Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1316
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, July 8 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1316

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

Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 08:34:48 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

George,

I believe you to be wrong.  Law enforcement can get the records anytime
they wish.
No one else has a need to know unless they have a crisis and then the
courts will help them.
Privacy should not be a secondary thought but a primary one.
Where in the hell did a right to know the address of a domain name holder
come from?
It is ludicrous and Byzantine.  Render onto Caesar which is his and that
don't include my 19 year olds address.

Eric

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > The interests of a few trademark owners is hardly a reason to use a
> > system
> > - DNS whois - that is highly susceptable to false or erroneous data
> > and,
> > when accurate, is a major violation of privacy.
>
> It's not only the IP community who is in favour of an accurate WHOIS.
> Law enforcement would like it to be accurate. As would businesses and
> individuals who want to know who they're dealing with when conducting
> electronic transactions, or who need to trace the sources of various
> publications, etc. These aren't medical or criminal records being
> published over the 'net -- those are what I would consider "major
> violations of privacy."
>
> > Except for domain names, I know of no non-dangerous instrumentality
> > for
> > which the purchaser is required to divulge private information onto a
> > public register that has no form of access control and that conforms
> > to no
> > privacy regime, no matter how minimal or weak.
>
> Many business licenses/incorporations allow for anyone to look up who
> the owner/directors of that business are, although it depends on the
> jurisdiction, perhaps. Exercise for readers: A domain name can be a
> dangerous instrument! ;)
>
> > In addition, any acceptable whois, whether it be for IP or DNS, ought
> > to
> > conform to the standard set of privacy principles - among which are
> > that
> > those who query the data must prove their legitimate need for the
> > data,
> > identify themselves, prove their identity, and be known to the data
> > subject.
>
> Would you support the "compromise" I've mentioned in the past, namely
> the creation of a "Legal Contact" role (which could be the ISP,
> Technical Contact, the Registrant, or someone else the Registrant
> chooses to use) who is held legally responsible for problems
> originating from a domain, with accurate info that IS in the WHOIS for
> that contact? I think that's all people ultimately need to reach,
> someone who is responsible.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> http://sbc.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

- --
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, 07 Jul 2002 08:41:08 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

Absofreekinglutely,

Joe, thank you!
Privacy is optimum.
Lawyers are secondary as are IP interests.

Good job on setting up your TLD.
We will contact you privately to use your concepts in other fora.

Eric

ps. the above reference is edited for pg-13

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Jul 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Somebody clue me in here.  I have run all this Whois stuff through
> > several
> > that are more technically inclined than I, and I just get laughed at.
> >
> > The only issues involved in whois is privacy versus IP interests and
> > spamming.
> > Like Joe says "a few years ago".
> > All debates in the technical area of Whois are red herrings.
> > Individual rights versus corporations is the only issue.
>
> exactly - in non technical terms whois is a protocol to lookup stuff on
> names and numbers.  It runs on port 43.
>
> so if you want info on baptista.god - you would issue the command
>
> whois -h whois.dot-god.com baptista.god
>
> so when you issue that command it sends a query to port 43 at
> whois.dot-god.com and a daemon answers - takes the information (query)
> baptista.god and provides a response.
>
> You can find the RFC on whois here.
>
> ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc954.txt
>
> you'll notice the RFC is mainly designed to provide directory services for
> the US military and friends.  Anyway, apart from the military reasons for
> a whois to exist at the time the RFC will provide you wit the technical
> specs on whois and how the protocol works - it's simple
>
>  To access the NICNAME/WHOIS server:
>
>       Connect to the SRI-NIC service host at TCP service port 43
>       (decimal).
>
>       Send a single "command line", ending with <CRLF> (ASCII CR and
>       LF).
>
>       Receive information in response to the command line.  The server
>       closes its connection as soon as the output is finished.
>
> the purpose behind whois is to report technical problems. And addressing
> information is not relevant to technical problems.  email and backup email
> addresses in technical contact records are important, a contact number be
> it voicemail or direct connect to live technical person is important, and
> a fax would be helpful.  And the domain owner should have the right to not
> list any of the above - i.e. no email - no phone - no fax.
>
> if they don't care about being notified of a technical problem then it's
> their business to not list any contact details.  This is a right one
> should have to protect one's privacy.
>
> in fact the .mil whois these days could use a privacy flag itself.  alot
> of the information maintained by the .mil whois could be used to further
> the work of terrorists.
>
> we live in an insecure world .. in which privacy in my own opinion is
> nothing more then a figment of a deranged imagination.  but it is a
> fundamental right and in many countries a legislated right so it is
> prudent to allow people options.
>
> And i am very pleased to say that the .god registry is one of the few out
> there which actually takes their domain owners rights to privacy
> seriously.  They can turn on or turn off the email and organization
> displays.
>
> In our earlier registration tests the privacy flag on .god domains was
> turned off by default when the domain owner registered.  They had to
> specifically turn on the privacy setting when registering.  And the
> results were clear that the majority in the population preffered privacy.
>
> http://whaler.tallship.net/archives/god.pccf.net/www/admin/stats-2000-06-01/sld003.htm
>
> Unlike ICANN, The dot.GOD Registry listens to it's users.  The privacy
> flags on .god and .satan now default to privacy for all.  If a user does
> not want privacy - they can turn the flag off.
>
> And thats what this is all about in the end - the right to be listed or
> not.  The whois was never intended as a tool to make the job easier on
> lawyers.
>
> regards
> joe baptista
> www.dot-god.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, 7 Jul 2002 11:38:42 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

Hello George,

Sunday, July 07, 2002, 10:50:05 AM, you wrote:

GK> Would you support the "compromise" I've mentioned in the past, namely
GK> the creation of a "Legal Contact" role (which could be the ISP,
GK> Technical Contact, the Registrant, or someone else the Registrant
GK> chooses to use) who is held legally responsible for problems
GK> originating from a domain, with accurate info that IS in the WHOIS for
GK> that contact? I think that's all people ultimately need to reach,
GK> someone who is responsible.

I think this type of solution probably makes the most sense.  The
fact is that many people need access for legitimate reasons -- but
they generally do not need access to the end user contact information,
just the authority.

I would like to suggest an alternative to the legal contact though.
If the goal is to reach someone responsible for the domain, why not
just use the technical contact field?  It should be trivial for
registrars to suppress Billing and Administrative contacts, and only
display the technical contact.  The technical contact would be the
ISP, Hosting provider, or someone within the company who can answer
questions and deal with problems authoritatively.  The technical
contact would not be allowed to release any contact information about
a domain without the consent of the domain owner, or a warrant of some
sort.

It would seem this would solve the need of government agencies and
ISPs to have clean whois information while protecting the rights of
those who desire their privacy.

allan
- -- 
allan
[email-masked]
http://www.allan.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, 7 Jul 2002 11:56:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, George Kirikos wrote:

> It's not only the IP community who is in favour of an accurate WHOIS.
> Law enforcement would like it to be accurate. As would businesses and
> individuals who want to know who they're dealing with when conducting
> electronic transactions, or who need to trace the sources of various
> publications, etc. These aren't medical or criminal records being
> published over the 'net -- those are what I would consider "major
> violations of privacy."

bogus red herrings here.  Law enforcement can get off it's ass and do
proper investigations.  you track to the physical geographical location -
and get the appropriate warrants along the way.

whois is not a fishing expedition for law enforcement nor has it ever
been such a beast.

as for business and individuals who want to know who they are dealing
with.  thats another bogus red herring.  i have an accounting and business
background and what i know of the net leads me to the conclusion that you
don't use it to establish formal relationships.  In business we get
trade references and follow them up.  Businesses can access the BBB,
credit ratings, reports etc.

if you need to trace the source of a publication then visit the library.

regards
joe baptista
www.dot-god.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, 7 Jul 2002 09:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

Hi Allan,

- --- Allan Liska <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I would like to suggest an alternative to the legal contact though.
> If the goal is to reach someone responsible for the domain, why not
> just use the technical contact field?  It should be trivial for
> registrars to suppress Billing and Administrative contacts, and only
> display the technical contact.  The technical contact would be the
> ISP, Hosting provider, or someone within the company who can answer
> questions and deal with problems authoritatively.  The technical
> contact would not be allowed to release any contact information about
> a domain without the consent of the domain owner, or a warrant of
> some
> sort.

That would be a reasonable compromise also. It recognizes that privacy
isn't an "absolute" right. There are benefits and costs to it, as I've
elaborated on before (e.g.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00399.html ).

One thing that should be incorporated is the notion of a "Safe Harbor",
similar to, but extending the DMCA provisions, see:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html

This would go beyond simply copyright infringement, though, and
encompass all illegal activities (civil and criminal) associated with a
domain, i.e. for which the registrant (if not able to be identified)
would have been liable.

Thus, if the technical contact (or the "legal contact", in the
alternative) doesn't do the "right things", they are held responsible
for the improper behaviour. Most upstanding members of the community do
the right things when confronted with abuse, and those safe harbor
provisions would limit their liability. For those who harbour abusers,
though, the responsibility and risk of doing the wrong things should be
made abundantly clear.

Thus, an abusive or criminal registrant who seeks absolute anonymity
can't merely shift the costs to their victims, or to society at large.
If their proxy/agent/legal contact is rational, they would charge a
high price to support such abusers, if they continue to expose them to
liability.

The non-abusive registrant who seeks greater privacy can do so at low
or even zero cost, via a proxy, since their technical/legal contact
doesn't face any risk from bad behaviour from, say, Karl's daughter, a
rape crisis center, or other folks who want more privacy.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.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: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 10:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

Hello,

I forgot to mention, there are a lot of uses for WHOIS besides criminal
and TM activities.

For instance, in the WLS debate, ICANN had a public forum at:

http://forum.icann.org/wls/

All at once one day, many "supporters" of WLS came out of the woodwork,
posting statements in favour of it (many not even bothering to hide the
cut/paste nature of their statements). WHOIS analysis helped to trace
the origins of these "supporters" to SnapNames' home state:

http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?wls;3D1175840000006C

thus showing that "support" to be meaningless. My mom and cousins might
be against WLS, but I and others won't resort to recruiting relatives
to support our point of view! It reminds me of that episode of The
Simpsons, where Sideshow Bob became Mayor of Springfield on the
strength of votes from dead people and even dead pets! ;)

Verisign's motto is "The Value of Trust", and I think right now valid
WHOIS is a big element of "trust" on the internet (since Verisign and
others haven't really done a great job in creating universally accepted
digital identity services).

Suppose we see a bunch of "supporters" of other wacky proposals on
various mailing lists, and only have email addresses to go by? We
couldn't trace them all to, say, Herndon, Virginia, or other locations,
without WHOIS... One would have to switch to more costly mechanisms of
indicating identity, thus imposing new costs on people that weren't
there before.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/ <<-- not from Virginia or Oregon! ;)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.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: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 20:28:46 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

On 2002-07-03 22:05:50 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:

>What got the "debate" to this sad point was people who kept 
>creeping backwards as the anti-democracy interests of ICANN kept 
>pushing forwards.

... and the last bastion of democracy within ICANN, heroic director  
Karl Auerbach, doesn't even show up at the Bucharest meeting, and  
also can't be bothered to stay up late at night to call in.  I'm 
very impressed.

- -- 
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: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, George Kirikos wrote:

> > The interests of a few trademark owners is hardly a reason to use a
> > system
> > - DNS whois - that is highly susceptable to false or erroneous data
> > and,
> > when accurate, is a major violation of privacy.
> 
> It's not only the IP community who is in favour of an accurate WHOIS.
> Law enforcement would like it to be accurate.

Yes, and many in law enforcement would like us to wear ID badges and have 
day and night unfettered access to our homes and personel effects.  Wants 
aren't sufficient justification.

But you miss the point - DNS names are so easy to forge that even were 
whois precisely accurate, one could be tricked into doing a lookup using 
the wrong name.

If you want something that provides and authenticates identity they you 
need to depend on something rather better than DNS and whois - you really 
need to go to a digital signature scheme with a full PKI.  And since you 
seem to be advocating that people *must* be identifiable, you will have to 
mandate that that scheme be used by everyone.

> As would businesses and individuals who want to know who they're dealing
> with when conducting electronic transactions...

They should learn PGP or, better yet, GPG.  Or use the certificates 
available from places like Verisign.

I will sign this message with my gpg key so you can know that it comes
from me.  My fingerprints (and public keys) are online on my website and
in various key repositories - http://www.cavebear.com/public_keys.htm

> Would you support the "compromise" I've mentioned in the past, namely
> the creation of a "Legal Contact" role (which could be the ISP,
> Technical Contact, the Registrant, or someone else the Registrant
> chooses to use) who is held legally responsible for problems
> originating from a domain

No.  I would however support the concept that one to whom a block of IP
addresses is delegated is responsible for stuff actually coming from that
block (but not stuff that bears that block as a forged source address.)

		--karl--

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9KJIT1vJeUn0EFVoRAiNxAJ40lvAxnfC7pEqKo0CEL6z/U21+GQCgnjs8
2Bbzf1p/8BwJ2Z6zWXTHnB0=
=yUoU
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
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, 7 Jul 2002 12:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Allan Liska wrote:

> I would like to suggest an alternative to the legal contact though.
> If the goal is to reach someone responsible for the domain

May I suggest that you are making an assumption that DNS names are
unambiguous.

If you get foo.biz - how do you know where to look?

Remember, there are at least *two* .biz top level domains and you don't
know which one is being used.  (By-the-way, I use the non-ICANN version of
.biz)

You are trying to saddle authenticity onto a system that is not
unambiguous and is subject to easy forgery.

And the horse you are trying to saddle ran out of the barn a long time
ago: DNS is not a mandatory system - one need not use it at all.  There
are other naming systems (NIS, WINS, etc).  And there are multiple DNS
systems.  And naked IP addresses often work very nicely -
http://199.184.128.35/tmp/12345.htm

(The only reason that you can do a reverse lookup on the IP address above
is that I maintain my reverse lookup zone.  I could chose not to do so or
I could be lax in maintaining it.)

If you really want to know where that address belongs, your best bet is to 
do a whois query against IP delegation data maintained by the RIRs.

		--karl--

- --
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, 7 Jul 2002 16:08:42 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

Hello Karl,

Sunday, July 07, 2002, 3:36:25 PM, you wrote:

KA> On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Allan Liska wrote:

>> I would like to suggest an alternative to the legal contact though.
>> If the goal is to reach someone responsible for the domain

KA> May I suggest that you are making an assumption that DNS names are
KA> unambiguous.

KA> If you get foo.biz - how do you know where to look?

KA> Remember, there are at least *two* .biz top level domains and you don't
KA> know which one is being used.  (By-the-way, I use the non-ICANN version of
KA> .biz)

DNS names are not ambiguous to me.  The vast majority of the
population on the Internet use the domains supported by the root/gtld
name servers.  Those are certainly the ones I use, and do not intend
to use any others.  If you would prefer to have a domain in an
alternate root, you are certainly welcome to do so, I just don't have
any interest in finding out any information about your domain.  So, if
I want to know something about foo.biz, I will use the database
maintained by NeuStar.

KA> You are trying to saddle authenticity onto a system that is not
KA> unambiguous and is subject to easy forgery.

I'm not trying to saddle anything.  The system is already in place, I
just happen to agree that maintaining good whois data is important.
Having spent several years in a help desk environment I can say that I
used whois on a daily basis as part of troubleshooting, and tracking
down problems.

KA> And the horse you are trying to saddle ran out of the barn a long time
KA> ago: DNS is not a mandatory system - one need not use it at all.  There
KA> are other naming systems (NIS, WINS, etc).  And there are multiple DNS
KA> systems.  And naked IP addresses often work very nicely -
KA> http://199.184.128.35/tmp/12345.htm

While your HTTP example does work I bet I cannot send an e-mail to
[email-masked] -- even if you can, most people cannot, and
e-mail is the most used application on the Internet.  As far as WINS
and NIS, neither are in widespread use for WAN communication, and I
don't see any reason why they would ever be, so the fact that they
exist is relatively pointless.

I think your point is valid, DNS is not mandatory system, neither is
registering a domain.  If you do not want to have your information
publicly available, and you don't like some of the alternatives
proposed, don't register a domain name -- or use an alternate root
which does not have the same stringent requirements.

allan
- -- 
allan
[email-masked]
http://www.allan.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, 07 Jul 2002 14:17:41 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

At 11:03 PM 06/07/02 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>*If* DNS whois were accurate, then it would be a
>highly effective way to reach the problem source.

The original *problem* the WHOIS was designed for
was to correct infrastructure problems, what might
be stopping bits from getting from here to there.

Today, if my very-kewl-website.info goes dark from
its home cablemodem server, there is no significant
loss of internet integrity, and if one wants to argue
that my former visitors are disenfranchised, then why
is ICANN allowing the WLS which will in all probability
redirect my former traffic to a pr0n/gambling site
(which was the original cause of the OECD problem)?

One of the things that keeps me busy is working for
a site (unlike the above fictitious, though it may be
registered by some braindead speculator, example, I'm
not going to name it) which monitors hate groups. The
site (and the name is used for much more than a website)
gets millions of unique page views per month, But if the
domain entirely ceased to function tomorrow (and there
are those who try to make that happen) I can't imagine
a scenario where it would threaten internet stability.

As with the OECD case, it could fall into the wrong
hands though, with ICANN and WLS happy to lend a hand.
There were many more criticisms in the OECD report than
just WHOIS inaccuracy, many of them directed at ICANN.

You can't find any of those primarily involved with the
site via phone books, property records, or any other public
source we can think of. But we are supposed to risk life
and limb to ourselves and our loved ones just to expedite
the job of some IP lawyer who might think that our domain
name is confusingly similar to that of his client? Why not
just give the rationalization that, when online, property
rights should trump human rights and be done with it?

As you are on record as believing that the real or
potential at large community is composed of loonies, you
can hardly argue that my concerns are misplaced. BTW,
wazzup with the only email in the WHOIS for at-large.org?: 
[email-masked]#0 That's not a valid email address. -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: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 17:19:49 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

Allan,

With respect, I think you are missing the point.  Karl is pointing out
that there *is* choice and indeed you are free to point to whatever root
servers/systems/databases you choose. That....is the point. It is
edge-controlled.  

Remember the tcp/ip  dominated internet that we take for granted is
relatively new in internet time.  People chose...to fold things into one
basket and before they did....simple tasks that we take for granted,
like getting mail delivered to any internet address...used to sometimes
be non-trivial problems if they involved traversing boundaries. 

Allan Liska wrote:
> 
> Hello Karl,
> 
> Sunday, July 07, 2002, 3:36:25 PM, you wrote:
> 
> KA> On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Allan Liska wrote:
> 
> >> I would like to suggest an alternative to the legal contact though.
> >> If the goal is to reach someone responsible for the domain
> 
> KA> May I suggest that you are making an assumption that DNS names are
> KA> unambiguous.
> 
> KA> If you get foo.biz - how do you know where to look?
> 
> KA> Remember, there are at least *two* .biz top level domains and you don't
> KA> know which one is being used.  (By-the-way, I use the non-ICANN version of
> KA> .biz)
> 
> DNS names are not ambiguous to me.  The vast majority of the
> population on the Internet use the domains supported by the root/gtld
> name servers.  Those are certainly the ones I use, and do not intend
> to use any others.  If you would prefer to have a domain in an
> alternate root, you are certainly welcome to do so, I just don't have
> any interest in finding out any information about your domain.  So, if
> I want to know something about foo.biz, I will use the database
> maintained by NeuStar.
> 
> KA> You are trying to saddle authenticity onto a system that is not
> KA> unambiguous and is subject to easy forgery.
> 
> I'm not trying to saddle anything.  The system is already in place, I
> just happen to agree that maintaining good whois data is important.
> Having spent several years in a help desk environment I can say that I
> used whois on a daily basis as part of troubleshooting, and tracking
> down problems.
> 
> KA> And the horse you are trying to saddle ran out of the barn a long time
> KA> ago: DNS is not a mandatory system - one need not use it at all.  There
> KA> are other naming systems (NIS, WINS, etc).  And there are multiple DNS
> KA> systems.  And naked IP addresses often work very nicely -
> KA> http://199.184.128.35/tmp/12345.htm
> 
> While your HTTP example does work I bet I cannot send an e-mail to
> [email-masked] -- even if you can, most people cannot, and
> e-mail is the most used application on the Internet.  As far as WINS
> and NIS, neither are in widespread use for WAN communication, and I
> don't see any reason why they would ever be, so the fact that they
> exist is relatively pointless.
> 
> I think your point is valid, DNS is not mandatory system, neither is
> registering a domain.  If you do not want to have your information
> publicly available, and you don't like some of the alternatives
> proposed, don't register a domain name -- or use an alternate root
> which does not have the same stringent requirements.
> 
> allan
> --
> allan
> [email-masked]
> http://www.allan.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

- -- 
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: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 18:26:23 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

George and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > The interests of a few trademark owners is hardly a reason to use a
> > system
> > - DNS whois - that is highly susceptable to false or erroneous data
> > and,
> > when accurate, is a major violation of privacy.
>
> It's not only the IP community who is in favour of an accurate WHOIS.
> Law enforcement would like it to be accurate.

  Of course this is very true.  But accuracy does not require that
the registrant provide the personal and private information for
whois data to be publicly listed.

> As would businesses and
> individuals who want to know who they're dealing with when conducting
> electronic transactions, or who need to trace the sources of various
> publications, etc.

  Businesses do not need in advance, a registrants personal and private
information to conduct legal and forthright business with any business
online.  All that is needed is and ADMIN. Contact that is accurate
and reachable.  Nothing more...

> These aren't medical or criminal records being
> published over the 'net -- those are what I would consider "major
> violations of privacy."

  Whether or not "These" are medical or criminal records is
not a rational or reasonable consideration with respect to a persons
or registrants personal privacy.

>
>
> > Except for domain names, I know of no non-dangerous instrumentality
> > for
> > which the purchaser is required to divulge private information onto a
> > public register that has no form of access control and that conforms
> > to no
> > privacy regime, no matter how minimal or weak.
>
> Many business licenses/incorporations allow for anyone to look up who
> the owner/directors of that business are, although it depends on the
> jurisdiction, perhaps.

  Yes this is true in a number of US states and other countries.  However
such information does not include those owners/directors personal
and private information in most instances nor is such personal
and private information required to be listed or otherwise available
for public review.

> Exercise for readers: A domain name can be a
> dangerous instrument! ;)
>
> > In addition, any acceptable whois, whether it be for IP or DNS, ought
> > to
> > conform to the standard set of privacy principles - among which are
> > that
> > those who query the data must prove their legitimate need for the
> > data,
> > identify themselves, prove their identity, and be known to the data
> > subject.
>
> Would you support the "compromise" I've mentioned in the past, namely
> the creation of a "Legal Contact" role (which could be the ISP,
> Technical Contact, the Registrant, or someone else the Registrant
> chooses to use) who is held legally responsible for problems
> originating from a domain, with accurate info that IS in the WHOIS for
> that contact? I think that's all people ultimately need to reach,
> someone who is responsible.

  That "Legal" contact is already available in the "ADMIN." contact
information in the Whois data listing for a Domain name...

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> http://sbc.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

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

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

Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 20:23:41 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] new elections for icannatlarge.com approaching

What is your recommended course of action for a GA which can make a
difference?

Saturday, July 6, 2002, 1:44:24 PM, Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]> wrote:
KA> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>> ....However, if you are interested in participating to
>> icannatlarge.com or, more generally speaking, in defending the role of the
>> public in the technical administration of the Internet, we encourage you to
>> immediately start to do the following:

KA> I do not see the logic that leads from your premise to your conclusion.  
KA> The people who you elect will have no more power to affect ICANN's 
KA> decisions than they do now - zero.

KA> You are substituting toys for real life.

KA> We have seen how ICANN lashed out against the GA when it dared to hold
KA> advisory votes.  The body you advocate that we vote for will be much less
KA> than the GA ever was, and that wasn't much.

KA>                 --karl--

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

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1316
*************************