Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1287
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 20 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1287

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

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:31:44 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

hi Joe,

I noticed you asked a question earlier today. Not sure if anyone has
given you an answer yet.  

As far as I understand it, the claim is the WLS service would pre-empt
the existing services offered for people to 'get' names as they expire. 
This is the industry that would presumably suffer.
As for competition and consumer detriment, I have to admit I was never
one of the people claiming that Verisgn (then Network Solutions) had to
be divested of its monopoly. However I have to admit to day that the
splitting of registrar/registry functions has resulted in competition
and lower prices.  So now I wonder if granting a monopoly will not
result in the risk of net higher cost to consumer for the service of
reserving about-to-expire domains?

Just my thoughts. Im neither a regisrtry nor a registrar.

Joe Sims wrote:
> 
> George Kirikos wrote:
> 
> "The official position of the DNSO Registrars
> community, and the position of many other market participants suggest
> that WLS will have a devastating impact by creating a new monopoly
> service for Verisign, to the detriment of consumers and registrars."
> 
> 
> I have been following the discussions on this subject, and must
> confess that I still am confused about exactly what this (and the many
> other similar statements that have appeared from others) really mean.
> Could someone explain to me precisely how the WLS would harm consumers
> and/or registrars?  I understand, I think, the point that this would
> be a new service that provides revenue for VeriSign (assuming, of
> course, that someone actually buys it), and I understand that having
> more revenue will give VeriSign more resources, and more resources
> will give it more financial ammunition with which to compete with its
> competitors, including other registrars.  And I understand that,
> because this reservation service (and only this service, given the
> fact that there is only one .com registry) will be able to offer more
> certainty than other competing reservation services, it may have a
> competitive advantage over those competing products, which some people
> think is unfair.  But I get the impression that at least some people
> believe that there is more to the competitive concern than these
> point?  If that is right, could someone lay it out for me simply and
> clearly, so that even I can understand it?  Thanks.
> 
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> 
> ==============================
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the
> attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or constitute
> non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the
> designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this
> message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then
> delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
> reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not
> authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==============================
> 
> -- 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

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
- --
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:37:59 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Showing your support for .org is hard to do.

Rick Wesson wrote:
> its hard to believe that 9 of 11 organizations bidding for a resource to
> be managed as a public trust don't trust us enough to let us read their
> proposals.

Part of the application process was to give ICANN full copies of the
proposals in html. I believe that ICANN will be posting all of what was
submitted to it shortly, maybe even today.

    -- Bret

- --
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Joe,

As one of the folks leading the registrars discussion on WLS your request
for information is late, If you had been following the discussion then you
would not have posted this note.

I only wonder your intention for this inquiry, you are a smart guy which
is another reason for me to question your intent here.

We have tried to discuss WLS issues with staff, board and you; why now
do you make a motion for outreach as it seemed to me that your mind and
counsel on this topic was made up a long time ago.

so why the post joe?

- -rick

Rick Wesson
CTO, Registrars Constituency
CEO, Alice's Registry, Inc.

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Joe Sims wrote:

> George Kirikos wrote:
>  
> "The official position of the DNSO Registrars
> community, and the position of many other market participants suggest
> that WLS will have a devastating impact by creating a new monopoly
> service for Verisign, to the detriment of consumers and registrars."
>  
>  
> I have been following the discussions on this subject, and must confess
> that I still am confused about exactly what this (and the many other
> similar statements that have appeared from others) really mean.  Could
> someone explain to me precisely how the WLS would harm consumers and/or
> registrars?  I understand, I think, the point that this would be a new
> service that provides revenue for VeriSign (assuming, of course, that
> someone actually buys it), and I understand that having more revenue will
> give VeriSign more resources, and more resources will give it more
> financial ammunition with which to compete with its competitors,
> including other registrars.  And I understand that, because this
> reservation service (and only this service, given the fact that there is
> only one .com registry) will be able to offer more certainty than other
> competing reservation services, it may have a competitive advantage over
> those competing products, which some people think is unfair.  But I get
> the impression that at least some people believe that there is more to
> the competitive concern than these point?  If that is right, could
> someone lay it out for me simply and clearly, so that even I can
> understand it?  Thanks.
>
>
>
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
>
> ==============================
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
> or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It
> is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you
> are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender
> by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use,
> dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by
> unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==============================
>
> -- 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: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:28:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, at 10:27 [=GMT-0700], Bret Fausett wrote:

> I *have* formed an opinion on what works best for consumers. In my mind,
> there's no question that WLS is a superior service because it makes expiring
> domain names broadly available to regular consumers and reduces uncertainty.
> (I've followed the arguments closely over the last few months, and I haven't
> seen any compelling argument to convince me otherwise.)

How about this one: The interesting names will all be grabbed in the first
few minutes by some very regular customers, vid. speculators. The price
will not stop them. This is a one time investment. No yearly fees.

- --
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 15:14:16 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

The WLS provides companies like ours another opportunity to make money from 
clientele who will no doubt need updated software to work with the new 
system in addition to adding a new guaranteed revenue stream for the .com 
registry.

As understood by many and stated before, no current technical challenges 
will be solved by adding the WLS, even the Verisign representative 
acknowledged this.

Please do not support the WLS.

Thank you,

~k

- --
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:31:19 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

At 08:30 AM 19/06/02 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:

>Could someone explain to me precisely how the WLS would harm
>consumers and/or registrars?

In addition to what others have said, which I
generally agree with, though I am not in a
competitive position to VeriSign as some of
them are, I look at this from the viewpoint of
the consumer, that is, both those who register
and actually use domain names and those who
don't, but use the internet and make use of
domain names as source identifiers.

I fail to understand the logic of allowing
unrelated third parties to register previously
used names at all. See my article here:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=431

and Ben Edelman's research here:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/renewals/

for examples of the damage that can be caused.

The DNS was brought in so that humans didn't have
to rely on non-intuitive IP numbers. Allowing anyone
with the cash to re-register others' expired names
means that we are now replacing non-intuitive IP
numbers with often (and often intentional) counter-
intuitive names. I don't think that's progress.

The DNS was also brought in as domain names have a
permanence that can be shifted from one (or more)
IP address to another. If those domain names can
now be shifted, even without the original 'owner's'
consent, again we are worse off than before.

I find it surprising that ICANN would want to be
known as the entity that broke the functionality
of the DNS. Admittedly, such re-registrations
went on prior to ICANN's existence, but it has
grown from a small trickle to a flood. Rather
than stem that tide, ICANN seems poised to further
enable it. And admittedly the question of what to
do with expired names was never addressed by Paul
Mockapetris et al as at that time it wasn't
considered that anyone would have reason to let
a name lapse, and if anyone did there would be
no reason back in those halcyon for anyone else
to register it, both because it seemed as though
there was an endless supply of names, and because
a once-used name was damaged goods, re-using it
would only cause confusion. Now we appear to want
to cater to those who profit from confusion.

I don't imagine we can wind back the clock, and
I doubt there would be much support, and certainly
no consensus (unless one asked end-users and
individual registrants), for a freeze on allowing
the re-registration of dropped names, but I find
it unseemly that ICANN should be actively involved
in encouraging this practice. At the very least
I think the proposed grace period has to be fully
implemented for at least one month (or one grace
period) before allowing the WLS to go ahead.

I also find it surprising that ICANN, VeriSign,
or anyone else involved in this practice, would
leave themselves open to litigation by the prior
holder of the domain name. Many of the examples
of expired and re-registered names at, or
following from, the above two links, were never
meant to be dropped, many were registrar error,
this wasn't just someone neglecting to pay a bill
(for which I don't have much sympathy).

I know the prior holder has to agree to a contract,
but (and IANAL) I don't think clickwrap contracts
are yet seated on a bedrock of unassailable law,
even in the US. Also (and IANA.caL either) in
Canada at least, a contract that is subsequently
unilaterally modified by one party without the other
party's explicit informed consent to the change is
also resting on a very shaky foundation.

It is one thing for some enterprising person to
register a previously registered but never used
name and make use of it, in fact that is laudable
as it helps to alleviate (at least a perceived)
shortage, but that is not what is happening.

The idea(l) that someone has some killer app or
website or whatever waiting in the wings
unpublished just because a certain name isn't
available is untenable, even laughable. Surely
a modified version (eg: a a number added) or
a version in another gTLD or repurposed ccTLD
or an entirely different name would fit the bill.

I've registered scores of names for myself and
clients and I often find my first choice registered
but I have never been stymied for any length of
time for a replacement, and I certainly wouldn't
wait for a name to drop before proceeding, that
is absurd and ludicrous.

I have also let a number of desirable names lapse
over the last couple of years which I never got
around to using (I'm not a speculator) and they
all remain un-re-registered.

It is specifically those names with prior use,
prior traffic, prior links in, including desirable
search engine position listings (one could say,
someone else's intellectual property), which are the
names in demand, and which are subsequently often
used for entirely unrelated purposes. In addition
to the damage often caused to the prior registrant's
reputation, and the confusion caused to the end-user,
are the very real dangers of confidential email
going to the wrong person, or the subsequent
registrant passing themselves off as the original
and requesting confidential information via email
or web-form. Indeed, it is plausible to imagine
some subsequent registrant passing themselves off
as the former registrant to the former registrant's
hosting provider and capturing the entire contents
of the former registrant's website, including, for
example, a credit card database. I can think of
numerous other damaging exploits and I make no
claim to being able to match the devious minds
which already prey on internet loopholes.

The only other entities I can see waiting for
names to expire are those speculators who rarely
if ever sell names but are caught up in a similar
collector mania to those who collect Beanie Babies
or Olympic pins, and trademark interests who want
to protect every typosquatted version of their
names without the bother of the UDRP. I don't think
any of these entities should hold more sway over
policy than existing registrants making fair use of
names they've paid for and otherwise invested in.

Surely sooner or later someone with deep pockets is
going to be harmed by this practice and sue all and
sundry. I'm not entirely sure that they would lose,
and even if they do, how many such suits, some filed
in foreign jurisdictions, can ICANN afford to defend?

So I would in turn appreciate a simple and clear
explanation why you *apparently* think this practice
cannot lead to litigation that could lead your client
into grave, even fatal, financial difficulties. -g

- --
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:23:22 -0700
From: "wxWeb.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fwd: VeriSign being investigated by the USPS

The following is a forwarded message:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From:    Doug Friend <[email-masked]>
To:      discuss-list <[email-masked]>
CC:      
Date:    Wednesday, June 19, 2002, 12:08:31 PM
Subject: VeriSign being investigated by the USPS
- --====----====----====----====----====----====----====----====----====----===--
Hi all,

Thought I'd share a little good news.  We received a letter and questionnaire
today from the United States Postal Service.  

To quote, "
The United States Postal Intepction Service, the federal law enforcement agency
authorized to investigate crimes involving the use of the U.S. Mail, is
currently gathering information on the mailing practices of VeriSign,
Incorporated ("VeriSign").

Secifically, we are gethering evidence concerning the use of a Domain Name
Expiration Notice and related Domain Name Renewal Form mailing by VeriSign.  To
assist us in this matter, we are aking that you please complete the enclosed
Questionnaire....
".

This does not mean action has been taken yet, but there is now an active
investigation to gather evidence against the company.  Couldn't happen to a
nicer company;)

Thanks,

Doug.

- --
Doug Friend
http://register4less.com

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
End of original message

- --
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:43:27 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS  proposal

I generally agree with the following, with comments...

At 03:11 PM 19/06/02 +0100, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

>  Okay, so how about this for a possible solution:
>
>1. the proposed legislation still stands

As it is US only, fine by me. :)

>2. the applicant has a choice to have his/her details published in the
>WHOIS database. ie. OPT IN/OPT OUT

Preferably it defaults to OPT IN, that is, unless
one explicitly opts in, one is OPTED OUT. One should
not have to explicitly OPT OUT as that can too easily
be made non-obvious.

>3. When a whois enquiry is made on an unpublished domain listing,
>the information returned is of the type:
>"The owner of this domain has opted out of the WHOIS database.
>To contract the domain owner, please e-mail  [email-masked] "
>(where this effectively provides the Postmaster's address at that domain)

Sure, though one could reasonably infer a postmaster@ address
or reasonably discover other *@ addresses. OTOH, are you
suggesting that each domain must have a functional posmaster@
address?

>4. law enforcement agencies have the right of access to the
>whole database

Agreed. And I'd even extend that to a UDRP panel.
OTOH, that doesn't grant much protection to those
opposing their own oppressive governments.

>5. the registrar maintaining the database has no rights to market the
>database
>itself to any third party, nor do they have the right to use the database
>for
>data mining, demographic data, promotional e-mails, etc.

Agreed, though again I'd allow for an OPT IN for such.

>6. Each domain needs to have a technical contact, which can be set to
>the domain name holder's phone number should they be okay with this,
>or with the registrar's phone number, who will pass the enquiry on
>accordingly, if required.

And/or the hosting co's info, if they are OK with this? Again,
that can normally be discoved through other means anyway. -g

- --
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 22:57:53 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

On 2002-06-19 08:30:08 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:

>But I get the impression that at least some people believe that  
>there is more to the competitive concern than these point?  If  
>that is right, could someone lay it out for me simply and clearly, 
>so that even I can understand it?  Thanks.

WLS, when implemented without a uniform policy dictating when a  
registrar deletes an expired domain name from the registry's  
database, creates an incentive for registrars to act in a way which  
is detrimental for potential registrants, and may lead to a  
drastically increased registration price for expired domain names.

More precisely, a registrar who is offering WLS as a service may be  
tempted to hoard "interesting" domain names, and to only actually  
release them when a WLS subscription has been placed through him.  A 
WLS subscription placed through a different, competing registrar  
would fail in this situation.

In the situations in which this scheme succeeds, the registrar would 
get his share of the WLS subscription fee, and he would get the 
registration fee proper.

Note that this does not involve any explicit support from the  
registry: All the information needed is available to the acting  
registrar.

To make it even more clear, let me write this down in a step-by-step 
manner:

1. Domain registration name expires, registrant doesn't pay.
2. Registrar doesn't delete domain name (and pays $6).
3. Registrar waits.
4. Potential registrant places WLS subscription and pays $120 to 
   registrar. (For example.)
5. Registrar sends "DEL" to the registry, after an appropriate 
   period of time.
6. WLS kicks in, domain name is registered, registrar has new, 
   paying, and (for the moment) satisfied customer.

If 4. doesn't happen (for instance, a WLS subscription is placed  
through a different registrar), the registrar just doesn't do  
anything.  

Note, BTW, that a similar scheme may also be possible between  
existing registrars and services like SnapNames.  Maybe some here  
feel like investing some money (for purchasing appropriate  
SnapBacks) into an experiment? WLS would just make the incentives  
larger because success would be _guaranteed_.

Effectively, without a uniform deletion policy, there would be no or 
very little actual competition between registrars concerning WLS  
subscriptions for attractive, expired domains which are hoarded by  
registrars: A situation could evolve in which precisely one  
registrar could offer a WLS subscription with an actual chance to  
succeed.  

Such a registrar could then (and would have to, in order to recover  
hoarding costs!) offer WLS subscriptions at an artificially high  
price.

Thus, when WLS is implemented without a uniform deletion policy, 
what's basically established is a high-price mechanism for  
registrars to sell off any domain names they may have hoarded at  
this point of time, or to sell domain names they may hoard in the  
future.

If WLS is implemented with a uniform deletion policy, and if that  
policy is effectively enforced, then WLS _may_ be a good idea from  
the point of view of the possible registrant.

(Actually, a uniform deletion policy is overdue even without WLS.  
Bad enough, almost nobody outside the GA seems to be too interested 
in this.)

- -- 
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Hi Thomas,

- --- Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> (Actually, a uniform deletion policy is overdue even without WLS.  
> Bad enough, almost nobody outside the GA seems to be too interested 
> in this.)

I believe there's support amongst many registrars too, to prevent
hoarding by Verisign registrar.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:35:15 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS  proposal

Don and all stakeholders, assembly members, and/or other interested parties,

Don Brown wrote:

> I certainly emphasize with your concerns. However, sometimes we have a
> tendency to go gunning for an isolated, but notorious, incident more
> zealously, due to its notoriety or shock value.  Perhaps, sometimes we
> gun for mosquitos with a double barrel shotgun, because we are closer
> to the mosquito bite than anyone else.  That's understandable.

  This is certainly true for tiny minority of people or stakeholders.  However
as that percentage is so tiny as to be insignificant, our members for instance,
would not fall in such a category as you describe above.

>
>
> I don't profess to know the total answer, but I recognize the problem
> from a larger scope, I think.
>
> As long as there is fraud, spammers and other pests on the Internet,
> the WhoIs information will continue to be a tool that ISP's use to
> "attempt" to stop them.

  Exactly right!  So lets not make it an even easier  tool for perpetrators,
spammers, and the like by adding additional personal and private information
to a Whois lookup on a Domain Name, such as the registrants private
physical address and personal phone number.

> We use the WhoIs all the time to identify the
> source of Spammers. We use the WhoIs to help verify credit card
> charges and to prove that a business, which is applying for a Merchant
> Account, is the legitimate registrant of the domain name represented
> by the pages we print and "fax" to the potential acquiring Bank.

  Exactly one such source indeed.  But certainly not the only one or even
the best one for these purposes.  In addition, the personal and private
address and phone number of the registrant is not required to obtain
the information that you and other registrars desire.  Only and Admin.
contact E-Mail address, Phone/fax number, and the admins. business
mailing address are needed to accomplish these desires or satisfy the
requests for the information you and other registrars seek in the Whois
database.

>
>
> If WhoIs goes totally anonymous, I think the first folks to jump at
> it will be the nefarious ones who use us and abuse us all the time.

  Again, now one is suggesting that the Whois goes totally anonymous
Don.  So it would seem that you are injecting a premise that does not
exist nor has been suggested to support your argument.  Ergo, the
conclusion is felonious as to the desired result.

>
> They do their own brand of stalking by trying to relay mail off of our
> servers, using fraudulent cards to sign up for our services and
> attacking us with Ping floods and other methods of trying to bring our
> network to its knees.

  Yes they do.  But a valid admin address, E-Mail address, Phone Number,
and Fax number would satisfy the method which you suggest that Whois
can be used for to address these problem nicely, and much more than
adequately.  Hence, again there is no need for a registrant to provide
his personal private physical address, or phone number for his/her/their
Domain Name registration.  And in fact if required to do so, law enforcement
agencies would be hampered with complaint overflow which would
impede their efforts to address real crime and thwart terrorists using the
Internet as a means of carrying out their perpetration's..

>
>
> Personally, I have an unlisted telephone number at home and I pay the
> telephone company extra for that.

  I do as well.  And I don't pay extra for it!  >;)

>  My motivation is to not have sales
> people or get rich quick screamers call me at home.  I already get
> that at work.  On the flip side of that, our neighborhood has a
> neighborhood watch program and our address and telephone number is
> listed in that directory.

  Well I live in the country.  So I don't have the need for such a neiborhood
watch program.  I have a very well trained guard dog for that purpose.

>
>
> I don't know the total solution to the WhoIs information.  I do know
> that from a business standpoint, making most information anonymous
> will certainly help the bad guys.

  Again for the forth time Don, no one is suggesting that the WHois
information be anonymous.  It isn't presently.

>  John Gotti would have liked to have
> been the anonymous Don rather than the Teflon Don.

  No, I don't think so.  His notoriety amongst his pears was part
of his extension of his abilities to do many of the things he did.

>  Given the latter,
> he would have enjoyed much better country club golf.
>
> I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer to this debate.
> We do, however, need to blend the practicality with the risk
> management of it somehow.

  Well the answer is really very simple Don.  All that is needed,
again is a valid Admin contact, to include Mailing address, valid
Phone and/or Fax number and E-Mail address for that Admin
contact.

>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tuesday, June 18, 2002, 12:12:38 PM, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> JW> Barbara all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,
>
> JW>   INEGroup wholeheartedly and strongly agrees with Barbara's comments
> JW> below.  Indeed it is not necessary for a registrants personal and private
> JW> information such as home address and phone number to be listed in Whois
> JW> data for their domain name.  In fact to do so is s severe security risk
> JW> to that individual and a potential hindrance to law enforcement in this
> JW> unfortunate age of cyber terrorism.  Law enforcement agencies, such
> JW> as the FBI, CIA, NSA, or military intelligence do not need to be
> JW> chasing false leads due to some prankster using Whois data to
> JW> create false leads or false information fraudulently using someone's
> JW> registration information of a Domain Name that would include
> JW> their personal physical address or personal Phone Number.
> JW> To make such information necessary as part of the registration
> JW> of a Domain name is simply stupid and unnecessarily harmful, as
> JW> well as partly counter productive..
>
> JW> Barbara Simons wrote:
>
> >> If you are opposed to spammers, then I would think that you would be really
> >> upset with the whois database, which is a rich resource indeed for spammers.
> >>
> >> Information about where I live has nothing to do with openness or the lack
> >> thereof.  I am quite happy to have my email address made available (but not
> >> to spammers - I wish).  But surely you would not accuse me of a lack of
> >> openness if I were to refuse to provide my home address to the world in
> >> order to obtain my own domain name.  (It is entirely reasonable, by
> >> contrast, to require that I provide an accurate technical contact).
> >>
> >> I have no idea how many children have their own domain names, but there are
> >> obviously quite a few.  You might want to check out Chris Van Allen, whose
> >> dad gave him the domain name pokey.org several years ago.  Chris became
> >> somewhat famous when he was sent a cease and desist order by the Prema Toy
> >> Co., the company that manufactures Gumby.  You can read about Chris'
> >> adventures at www.pokey.org.
> >>
> >> To state the obvious, if a child has a website that has been purchased by
> >> that child's parent, and if the parent is required to provide his or her
> >> home address, most folks will be able to infer the address of the child.
> >>
> >> Many parents seem to believe that information about their children should
> >> not be posted for anyone in the world to view.  Many adults feel the same
> >> about their own information.
> >>
> >> You might have made a similar argument about drivers' license records being
> >> held by the California Dept of Motor Vehicles.  That information was open,
> >> and as a result a young women's home address was located by a stalker, and
> >> she was murdered.  I have heard about a woman who was stalked based on her
> >> whois information, but I'm afraid I can't give you a reference for that.
> >> Maybe someone else on one of these lists can.
> >>
> >> As far as political speech goes, I'm sure you are aware of countries and
> >> times during which criticism of one's government can be life threatening.
> >> And you don't have to go outside the US to find multiple examples of abuses
> >> and harassment of law abiding citizens by some law enforcement agencies.  If
> >> you have not been following the most recent revelations about the FBI and
> >> its obsession with UC Berkeley, the Free Speech Movement, and Clark Kerr,
> >> the then President of the University of California, I shall be happy to
> >> forward to you a very detailed set of articles published a couple of weeks
> >> ago in the San Francisco Chronicle.  If the '60s are ancient history for
> >> you, there are recent abuses by the LA Police Department, including the
> >> framing of innocent people, that date back only a few years.  I can send you
> >> some references for those as well.
> >>
> >> Openness does not mean that we must relinquish all notions of privacy if we
> >> are to own a domain name.  Rather than forcing people to provide information
> >> about where they are located, Congress should be requiring ICANN to
> >> institute meaningful privacy protections on the whois database.  Maybe then
> >> we could discuss whether or not the domain name owner's personal information
> >> should be provided.
> >>
> >> Barbara
> >>
> >> P.S.  The early incarnation of the Internet, ARPANET, was about maintaining
> >> communications after a devastating event such as the dropping of nuclear
> >> weapons on the US.  It was *not* about openness, nor was it about commerce.
> >> The openness that you and I both cherish came into being because of the
> >> small clique of researchers and academics who were the original ARPANET
> >> users.  I share your desire to maintain that openness and to prevent the
> >> Internet from being regulated and restricted to the point that it becomes a
> >> jazzed up Home Shopping Channel.  If the Internet is to continue to be the
> >> open communications channel that it has become, then it is critical that
> >> people have the ability to speak without fearing that everything they say
> >> and do can be monitored.
> >>
> >> On 6/17/02 10:46 PM, "Micheal Sherrill" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wait a minute.  I am all for protecting abused wives, children, and those
> >> > seeking political asylum.  But, what does this have to do with the Whois
> >> > function?  I agree that perhaps a felony conviction for a first time offense
> >> > is harsh but please do not forget what this Internet was, and is all about,
> >> > openness.  At this time this (openness) is being clogged by a proliferation of
> >> > SPAMers that will, eventually, plug the pipe for any meaningful communication.
> >> > If we do not have the means to track accurate information of those that seek
> >> > to take advantage of all the resources that others fund how will we survive?
> >> > Your arguments pluck at our heartstrings but they also try to pluck my
> >> > pocketbook.  I mean, how many children have their own domain name?  And if
> >> > they can afford it, why do they need to hide their identity?  It would seem to
> >> > me that most children are trying to reach other children.  So why protect them
> >> > from each other?  Besides, the children do not register the domain names,
> >> > their parents usually do.  It has nothing to do with discovery.  Even more so,
> >> > what Internet sites are dedicated to battered women that would somehow lead
> >> > angry, misguided men to a safe house?  I do not think that any support group
> >> > would purchase a domain name but would be smart enough and economical enough
> >> > to go through a Web hosting company.  And what is even more perplexing is the
> >> > reference to free speech.  Free speech is about openness.  We talk about
> >> > things in the open!  So why the need for subterfuge?  If we have free speech
> >> > on the Internet what makes sense about listing a false address for our cause?
> >> > Anything else is already illegal, even via the USPS.  Plus, I have no idea
> >> > what you are talking about in reference to trademark holders sending out cease
> >> > and desist letters.  Overall, the logic of your complaint does not compute.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Micheal Sherrill
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> >> > From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
> >> > Date:  Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:55:34 -0700
> >> >
> >> > Barbara and all,
> >> >
> >> > We [INEGroup] agree with you here Barbara, and are in process of
> >> > contacting the appropriate senate and House members that are
> >> > involved in this rather arcane and misguided legislation being considered.
> >> >
> >> > I personally would suggest that anyone concerned about their personal
> >> > safety, and privacy that are Domain Name holders do likewise without
> >> > delay...
> >> >
> >> > Barbara Simons wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I agree that accurate information should be provided for the technical
> >> >> liaison.  What I'm saying is that a law that makes it a felony to provide
> >> >> inaccurate information for the domain name holder creates major problems
> >> >> regarding political speech, shelters for battered women, children who own
> >> >> their own domain name, etc.  The whois database is an open invitation for
> >> >> massive privacy invasion of domain name owners (as opposed to technical
> >> >> contacts).  HR 4640 would make it a felony in the U.S., punishable by up to
> >> >> 5 years in prison, to provide false address information for the owner of a
> >> >> domain name.  This would be a boon to trademark holders who are eager to
> >> >> send out large numbers of cease and desist letters, and a blow to people who
> >> >> care about protecting our privacy.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't mean to start a discussion about HR 4640, though I hope that this
> >> >> has helped to make our US based members aware of this misguided legislative
> >> >> proposal.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Barbara
>
> JW> Regards,
>
> JW> --
> JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
> JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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
>
> JW> --
> JW> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> JW> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> JW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> JW> 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
> ----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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

- --
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 #1287
*************************