Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1317
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, July 8 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1317

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

Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 18:45:59 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

TR,

You stand in very bad position and are obviously posturing with a very bad
crowd.
But that is cool if that is what you want.

Good luck,

Eric

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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

- --
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 18:50:48 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

Ok.

Let us lay off the criminal crap and stick to civil rules.
Fine line maybe but bad joojoo.

Eric

George Kirikos wrote:

> 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

- --
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 20:47:57 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

There could have been legal reasons or other reasons why Karl was a
no-show.  He can be his own spokesman.

However, even if Karl had been present, it is extremely doubtful to me
that the outcome would have been any different.

There is no denying the end result.

Incidentally, Thomas, how much debate and energy did the GA's Chair
offer in favor of a continued GA voice in ICANN? Did you attend the
meeting or make any other effort to participate in it - in support of
the GA, of course?

Thanks,

Sunday, July 7, 2002, 1:28:46 PM, Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote:
TR> 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.

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

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 21:55:06 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

All that is necessary is the IP address infoormation.  If there are 
problems with the domain, the origin is the place to look.  If it becomes 
a legal problem, there are avenues to obtain the information.  In most 
cases, problems such as spam use forged headers and domain names 
anyway, and you have to still go for the originating IP address.  Whoever 
operates that server is the one really in control.

There is no need to publish the registrant's information and the 
registrants is, in most cases today, the admin as well.  As for accurate 
information, the whois has my accurate information - a P.O. Box.  Never 
again will I place my physical address or fax number in a public 
database.  I've had to restrict my fax machine to accepting only 
recognized numbers.  Anything else is rejected.  I got tired of spending 
money on reams of paper and ink cartridges for junk and threatening 
faxes.  I sometimes received 200 pages per day.  That phone number is 
now unlisted as well.  

I can see no reason to use your compromise.  As long as you can 
reach a responsible person for technical purposes via the IP address 
origin, you have a key to getting to the registrant.  I do believe that the 
whois for IP address allocations must contain accurate information and 
a valid email address, even if that is through a proxy also.  If a privacy 
bureau is used, you can always contact the registrant via email through 
that bureau as well.  As has been mentioned before, there are always 
court orders to obtain information for legal issues.  I can see no reason 
to provide attorneys with it in a public database so they can harrass, 
abuse and/or threaten people.  It happens every day.

Leah

On 7 Jul 2002, at 7:50, George Kirikos wrote:

> 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.

- --
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 19:02:06 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

Sunday, July 07, 2002, 12:36:25 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> 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)

No, I know where to look.

You look at the only one that is relevant to this discussion and to
this list, the one in the ICANN controlled roots.  What private DNS
networks choose to do is entirely their own business, and completely
irrelevant to this discussion and this list.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 22:05:09 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

I have one thing to add to this debate, in answer to the argument often
cited in relation to "real property" reporting requirements. The argument
goes like this (usually trotted out by William Walsh)....details of property
ownership are in the public domain, hence the WHOIS requirement for domain
names should be no different.

Well, as somebody who has been earning their living from running a
successful real property business on more than one continent for more than 2
decades, allow me to disagree. There is no comparison.

On the one hand, there is a need for real time access to info of Domain name
ownership, on the other, there is no real time requirement - and if there
were, it would not take many months for the public registers of who owns
what to become publicly available, as is the case throughout the world.
There is no Real Time database available for real property. Period.

As a practical business matter, this means that the Real Estate Industry
simply does not rely on legal reporting requirements in order to gain either
a) competitive advantage or b) a database of prospective clients or even c)
comparables.

Let's face it, the push for WHOIS accuracy is simply related to businesses
that obviously feel they cannot survive as do businesses in other
industries, which is, we acquire our information by keeping our ear to the
ground. Accuracy takes too long, and we don't expect coddling to survive.
Obviously WXW and his want it delivered on a plate with guarantees of
accuracy. Get real.

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of George
> Kirikos
> Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 10:50 AM
> To: Karl Auerbach; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy
>
>
> 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 21:33:56 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

Leah and all assembly members,

  I agree with you personally, entirely.  I am also amazed and somewhat
disgusted that on the ending of the Independence Day Weekend that
George or anyone else could possibly espouse of propose anything
that would infringe on the freedoms that so many have fought and
died for all over the globe, and especially in the US.  Truly
appalling!

L. Gallegos wrote:

> All that is necessary is the IP address infoormation.  If there are
> problems with the domain, the origin is the place to look.  If it becomes
> a legal problem, there are avenues to obtain the information.  In most
> cases, problems such as spam use forged headers and domain names
> anyway, and you have to still go for the originating IP address.  Whoever
> operates that server is the one really in control.
>
> There is no need to publish the registrant's information and the
> registrants is, in most cases today, the admin as well.  As for accurate
> information, the whois has my accurate information - a P.O. Box.  Never
> again will I place my physical address or fax number in a public
> database.  I've had to restrict my fax machine to accepting only
> recognized numbers.  Anything else is rejected.  I got tired of spending
> money on reams of paper and ink cartridges for junk and threatening
> faxes.  I sometimes received 200 pages per day.  That phone number is
> now unlisted as well.
>
> I can see no reason to use your compromise.  As long as you can
> reach a responsible person for technical purposes via the IP address
> origin, you have a key to getting to the registrant.  I do believe that the
> whois for IP address allocations must contain accurate information and
> a valid email address, even if that is through a proxy also.  If a privacy
> bureau is used, you can always contact the registrant via email through
> that bureau as well.  As has been mentioned before, there are always
> court orders to obtain information for legal issues.  I can see no reason
> to provide attorneys with it in a public database so they can harrass,
> abuse and/or threaten people.  It happens every day.
>
> Leah
>
> On 7 Jul 2002, at 7:50, George Kirikos wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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 20:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

Hello,

- --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   I agree with you personally, entirely.  I am also amazed and
> somewhat
> disgusted that on the ending of the Independence Day Weekend that
> George or anyone else could possibly espouse of propose anything
> that would infringe on the freedoms that so many have fought and
> died for all over the globe, and especially in the US.  Truly
> appalling!

Trying to imply that my (or the OECD, or others') sense of patriotism
is any less, for seeking responsible behaviour is a bit of a cheap
shot, especially coming from someone who lives in a fantasy world,
according to:

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05551.html
http://www.dnso.org/history/www.dnso.org/discuss/mail-archive/02277.html

I can understand why WHOIS accuracy wouldn't be important to folks who
want to build a fictitious existence on the 'net. There are costs and
benefits to privacy, as I've argued before. There's no point in arguing
with some folks who suggest that the value of their privacy is
infinite, yet won't pay $2 to $5 for that 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, 07 Jul 2002 23:24:51 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: From the Ridiculous to the appalling. To:Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

George and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >   I agree with you personally, entirely.  I am also amazed and
> > somewhat
> > disgusted that on the ending of the Independence Day Weekend that
> > George or anyone else could possibly espouse of propose anything
> > that would infringe on the freedoms that so many have fought and
> > died for all over the globe, and especially in the US.  Truly
> > appalling!
>
> Trying to imply that my (or the OECD, or others') sense of patriotism
> is any less, for seeking responsible behaviour is a bit of a cheap
> shot, especially coming from someone who lives in a fantasy world,
> according to:
>
> http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05551.html
> http://www.dnso.org/history/www.dnso.org/discuss/mail-archive/02277.html

  The fantasy is theirs not mine..

  No cheap shot is implied or intended.  If you took my comment above
as such, perhaps you are suffering from a guilty conscience?  I don't
know.  In any event, purporting removing freedoms guaranteed in the
constitution on this holiday weekend is, as I said, truly appalling to
say the least.  As a veteran myself, I speak as I know many others
have already spoken, and still more have paid with their lives
for those very freedoms.  One of which is the right to personal
privacy.

>
>
> I can understand why WHOIS accuracy wouldn't be important to folks who
> want to build a fictitious existence on the 'net. There are costs and
> benefits to privacy, as I've argued before.

  Indeed there are a few that have such fictitious existence's on the
Net via one form or another.  But those very few do not justify
the majority to have their privacy trodden upon.  As I have long
been a stakeholder and domain Name holder/registrant that
has strongly, repeatedly and continues to speak out, work
to preserve, and has shed blood in the past to protect
these our basic and fundamental rights, of which the right to
personal privacy is one,  reading of others purporting and/or
proposing to take away or damage those basic rights, is
particularly and grievously offensive.
The evidence of me doing so is plainly clear, well known
and well documented.

> There's no point in arguing
> with some folks who suggest that the value of their privacy is
> infinite, yet won't pay $2 to $5 for that privacy.

  I already paid.  All Americans have already paid.  Most
non-americans have already paid. Many Americans and
non-Americans paid to expand those rights to others
that have sought to attain them, with their very lives...
So this George is quite simply, in the realm of the Ridiculous!

>
>
> 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: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 01:06:39 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN accused of bullying tactics by mainstream media

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2097000/2097771.stm

FYI
- --
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 22:14:46 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN accused of bullying tactics by mainstream media

Sunday, July 07, 2002, 10:06:39 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2097000/2097771.stm

> FYI

You know, Joanna, it would help your credibility if you were more
accurate.

Mainstream Media is NOT accusing ICANN of anything.  The BBC, and
presumably other media outlets, are simply REPORTING a story that
OTHERS are making that accusation.

There is a HUGE distinction between the two, and you are smart enough
to know that, so I can't help but say that you were making the false
statement intentionally.

- -- 
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, 08 Jul 2002 01:15:33 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN accused of bullying tactics by mainstream media

Joanna and all assembly members,

  Well actually "Mainstream Media" is not accusing anyone in this
article/report.  In fact, if one reads this article the BBC is
rightly, simply and with good detail, reporting concerns from
ccTLD registries on ICANN's bullying, and seemingly unnecessary
tactics in their insistence on getting "national domain administrator's
databases that list the net location of all their customers." before
updating master lists, (whatever that means exactly)...

  It seems to me and other administrators of ccTLD's that
ICANN's claim that they need the above mentioned databases
in their entirety for insuring the "Stability" of the Internet as
a bit of an overstatement.  I can only guess that the ICANN
Technical staff does not trust information already provided
by KPNQwest (see article for reference)...  It is of course
obvious that all that the ICANN Technical staff really needs
are those records that represent a moved DN or changed
DN...  Hence I personally smell a that there is an ulterior
motive afoot here coming from the ICANN Technical staff...

Joanna Lane wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2097000/2097771.stm
>
> FYI
> --
> 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: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 02:54:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] so much for technical security

On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Joanna Lane wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2097000/2097771.stm

this is a clear indication icann is not in the business of technical
stability.  getting copies of the registry databases is irrelevant to
technical security.  the real term for it is invasion of privacy.

now keeping the name servers listed in the root zone updated is part of of
what is termed internet stability - and obviously icann is not interested
in that.

the news article made me laugh.

- --
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, 8 Jul 2002 09:24:26 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

On 2002-07-07 20:47:57 -0500, Don Brown wrote:

>There could have been legal reasons or other reasons why Karl was  
>a no-show.  He can be his own spokesman.

Of course.  I'm still waiting for his _public_ expanation, though.

>However, even if Karl had been present, it is extremely doubtful 
>to me that the outcome would have been any different.

Probably, yes.  Still, given Karl's analysis that a "fully empowered 
membership is entirely feasible", and that it all happened because 
"people ... kept creeping backwards", I'm wondering very much why he 
should give up.  (In particular, he could at least have remvoed the 
word "unanimous" from the public reports.)

>Incidentally, Thomas, how much debate and energy did the GA's  
>Chair offer in favor of a continued GA voice in ICANN? Did you  
>attend the meeting or make any other effort to participate in it - 
>in support of the GA, of course?

To begin with, the GA's chair and alt.chair don't even get expenses 
to attend meetings, call into meetings, or call into telephone  
conferences.  Directors do.  

Salzburg seminar funding was also not available this time, so  
Alexander went to Bucharest on his own cost.  I didn't, for a  
variety of reasons.

Further, both Alexander and I have been spending countless hours  
(and transatlantic phone calls - no expenses for that, either) on  
trying to convince the Names Council that the GA can indeed  
contribute reasonably - note that the Council will ultimately be the 
institution which decides what the GA will look like in the future - 
the E&R blueprint mostly sets directions for that - by trying to  
demonstrate that the GA can constructively contribute to the DNSO's  
work.  I do think that at least some constituencies begin to  
understand that the DNSO would lose something important by killing  
the GA, or by restricting access to the GA to constituency members.

Note that I don't mention votes: I'm still convinced that it's not  
a good idea to have the GA vote secretly on actual issues.  Use open 
polls instead, and most of the problems go away.

- -- 
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, 8 Jul 2002 07:57:10 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

Monday, July 8, 2002, 2:24:26 AM, Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote:
TR> On 2002-07-07 20:47:57 -0500, Don Brown wrote:

>>There could have been legal reasons or other reasons why Karl was  
>>a no-show.  He can be his own spokesman.

TR> Of course.  I'm still waiting for his _public_ expanation, though.
We may be waiting forever, if it was due to legal reason, as I suspect
it was. He is a party to a law suit which, among other things,
involves questions about his ability to properly discharge his
obligation as a director, due to ICANN imposed restrictions.

>>However, even if Karl had been present, it is extremely doubtful 
>>to me that the outcome would have been any different.

TR> Probably, yes.  Still, given Karl's analysis that a "fully empowered 
TR> membership is entirely feasible", and that it all happened because 
TR> "people ... kept creeping backwards", I'm wondering very much why he 
TR> should give up.  (In particular, he could at least have remvoed the 
TR> word "unanimous" from the public reports.)
I saw no signal that he has given up.  Maybe I missed it.

>>Incidentally, Thomas, how much debate and energy did the GA's  
>>Chair offer in favor of a continued GA voice in ICANN? Did you  
>>attend the meeting or make any other effort to participate in it - 
>>in support of the GA, of course?

TR> To begin with, the GA's chair and alt.chair don't even get expenses 
TR> to attend meetings, call into meetings, or call into telephone  
TR> conferences.  Directors do.  

TR> Salzburg seminar funding was also not available this time, so  
TR> Alexander went to Bucharest on his own cost.  I didn't, for a  
TR> variety of reasons.

TR> Further, both Alexander and I have been spending countless hours  
TR> (and transatlantic phone calls - no expenses for that, either) on  
TR> trying to convince the Names Council that the GA can indeed  
TR> contribute reasonably - note that the Council will ultimately be the 
TR> institution which decides what the GA will look like in the future - 
TR> the E&R blueprint mostly sets directions for that - by trying to  
TR> demonstrate that the GA can constructively contribute to the DNSO's  
TR> work.  I do think that at least some constituencies begin to  
TR> understand that the DNSO would lose something important by killing  
TR> the GA, or by restricting access to the GA to constituency members.

TR> Note that I don't mention votes: I'm still convinced that it's not  
TR> a good idea to have the GA vote secretly on actual issues.  Use open 
TR> polls instead, and most of the problems go away.
Thomas, I have gotten mixed signals from your posts, from time to
time, about your personal alignment with the GA or with those who
seek to abolish the GA.

Your position is clear, as stated above. I appreciate your efforts in
support of the GA.

Thanks,

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 15:29:47 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

- --=======19B565F5=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6857AE2; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 05:39 08/07/02, George Kirikos said:
>Trying to imply that my (or the OECD, or others') sense of patriotism
>is any less, for seeking responsible behaviour is a bit of a cheap
>shot, especially coming from someone who lives in a fantasy world,
>according to:

hmmmmm... I would suggest you keep room in the whois database for links 
over people so they may sue each others and the ICANN may create a WDRP ... 
George, get real,  please.... :-)

- --=======19B565F5=======--

- --
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, 08 Jul 2002 11:59:57 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] lawyer Joe Sims to John Gilmore: "Doesn't have a clue" or ICANN  must go!

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 11:13:25PM -0700, Sandy Harris wrote:

Joe, paraphrasing Gilmore:

> > > original ICANN bylaws, but that "they" ignored EFF's suggested
> > > wording changes to fix what it saw as a lack of accountability.

me:
> > EFF did prpose some revised bylaws:
> > http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/19980923_eff_new_iana_bylaws.html

Joe:
> > > I have a very distinct recollection of those proposed changes,
> > > and of at least one
> > > conversation with Gilmore on them; the particular provision
> > > that sticks out in my mind from the suggestions was his proposal
> > > that the ICANN bylaws incorporate the United Nations
> > > Declaration of Universal Human Rights.

This is of course a red herring. Gilmore is discussing other wording
changes, the ones about accountability.

Me:
> > You're likely thinking of this paper:
> > http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/19980323_eff_ntia.comments
> >
> > As I read it, it suggests the net should have guarantees of free
> > speech at least as stromg as the UN UDNR, but does not suggest
> > incorporating that document.

Kent:
> Much more likely that Joe is thinking of article 13 of the eff version
> of the bylaws which you reference above:

Kent is very likely correct in pointing to this document.

>   ARTICLE XIII: PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS
> 
>   The Corporation shall pursue its mission consistent with the values
>   articulated by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
>   Rights ... and, in particular, the freedom of
>   expression values stated in Article 19 of that Declaration, to wit:
>   "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
>   right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
>   seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
>   regardless of frontiers."
> 
> You will doubtless quibble over semantics, but the phrase "The
> Corporation shall pursue its mission consistent with the values
> articulated by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
> effectively incorporates the document.

There are several points to look at here:

One: This is still a red herring; it does not directly relate to the
issue of ICANN accountability, the issue Gilmore was raising.

Two: We certainly do need to ensure that ICANN policies are on the
side of openness and human rights, not of censorship and repression.
Pointing to the UN UDHR seems a valid way to state that concern.

Three: Why object to deriving principles from a UN document? If
direct participation by WIPO is legitmate, surely this is.
- --
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 #1317
*************************