problem.
> Why do we need lawyers for this?

you might pose the same question to Karl......

ken stubbs

- --
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 13:12:42 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

At 01:00 PM 4/21/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
>    ICANN is not a start up Internet company... it is an organization that
>seeks a global mandate to govern .

It seeks no such thing.  If you want constructive dialogue, try sticking to 
the reality of ICANN's actual goal and history, rather than indulging in 
claiming mission creep that is pure fantasy.

>  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.

You really do need to pay closer attention to the facts, James.

Karl initiated the lawsuit, not ICANN.  Karl is the one who chose not to 
discuss this amongst the board, before filing a suit, not ICANN.  Karl is 
the one who has been unwilling to look for a solution, not ICANN.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850

- --
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 16:25:18 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>

> > 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.
>
> an interesting interpretation of the icann response Jamie... i am sorry
but
> i dont happen to agree at all with your "read" here..

Ken, , Jones Day, the firm that Karl Auerbach said should be fired when he
ran for the ICANN board, is handing the litigation. It filed a 24 page
response.  These are some of the references to Auerbach in the ICANN
response.  Is Jones Day running up a bill to settle some scores?  Or is this
failure to solve this problem in the best interests of ICANN?     Jamie

- --------------------
Petitioner

33. Auerbach is one member of ICANN's Board of Directors. A
self-described radical, Auerbach is one of five ICANN
Directors who were chosen to become members of the ICANN
Board of Directors through an experimental on-line voting
process in October 2000.  Auerbach campaigned on a platform
based on criticism of ICANN and its staff and existing
directors; he made it clear that his goal if elected was to
change ICANN dramatically. During the process leading up to
the elections, Auerbach made it clear that he did not want
ICANN to grow, and that he viewed ICANN as a loathsome,
secretive body that desperately needed to be "remodeled,"
"overhauled," "dismembered," and "reformed." Auerbach was
explicit that, if elected, Auerbach would be on a crusade to
harm, not support, ICANN. For example, Auerbach stated:

     Mike Roberts [then ICANN's CEO] had better know
     that when I come in there, I am going to exercise
     every power given to a director under California
     law to review every single document that ICANN has
     and every process. California law gives directors
     very strong authority to direct a corporation. In
     fact they're obligated to direct the corporation,
     and I suspect that we will find things that could
     very well trigger things like the IRS intermediate
     sanctions for 501(c)'s. That's a big hammer
     against a corporation and its
     board members.

34. Since becoming a director, Auerbach has generally taken
the position that as an individual director he has
unilateral authority to direct the corporation. As a result,
Auerbach has often refused to accept collective decisions of
the Board even though he is often the lone dissenting vote
on ICANN Board decisions. Auerbach generally seems far more
interested in being quoted in news stories or testifying
before Congress than in seeking collective solutions on the
Board. Despite having accepted a position as a Board member
of an organization that is designed to seek consensus policy
development whenever possible, Auerbach admittedly "[does
not] like consensus."

35. In short, Auerbach has chosen to assert his "right" to
have his views prevail over the collective wisdom of the
Board as a whole whenever he does not agree with the
consensus result. And he has continued, sporadically, to
attempt to utilize what he obviously feels is the sword of
his "absolute" right to inspect and copy corporate records,
apparently certain (without ever actually taking the
opportunities afforded him to look at the documents) that
they will contain scandalous material that he will be able
to publicize widely and thus overcome his inability to
otherwise persuade his Board peers of the wisdom of his
positions.

    [snip]

After Marginalizing Himself Repeatedly, Auerbach Files This
Lawsuit

55. As the factual recitation above indicates, Auerbach
plainly is more interested in damaging ICANN's ability to
function than in the inspection of any particular records.
The large amounts of time that have passed between various
communications, and the refusal to exercise his
administrative remedy of seeking Board review makes it clear
that the object of this exercise is to injure ICANN, not to
carry out Auerbach's fiduciary duty in any meaningful way.

56. The timing of Auerbach’s lawsuit, four months after the
last communication on this issue, is further evidence of
Auerbach's real motive here. Auerbach filed this lawsuit
after that long silence only when it became clear that on
substantive matters (unrelated to the inspection) his views
and those of the Board were becoming increasingly divergent.
By tradition, the ICANN Board works hard to achieve
consensus resolutions on the often-contentious policy
matters it addresses. This process involves persuasion,
deliberation, and compromise. Auerbach, however, often
behaves in a strident manner not compatible with the
building of consensus. As a result, he has seen his
influence in Board decisions wane. At the March 14, 2002
ICANN Board of Directors meeting in Accra, Ghana, for
example, the Board voted on ten substantive resolutions
(other than resolutions expressing thanks, etc.). Throughout
the meeting, the Board members worked hard to reach
consensus positions, and ultimately versions of all ten
resolutions were passed. In the end, no director other than
Auerbach voted against any of the ten consensus resolutions;
he cast opposing votes to five of them. Auerbach abstained
on two of the other five.

57. One illustration of Auerbach’s marginalization involves
the Board’s consideration of the process by which directors
are chosen to represent the public interest. After
considering lengthy studies sounding reservations about the
validity and practicality of global online voting (the
process that resulted in Auerbach being chosen in 2000 after
receiving only 1,738 votes from all of the United States and
Canada where there are over 150,000,000 Internet users), the
Board rejected an effort by Auerbach and others to repeat
the process of direct on-line voting to choose certain
directors of ICANN by a vote of 14-1 (with 2 abstentions),
instead resolving to search for another mechanism for
meaningful, informed participation by Internet users.
Auerbach was the only dissenting vote. During the Board
debate on the resolution at the Accra, Ghana, meeting,
Auerbach made clear his view that the Board's proposed
action was illegitimate: "What this resolution does very
clearly, it says to the world that ICANN is not a democratic
public institution
but it’s a paternalistic oligarchy. We return to the day
when we assume the white man's burden."

58. The Board also rejected an effort to commit to extending
the terms on the Board of Auerbach and the eight other At
Large Directors by a 13-3 vote (with 1 abstention), leaving
that issue to be decided at a subsequent meeting. Of the
four other Board members (in addition to Auerbach) who were
selected by the 2000 on-line voting process, three voted in
favor of the latter resolution to defer any action on
extending At Large Director terms, and one abstained.
Auerbach was the only such Director who voted for that
proposal.

59. The next day, Friday, March 15, 2002, Auerbach posted
the following statement on the Internet: "My board seat, and
those of the other four elected board members will simply
vaporize this fall, with no replacements, no elections . . .
no nothing. ICANN will be reduced a body run by those who
have today proclaimed themselves to be our self-designated
"betters", who know better than we do what is best for you
and me." This statement is not correct, and does not reflect
the actual Board decision, which simply postponed for later
consideration the issue of what (if any) extensions of At
Large Director terms should take place. But it does reflect
Auerbach's unhappiness, and thus it is unlikely to be a mere
coincidence that Auerbach signed the Verification for the
Petition in this action just one day after the Board meeting
in Accra. After the weekend passed, Auerbach filed this
case.

Auerbach's Lawsuit is Aimed at Public, Not Director, Access
to Confidential Records
60. In the days immediately after Auerbach filed his
Petition, Auerbach has granted multiple interviews in which
he has wildly exaggerated the scope of this lawsuit and its
potential impact on public access to ICANN activities and
records. In addition, one of the co-founders of
the organization providing representation to Auerbach in
this lawsuit, John Gilmore, contributed significant funding
to this lawsuit and has warned that, in his view, ICANN "is
going down, one way or another. Either it will go down like
East Germany, with a peaceful transition to
governance responsive to the public will, or it will go down
like Japan, with big bombs dropped on it." Gilmore's
statements and Auerbach's course of conduct both before and
after the filing of this lawsuit make it clear that the
ostensible purpose of this lawsuit --a routine inspection of
documents -- is clearly not the underlying motivation for
the Petition.

- --
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 15:39:45 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

At 1:12 PM -0700 4/21/02, Dave Crocker wrote:

Whoop! Whoop!

Dave's here. We must be onto something that ICANN don't trust Kent to be
able to handle on his own.

>It seeks no such thing.  If you want constructive dialogue, try sticking to
>the reality of ICANN's actual goal and history, rather than indulging in
>claiming mission creep that is pure fantasy.

Dave, if you're prepared to state that ICANN has not involved itself in
mission creep at all, then you, sir, are the one in a fantasy land.

- -- 
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 13:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Karl initiated the lawsuit, not ICANN.  Karl is the one who chose not to
> discuss this amongst the board, before filing a suit, not ICANN.  Karl is
> the one who has been unwilling to look for a solution, not ICANN.

Newsflash: It was just announced that up is down!

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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 20:03:34 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue

> 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.

That's not how it works in reality, since NSI sends the acknowledgment
message from their end.  But, yes, there are something like 150 registrars.
Obviously, since it is impossible to work out a way for these 150 entities
to have the access they might need, then all of the data must be made
available to entire population of the planet.

- --
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 19:12:01 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue

I knew all that, but the point remains and, incidentally, it was not
narrowly focused on DMV information, either.

The point was, and is, that there is much more information already
readily available from other sources. If a criminal wants to find out
your address, there are plenty of ways for that to be achieved. I
seriously doubt that a criminal would use the whois, since there is
much more information available elsewhere.

Incidentally, do you really believe that a criminal is going to comply
with the restrictions imposed by publicdata.com or just agree to them
on-line and do whatever he wishes? Heck, if hanging out some rules
makes a difference, then I'm compelled to hang on the doors and windows
of my house all the rules for entry -- like, for instance, you can't
rob us... That would save me over $100 year for the burglar alarm
service and, I'm sure, it would make my wife sleep much easier, too.
The point is, obviously, the restrictions don't hold water - even the
DMV information is readily available to anyone who agrees to the
restrictions.

Worrying about the limited scope of whois information doesn't even
rise to the level of treating the symptoms, rather than treating the
disease, like Congress did when they passed the DPPA. The Whois
information is trivial and it is needed by ISP's to serve their
customers, among other things.

Want to find out my address?  Just goto
http://www.dalcoelections.org/voters.asp and type in Brown, Donald.
I'm the real one - the rest are imposters. :-) Not only do you get the
street address, but also a convenient map.

Do you want to know who lives at a certain address in Dallas and the
appraised value of their house? Just goto
http://www.dallascad.org/dcadressearch.html and just enter a street
name -- try clubhouse. It returns appraised value, address, owner name
and the actual address of the owner even when different from the
property address and, incidentally, also a convenient map to the
property -- plus other info, as well.

How about, who owns a certain telephone number and their address?
There a plenty of search engines readily available on the Internet. I
use them all the time in an effort to verify credit card information,
in fact.

This whole thing reminds me of the of those radical, separationist,
paramilitary types who are camped out in the woods, with a stock pile
of food, a deep bomb shelter and are training for the time they have
to fight the U.S. Gov for their continued freedom. Mostly
under-educated, but righteous and focused, never-the-less.

Realistically, you were neither stalked or had your identity stolen
because of the whois data.  That was noise and sensationalism.  I
think it is a real stretch making whois info sensational, too.  You
didn't state that specifically, but it was, never-the-less, an
implication.  It has no merit WRT this discussion, either.

It's shooting mosquitos with double 00 buck shot and it's misplaced
WRT the trivial whois data.

I respect your opinion, but just like the last post, this post did not
meaningfully support it very well.

Let's move on.

Thanks,

Sunday, April 21, 2002, 4:56:45 PM, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
JW> Don and all assembly members,

JW>   Yes Don I am a registered member/user of http://www.publicdata.com
JW> and have been for some time now.  However if you read the specifics
JW> and than check with Texas state statute very strong restrictions are
JW> in place for Texas as well as 10 other states.  See:
JW> http://www.publicdata.com/cgi-win/logon.exe?Process=tacDsply&tacCert=DMV&tacState=Yd&tacCntl=E&dlnumber=DEMO&dlstate=DEMO&id=DEMO#DPPA
JW> Which contains but is not restricted to the following:

JW> "Driver's License and Motor Vehicle Information Restrictions -
JW>      Most States in the United States have adopted a close facsimile of the so-called Driver Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). Although two U.S. Federal Judges
JW>      have ruled the DPPA to be unconstitutional and many other court challenges are still pending, most States have left their interpretation of the DPPA as
JW>      Law. The DPPA has a list of exceptions that fits most uses of Driver's License and Motor Vehicle Information. If your use is described by one of the
JW>      following, you are more than likely in compliance with this Law, but please check to make sure. Approved uses as described by the DPPA:

JW>      Select one of the following radio buttons to indicate your compliance with that particular section of the DPPA.

JW>          1. For any use in the normal course of business by me as a legitimate business or an agent, employee, or contractor of a legitimate business, for
JW>           one of the two following purposes:
JW>                to verify the accuracy of personal information submitted to the business, agent, employee, or contractor by an individual;
JW>                in case personal information submitted to the business, agent, employee, or contractor by an individual is incorrect or no longer is correct,
JW>                to obtain the correct information, for the sole purpose of preventing fraud, by pursuing legal remedies against, or recovering on a debt or
JW>                security interest against, the individual.
JW>          2. For any use if the requesting person has written consent of the person about whom the information is sought;
JW>          3. For any use in research activities or in producing statistical reports, where the personal information will not be published re-disclosed, or used
JW>           to contact an individual;
JW>          4. For any use by an insurer, insurance support organization, or self-insured entity, or by an agent, employee, or contractor of that type of entity,
JW>           in connection with a claims investigation activity, anti-fraud activity, rating, or underwriting;
JW>          5. For use in providing notice to the owner of a towed, impounded, immobilized, or forfeited vehicle;
JW>          6. For use by a licensed private investigative agency or licensed security service for any purpose permitted under the DPPA
JW>          7. For any use by an employer or by the agent or insurer of an employer to obtain or verify information relating to the holder of a commercial
JW>           driver license or permit that is required under the "Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986" as now or hereafter amended;
JW>          8. For any use in connection with the operation of a private toll transportation facility;
JW>          9.Note: This sub-section has been dropped from the Driver Privacy Protection Act.
JW>           For bulk distribution for surveys, marketing, or solicitations, where the information will be used, rented, or sold solely for bulk distribution for surveys,
JW>           marketing, or solicitations;
JW>         10. For the use of a government agency, including, but not limited to, a court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or for the
JW>           use of a private person or entity acting on behalf of an agency of this state, another state, the United States, or a political subdivision of this state
JW>           or another state in carrying out its functions;
JW>         11. For any use in connection with a civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in a court or agency of a state, the United States, or a
JW>           political subdivision of a state or before a self-regulatory body, including, but not limited to, use in connection with the service of process,
JW>           investigation in anticipation of litigation, or the execution or enforcement of a judgment or order;
JW>         12. For any use pursuant to an order of a court of a state, the United States, or a political subdivision of any state;
JW>         13. For any other use specifically authorized by law that is related to the operation of a motor vehicle or to public safety;
JW>         14. For any use in connection with matters regarding motor vehicle or driver safety and theft; motor vehicle emissions; motor vehicle product
JW>           alterations, recalls, or advisories; performance monitoring of motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts, and dealers; motor vehicle market research
JW>           activities, including, but not limited to, survey research; and removal of non-owner records from the original owner records of motor vehicle
JW>           manufacturers;
JW>         15. For any use in order to carry out the purposes of either the "Automobile Information Disclosure Act", the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
JW>           Saving Act", the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966", the "Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992", or the "Clean Air Act", all as now or
JW>           hereafter amended, for use in connection with one or more of the following matters:
JW>                motor vehicle or driver safety and theft;
JW>                motor vehicle emissions;
JW>                motor vehicle product alterations, recalls, or advisories;
JW>                performance monitoring of motor vehicles and dealers by motor vehicle manufacturers;
JW>                removal of non-owner records from the original owner records of motor vehicle manufacturers."

JW> Hence Don, my previous comments in brief on previous posts on this thread..

JW> Don Brown wrote:

>> 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

JW> -snip old stuff for posting size limit -

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 18:03:12 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue

Sunday, Sunday, April 21, 2002, 5:03:34 PM, John Berryhill wrote:

>> 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.

> That's not how it works in reality, since NSI sends the acknowledgment
> message from their end.  But, yes, there are something like 150 registrars.
> Obviously, since it is impossible to work out a way for these 150 entities
> to have the access they might need, then all of the data must be made
> available to entire population of the planet.

Actually, that is how it works.  The way NSI does it is in violation
of ICANN policy and their registry accreditation agreement.

- -- 
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 23:35:18 -0400
From: Dale Farmer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 01:00 PM 4/21/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
> >    ICANN is not a start up Internet company... it is an organization that
> >seeks a global mandate to govern .
>
> It seeks no such thing.  If you want constructive dialogue, try sticking to
> the reality of ICANN's actual goal and history, rather than indulging in
> claiming mission creep that is pure fantasy.
>
> >  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.
>
> You really do need to pay closer attention to the facts, James.
>
> Karl initiated the lawsuit, not ICANN.  Karl is the one who chose not to
> discuss this amongst the board, before filing a suit, not ICANN.  Karl is
> the one who has been unwilling to look for a solution, not ICANN.
>
> d/

    Funny.  From where I sit, not having any access to much beyond the
public statements from the various parties, mostly reported here on the
GA list, it sound like the ICANN staff and their law firm are stalling as
hard as they can until Karl's board membership expires.  Sounds like
they have a lot of dirty laundry to hide.  The lawsuit sounds like the
next logical step in the process needed to pry those documents out
to the light of day.  I don't know if there was any questionable or
illegal conduct.  Until that documentation is reviewed by folks who
are reasonably objective, who does? There is this legal concept
called fiduciary responsibility.  Members of the Board have it.  If they
fail to exercise it correctly, they can be held liable criminally and
civilly for wrongdoing of the corporation.  That is why members of
the Board have a nearly absolute right to view any documentation
that they deem fit.
    Yeah, Karl does make waves.  So what.  He made no secret of
what he saw as his mission, and his election gives him a mandate to
do so.  He was elected to the board.  All the laws and precedents
that I know about give the board of directors the right, and the duty
to keep the CEO, employees, and contractors honest and working
towards the same goals.  It seems to me that the only thing that can
block an individual board member from viewing the documents in
pursuit of those goals would be a motion of the Board to block his
access, or a restraining order from a court with jurisdiction.
    I await the next chapter in the ICANN soap opera with morbid
interest.

    --Dale

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 01:03:48 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

> GA list, it sound like the ICANN staff and their law firm are stalling as
> hard as they can until Karl's board membership expires.  >

Question: Does Karl still have a right to access the financial records
pertaining to his period of Directorship even if that period has expired?

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: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:06:11 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

On 2002-04-21 00:23:55 -0700, Rick Wesson wrote:

>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.

As of now, the funding forum seems to be available again.

Any interesting behaviour during the week-end was - I suppose - 
side-effects of the break-in:  The hole abused was one in the 
software used for the forums, so it's rather natural that there was 
some hickup with these while the software was finally upgraded.

Further details on all this can be found in the list archives at  
<http://www.fitug.dE/icann-alsg/>, and in particular in Joop's  
message archived at  
<http://www.fitug.de/icann-alsg/0204/msg00057.html>.

Details on the vote to be held are at 
<http://www.icannatlarge.com/voting.htm>.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:19:09 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  http://www.dnso.org/icannatlarge/2002.ICANNATLARGE-Panel-vote.html

Now that the DNSO Secretariat has provided a website address to monitor the 
activities at icannatlarge.com, perhaps the DNSO could also provide a forum 
for the candidates that are standing for election -- so far all that I have 
noted are candidate statements with absolutely no debate whatsoever... the 
classic "beauty contest".  

Whomever is the most "popular" candidate, by dint of prior activities within 
the ICANN Supporting Organizations will surely get the nod, even though the 
the very first principle enumerated by the former Membership Advisory 
Committeee (MAC) stated:  At-large membership should primarily represent 
those individuals and organizations that are *not* represented by the 
Supporting Organizations.

Will the At-Large ever become the home for those that are not represented 
within the SOs, or will it become nothing more than a new playground for 
those that already participate via the SO structures?   Are we doing nothing 
more than shuffling the deckchairs?

An election process devoid of all debate does not portend well for the future 
of this icannatlarge.com organization...
- --
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 #1137
*************************