Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1138
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 23 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1138

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

Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:39:31 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Discussing the BC Position Paper

Marilyn,

You have posted the BC Position Paper on Reform to the Council list with the 
comment:  <<We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concepts and 
principles with any other interested parties.>>

I stand ready to discuss these concepts and principles with you (having 
already enumerated a list of twenty questions).  Are you ready to begin the 
discussion?
- --
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 16:11:32 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  http://www.dnso.org/icannatlarge/2002.ICANNATLARGE-Panel-vote.html

Hello Danny,

At 22.04.2002 09:19, [email-masked] wrote:
>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".  

this is not a DNSO activity; icannatlarge.com is only
fortunate that Elisabeth and Glen have been so kind
to help icannatlarge.com by using the balloting system.
Feel free to ask questions to the candidates either
in the icannatlarge.comweb forums, directly or on the 
ALSC list -- I'd prefer to just start debating instead 
of complaining about the lack of debate.

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: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:41:14 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

I'm replying to this email simply because it's the latest I received, 
just to make a point.
With all the distraction over whether or not the Forums were locked out, 
which has
been the subject of 17 emails, if my count is correct, I've not seen a 
single one that
has addressed the issue of seeking to track down who did the hacking. 
Would that
not be the first issue on the agenda?  That is, except for those who 
seek to pursue
political agenda? The icannatlarge.com logs should show an address from 
which the
hacking code originated -- I know that since I've pored over pages of 
logs getting
evidence for a Federal court case, and these data were admitted in to 
evidence.
With all the internet expertise that William X. Walsh and others display 
here, among
one or more of whom the skill to search server logs should be present 
and available,
is there no one here who cares who was the hacker?

Bill Lovell

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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>.
>

- --
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 12:42:57 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: http://www.dnso.org/icannatlarge/2002.ICANNATLARGE-Panel-vote.html

> -- so far all
> that I have
> noted are candidate statements with absolutely no debate
> whatsoever... the
> classic "beauty contest".
>

This is a temporary Steering Committee with a lifespan of 12 weeks,
comparable to the structure of a DNSO Task Force. It is not the equivalent
of the ICANN Board where half its members can refuse to step down for 3
years.

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 09:59:06 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update

- --------------000801080205040901050507
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am a lawyer, and represent no one in this case, so in that sense
my comments are merely those of a buttinski.  However, generally
speaking, in the practice of law, it is common for people against
whom some charge has been leveled to run around mending their
fences.  In the Enron case, indeed, some folks evidently headed
right for their shredders with a bunch of incriminating documents,
and are now charged with the Federal crime of obstructing justice.
I don't know what's happening at ICANN, but as a rule, what is
relevant is the state of affairs leading up to the filing of a suit, and
what happens after that, such as the termination of Karl's tenure as
Director, should have no effect on his case, although more road
blocks could possibly be tried out. The discovery process, if
enforced by the judge, should yield access to whatever Karl is
after.

(The foregoing is a general comment, and should not be interpreted
as being legal advice to anyone.)

Bill Lovell

Joanna Lane wrote:

>>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
>
>

- --------------000801080205040901050507
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
I am a lawyer, and represent no one in this case, so in that sense<br>
my comments are merely those of a buttinski. &nbsp;However, generally<br>
speaking, in the practice of law, it is common for people against<br>
whom some charge has been leveled to run around mending their<br>
fences. &nbsp;In the Enron case, indeed, some folks evidently headed<br>
right for their shredders with a bunch of incriminating documents,<br>
and are now charged with the Federal crime of obstructing justice.<br>
I don't know what's happening at ICANN, but as a rule, what is<br>
relevant is the state of affairs leading up to the filing of a suit, and<br>
what happens after that, such as the termination of Karl's tenure as <br>
Director, should have no effect on his case, although more road<br>
blocks could possibly be tried out. The discovery process, if<br>
enforced by the judge, should yield access to whatever Karl is<br>
after.<br>
<br>
(The foregoing is a general comment, and should not be interpreted<br>
as being legal advice to anyone.)<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
<br>
Joanna Lane wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">GA list, it sound like the ICANN staff and their law firm are stalling as<br>hard as they can until Karl's board membership expires.  &gt;<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!----><br>Question: Does Karl still have a right to access the financial records<br>pertaining to his period of Directorship even if that period has expired?<br><br>Joanna<br><br>--<br>This message was passed to you via the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> list.<br>Send mail to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> to unsubscribe<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).<br>Archives at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a><br><br><br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    </body>
    </html>

- --------------000801080205040901050507--

- --
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 10:12:43 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

Monday, Monday, April 22, 2002, 9:41:14 AM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> I'm replying to this email simply because it's the latest I received, 
> just to make a point.
> With all the distraction over whether or not the Forums were locked out, 
> which has
> been the subject of 17 emails, if my count is correct, I've not seen a 
> single one that
> has addressed the issue of seeking to track down who did the hacking. 
> Would that
> not be the first issue on the agenda?  That is, except for those who 
> seek to pursue
> political agenda? The icannatlarge.com logs should show an address from 
> which the
> hacking code originated --

Because chances are it is not going to lead to the hacker anyway.

Most likely they would have used one of the many thousands of
unsecured proxy servers out on the net to do what they did.

It is even possible for them to chain through multiple proxies
depending on how misconfigured the unsecured proxies are, so even if
you could get logs from the operator of the proxy server whose IP
shows up in the web server logs, chances are it would also not lead
the hacker.

And say you did track down the actual originating IP address, it would
probably dead end into a throw away dialup account.

- -- 
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: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:44:08 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

- --------------020002000107020500090306
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yes, William.  Even an internet ignoramus like me knows all that. 
 However, that evidently no
one has even thought to try is somewhat bothering.  (If the effort has 
begun, my apologies to
whoever is doing it.)

(We had the exact IP, the site being registered to the other side, by 
name. )

Bill Lovell

William X Walsh wrote:

>Monday, Monday, April 22, 2002, 9:41:14 AM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
>>I'm replying to this email simply because it's the latest I received, 
>>just to make a point.
>>With all the distraction over whether or not the Forums were locked out, 
>>which has
>>been the subject of 17 emails, if my count is correct, I've not seen a 
>>single one that
>>has addressed the issue of seeking to track down who did the hacking. 
>>Would that
>>not be the first issue on the agenda?  That is, except for those who 
>>seek to pursue
>>political agenda? The icannatlarge.com logs should show an address from 
>>which the
>>hacking code originated --
>>
>
>Because chances are it is not going to lead to the hacker anyway.
>
>Most likely they would have used one of the many thousands of
>unsecured proxy servers out on the net to do what they did.
>
>It is even possible for them to chain through multiple proxies
>depending on how misconfigured the unsecured proxies are, so even if
>you could get logs from the operator of the proxy server whose IP
>shows up in the web server logs, chances are it would also not lead
>the hacker.
>
>And say you did track down the actual originating IP address, it would
>probably dead end into a throw away dialup account.
>

- --------------020002000107020500090306
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
Yes, William. &nbsp;Even an internet ignoramus like me knows all that. &nbsp;However,
that evidently no <br>
one has even thought to try is somewhat bothering.&nbsp; (If the effort has begun,
my apologies to<br>
whoever is doing it.)<br>
<br>
(We had the exact IP, the site being registered to the other side, by name.
)<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
<br>
William X Walsh wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
  <pre wrap="">Monday, Monday, April 22, 2002, 9:41:14 AM, William S. Lovell wrote:<br><br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">I'm replying to this email simply because it's the latest I received, <br>just to make a point.<br>With all the distraction over whether or not the Forums were locked out, <br>which has<br>been the subject of 17 emails, if my count is correct, I've not seen a <br>single one that<br>has addressed the issue of seeking to track down who did the hacking. <br>Would that<br>not be the first issue on the agenda?  That is, except for those who <br>seek to pursue<br>political agenda? The icannatlarge.com logs should show an address from <br>which the<br>hacking code originated --<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!----><br>Because chances are it is not going to lead to the hacker anyway.<br><br>Most likely they would have used one of the many thousands of<br>unsecured proxy servers out on the net to do what they did.<br><br>It is even possible for them to chain through multiple proxies<br>depending on how misconfigured the unsecured proxies are, so even if<br>you could get logs from the operator of the proxy server whose IP<br>shows up in the web server logs, chances are it would also not lead<br>the hacker.<br><br>And say you did track down the actual originating IP address, it would<br>probably dead end into a throw away dialup account.<br><br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    </body>
    </html>

- --------------020002000107020500090306--

- --
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 19:48:03 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

On 2002-04-22 09:41:14 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:

>I've not seen a single one that has addressed the issue of seeking 
>to track down who did the hacking.  Would that not be the first  
>issue on the agenda?

The defaced page's text listed an address @xpaxo.net, and if you  
look at www.xpaxo.net, you'll even find icannatlarge.com on a list  
of the sites these guys (apparently some Russian script-kiddies) are 
proud to have defaced.  The log snippet which is in Joop's message  
has some more information on the hack, which actually points into  
the same direction.

- -- 
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 23:36:10 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf agenda April 24, 2002

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NCteleconf-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

      DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 April 2002 - agenda

22 April 2002

Names Council Agenda 24 April 2002 (180 mins)

A.  Date, time, phone number.

    The Names Council teleconference will be held on 24 April 2002 at the
    following time:
    (5:00 LA, 8:00 New York, 14:00 Paris, Japan/ Korea 21:00, 22:00
Melbourne)

    Local time between April and October, Summer in the Northern Hemisphere
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         12:00
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST   5:00
    Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+1DST   7:00
    Lima, Peru                                 UTC-5+0DST   7:00
    Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+1DST   8:00
    St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST   8:00
    Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST   9:00
    London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+1DST  13:00
    Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
    Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
    Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
    Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
    Jerusalem, Israel                          UTC+2+1DST  15:00
    Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  21:00
    Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  21:00
    Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  22:00
    Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+0DST  24:00
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October (with some exceptions)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

    The full participants are the 21 NC members as listed in
    http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html
    DNSO Secretariat and ICANN Officers, invited participants
    Alejandro Pisanty, Stuart Lynn, and Louis Touton

    Philip Sheppard will be chairing the NC teleconference.
    Scheduled time for meeting - 180 mins.

B.  Agenda and related documents

    This is the fourth teleconference after Accra dedicated to ICANN Reform

    Proposed NC Agenda April 24

      First Hour

        1. Discussion points in v6 conclusions
            - mission
            - stakeholders

           http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.Response-Reform-v6.html

        2. Discussion new items
            - Board composition
            - At Large
            - transparency

        3. Preparation for call with Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty

      Second Hour

        4. Discussion Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty

      Third Hour

        5. Conclusions based on discussions/outstanding points

        6. Need for call May 2

        7. OAB

C.  Note:

    It will be decided whether the next teleconference will be on
    2 May at 15.00 Paris time.
    See http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

  Information from:© DNSO Names Council

- --
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 23:41:55 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf agenda April 24, 2002

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NCteleconf-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

      DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 April 2002 - agenda

22 April 2002

Names Council Agenda 24 April 2002 (180 mins)

A.  Date, time, phone number.

    The Names Council teleconference will be held on 24 April 2002 at the
    following time:
    (5:00 LA, 8:00 New York, 14:00 Paris, Japan/ Korea 21:00, 22:00
Melbourne)

    Local time between April and October, Summer in the Northern Hemisphere
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         12:00
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST   5:00
    Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+1DST   7:00
    Lima, Peru                                 UTC-5+0DST   7:00
    Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+1DST   8:00
    St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST   8:00
    Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST   9:00
    London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+1DST  13:00
    Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
    Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
    Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
    Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
    Jerusalem, Israel                          UTC+2+1DST  15:00
    Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  21:00
    Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  21:00
    Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  22:00
    Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+0DST  24:00
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October (with some exceptions)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

    The full participants are the 21 NC members as listed in
    http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html
    DNSO Secretariat and ICANN Officers, invited participants
    Alejandro Pisanty, Stuart Lynn, and Louis Touton

    Philip Sheppard will be chairing the NC teleconference.
    Scheduled time for meeting - 180 mins.

B.  Agenda and related documents

    This is the fourth teleconference after Accra dedicated to ICANN Reform

    Proposed NC Agenda April 24

      First Hour

        1. Discussion points in v6 conclusions
            - mission
            - stakeholders

           http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.Response-Reform-v6.html

        2. Discussion new items
            - Board composition
            - At Large
            - transparency

        3. Preparation for call with Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty

      Second Hour

        4. Discussion Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty

      Third Hour

        5. Conclusions based on discussions/outstanding points

        6. Need for call May 2

        7. OAB

C.  Note:

    It will be decided whether the next teleconference will be on
    2 May at 15.00 Paris time.
    See http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

  Information from:© DNSO Names Council

- --
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: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:40:41 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA summary #15: April 16 - April 22, 2002.

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related)  
discussions and news between April 16, 2002, and April 22, 2002.

GA list archives are available online at  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/maillist.html>.

Please feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be  
appropriate.

		   Deadline: 7 days until E&R-day

The deadline for useful input to the Evolution and Reform Committee  
expires on April 29, i.e., in 7 days (of these, only 5 are work 
days). <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00004.html>

				Topics

(i) Names Council telephone conference on April 18.  The telephone  
conference's original agenda is available from  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00362.html>.  An MP3  
encoding is available from  
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020418.NCteleconf.mp3>.  Also,  
Alexander and Thomas posted a short note collecting some of their  
recollection of a key section of the call; Alexander later sent a  
more precise transcript of what was said there.  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00361.html>,  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00369.html>.

Most of the phone call was spent discussing the then-current draft 
for Names Council recommendations on structure, including the BC's 
suggested edits. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00080.html>

Roger Cochetti of the gTLD registries' constituency suggested 
various changes, too; during the discussion of these, strong 
disagreement between DNSO constituencies became visible on a number 
of key points.

Here are some pointers into the MP3 file: The really interesting  
part begins about 53 minutes into the recording, when Cochetti  
started to make his suggestions for changes.  In minute 55, it was 
discussed for whose benefit ICANN should work (part of 
recommendation #1): Originally, it said "the public" (suggested by 
Cary Karp, also from the gTLD registries), after the BC edits "the 
Internet's users". The gTLD registries considered the previous 
language "disturbingly vague", because "ICANN represents a 
cooperative effort between registries, registrars, and registrants," 
working for the benefit of all these parties. In minute 62, the list 
of ICANN's contractual enforcement missions was discussed.  Between 
minutes 71 and 82, recommendation #9 was on the table: Who should 
drive consensus process?  The gTLDs' suggestion was that the 
"affected stakeholders" of the original text (or "all stakeholders" 
according to the BC edits) should be replaced by the "stakeholders 
principally affected".  In minute 82, the gTLDs suggested to strike 
recommendation 11, which included the recommendation that the DNSO 
should remain intact ("in function" after BC edits).  Seek to 82:15 
in order to hear the key comment on this, which was also transcribed 
by Alexander.  104 minutes into the call, you can finally hear some 
discussion of what the gTLD registry and IP constituencies think 
about ICANN policy; this is also contained with Alex' transcript.

The NC's next telephone conference is scheduled for the 24th.  It's 
expected to last 3 hours, and Stuart Lynn and Alejandro Pisanty are 
expected to participate.
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NCteleconf-agenda.html>

(ii) Task forces at a glance: A list of DNSO task forces is 
available at <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/nctaskforcesindex.html>.

(iii) CNN vs. cnnews.com.  As a follow-up to the previous week's  
discussion, James Love forwarded a message he had received from  
Louis Touton.  In that message, Touton explains that the cnnews.com  
registrar had filed a "Registrar Certificate" with the court in  
question, in which it "tenders to the Court complete control and  
authority over the registration for the CNNEWS.COM domain name  
registration record." 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00336.html>

(iv) Whois.  Danny Younger started a discussion on whois (and, in 
particular, bulk access), by forwarding a message posted by Tim 
Ruiz to the registrars' list.  In that message, Tim writes that "in 
this day and age of privacy concerns it's a little insane that 
registrars are required to make their customer data available to the 
public in bulk.  One-offs through a web interface are one thing. 
Requirements for bulk access, including open ports, to the data are 
just too much."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00330.html>

In a follow-up message, Joanna Lane claims that "disclosing personal 
data in the whois is unlawful in the 15 member nations of the 
European Union."  (Note that reality is more complex than that.)
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00332.html>

George Kirikos asked "what would folks do who are after abusive 
registrants (e.g. UDRP cases for TM infringement, or other matters".
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00333.html>

To that, Joop Teernstra responded that "there is a fundamental  
tension between two positions and ICANN is being asked to come up  
with a reasonable compromise.  Perhaps registrars should provide the 
service of a PO Box address," so "parties with a legitimate reason 
to contact the registrant could be given the details on a 
case-by-case basis."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00342.html>

In a reply to Joanna's message, William Walsh wrote that, assuming  
Joanna was right, "all this will do is require ICANN to not accredit 
European registrars.  The whois data is, and ought to remain,  
public, without exception," William believes.  On bulk whois, he  
notes that "the downside to not allowing bulk whois access is that  
it will bring back the massive automated mining of the whois  
databases again." 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00335.html>

In a different branch of the thread, Ross Rader suggested that the 
"opt-out" clause of the whois policy should be examined and possibly 
revised.  He pointed to an earlier proposal Tucows had circulated.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00368.html>

In a long essay posted Saturday afternoon, George Kirikos  
elaborated on various arguments for and against public whois access. 
As one example, he takes the OCDE.org case (see  
<http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00027000/M00027316.pdf> for details), and  
writes: "Ultimately, what moved things forward towards a favorable  
outcome was that the registrant was being forced to put TRUE and  
PUBLIC contact information into the WHOIS database." He concludes  
that having "absolute privacy become standard would only encourage  
and embolden those who seek to commit abuse." He also notes that  
there are, generally, "no absolute rights to certain privileges,"  
but that privileges come with responsibilities.  After discussing  
some more arguments from different mails in the thread, George asks  
about what a compromise between the different positions could look  
like.  He suggests that, for the administrative contact (which could 
be replaced by a dedicated "legal" contact for that purpose), there  
"should be enough details to be identified and legally served a  
process," but that these details should be minimized. No other  
contact information should be needed for the public."Having a third 
party to be the administrative contact could work," he also  
suggests.  He finally makes an economical point, and suggests that  
those who find their privacy important should assign some value to  
it, and then look if they can't find a third party willing to be  
their admin-c for an adequate fee.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00399.html>

In an earlier message from that day, Michael Froomkin also takes up 
the idea of the third party, and notes that the procedure available 
to have a third party listed in the WHOIS is "expensive, since not  
routinized, and has nasty potential legal consequences (they can  
steal your domain name) unless you draft a contract (which is  
expensive), and even then gives them the power to do it (which would 
take an expensive lawsuit to win back).  Saying, 'use a lawyer' as  
your nominee ignores the happy reality that most people don't have a 
lawyer on retainer, and the unhappy reality that most people  
couldn't afford what most lawyers might charge."  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00389.html> 

- -- 
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 16:03:51 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

- --------------030107080008070309020906
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-04-22 09:41:14 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
>> I've not seen a single one that has addressed the issue of seeking to 
>> track down who did the hacking.  Would that not be the first  issue 
>> on the agenda?
>
>
> The defaced page's text listed an address @xpaxo.net, and if you  look 
> at www.xpaxo.net, you'll even find icannatlarge.com on a list  of the 
> sites these guys (apparently some Russian script-kiddies) are proud to 
> have defaced.  The log snippet which is in Joop's message  has some 
> more information on the hack, which actually points into  the same 
> direction.
>
So then a simple WHOIS through NSI (believe it or not!) yields the 
report shown below.  
(To William X. Walsh: See, it wasn't all that hard.)
So does anyone want to know what the next step might be?

(The proper availability of the information shown below should not be 
confused with the
quite separate issue of Bulk WHOIS availability, also being discussed in 
[email-masked].)

Bill Lovell

Organization:
      Ventura
      Larry Hochhalter
      4475 Dupont Court     unit # 1
      Ventura, CA 93003
      US
      Phone: 79216032747
      Email: [email-masked]

   Registrar Name....: Register.com
   Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
   Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com

   Domain Name: XPAXO.NET

      Created on..............: Mon, Apr 15, 2002
      Expires on..............: Sun, Apr 15, 2007
      Record last updated on..: Mon, Apr 15, 2002

   Administrative Contact:
      Ventura
      Larry Hochhalter
      4475 Dupont Court     unit # 1
      Ventura, CA 93003
      US
      Phone: 79216032747
      Email: [email-masked]

   Technical Contact:
      C I Host
      Network Operations
      1851 Central Drive #110
      Bedford, TX 76021
      US
      Phone: 888-868-9931
      Fax..: 888-242-7554
      Email: [email-masked]

   Zone Contact:
      C I Host
      C I Host
      1851 Central Drive Suite 110
      Bedford, TX 76021
      US
      Phone: 817-868-6999
      Fax..: 817-868-7203
      Email: [email-masked]

   Domain servers in listed order:

   NS.CIHOST.COM                                     216.221.162.81    
   NS1.LAX.PROPAGATION.NET                           66.34.193.1       

Register your domain name at http://www.register.com

You may be able to buy this domain name through http://www.afternic.com/offer

The previous information has been obtained either directly from the
registrant or a registrar of the domain name other than Network Solutions.
Network Solutions, therefore, does not guarantee its accuracy or
completeness.

- --------------030107080008070309020906
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
Thomas Roessler wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
On 2002-04-22 09:41:14 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote: <br>
  <br>
  <blockquote type="cite">I've not seen a single one that has addressed the
issue of seeking  to track down who did the hacking.&nbsp; Would that not be the
first&nbsp;  issue on the agenda? <br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
The defaced page's text listed an address @xpaxo.net, and if you&nbsp;  look at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.xpaxo.net">www.xpaxo.net</a>, you'll even find icannatlarge.com on a list&nbsp;  of the sites
these guys (apparently some Russian script-kiddies) are  proud to have defaced.&nbsp;
The log snippet which is in Joop's message&nbsp;  has some more information on
the hack, which actually points into&nbsp;  the same direction. <br>
    <br>
    </blockquote>
So then a simple WHOIS through NSI (believe it or not!) yields the report
shown below. &nbsp;<br>
(To William X. Walsh: See, it wasn't all that hard.) <br>
So does anyone want to know what the next step might be?<br>
    <br>
(The proper availability of the information shown below should not be confused
with the<br>
quite separate issue of Bulk WHOIS availability, also being discussed in
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>.)<br>
    <br>
Bill Lovell<br>
    <br>
    <pre><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Organization:
      Ventura
      Larry Hochhalter
      4475 Dupont Court     unit # 1
      Ventura, CA 93003
      US
      Phone: 79216032747
      Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>

   Registrar Name....: Register.com
   Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
   Registrar Homepage: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.register.com">http://www.register.com</a>

   Domain Name: XPAXO.NET

      Created on..............: Mon, Apr 15, 2002
      Expires on..............: Sun, Apr 15, 2007
      Record last updated on..: Mon, Apr 15, 2002

   Administrative Contact:
      Ventura
      Larry Hochhalter
      4475 Dupont Court     unit # 1
      Ventura, CA 93003
      US
      Phone: 79216032747
      Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>

   Technical Contact:
      C I Host
   
   Network Operations
      1851 Central Drive #110
      Bedford, TX 76021
      US
      Phone: 888-868-9931
      Fax..: 888-242-7554
      Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>

   Zone Contact:
      C I Host
      C I Host
      1851 Central Drive Suite 110
      Bedford, TX 76021
      US
      Phone: 817-868-6999
      Fax..: 817-868-7203
      Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>

   Domain servers in listed order:

   NS.CIHOST.COM                                     216.221.162.81    
   NS1.LAX.PROPAGATION.NET                           66.34.193.1       

Register your domain name at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.register.com">http://www.register.com</a>

You may be able to buy this domain name through <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.afternic.com/offer">http://www.afternic.com/offer</a>

The previo
us information has been obtained either directly from the
registrant or a registrar of the domain name other than Network Solutions.
Network Solutions, therefore, does not guarantee its accuracy or
completeness.

</font></pre>
    <br>
    </body>
    </html>

- --------------030107080008070309020906--

- --
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 #1138
*************************