Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1362
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, August 7 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1362

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:39:21 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] REMINDER: On-topic discussion

Perhaps you should specify which discussion you are referring to.

Froomkin's attempt at defending the rebid effort?

The discussion about the credibility of a prolific member of this
list?

Danny's rant about people not doing things they way he thinks they
should since he knows best?

Or, since all of these discussions were borne out of the same thread
(which shows that even things that one person might think are offtopic
can lead to many other issues that are clearly on topic) do you want
ALL those discussions terminated?

I'm afraid your message here was not very clear, and could use some
clarification.

Tuesday, August 06, 2002, 3:39:50 PM, GA List Monitor wrote:

> This is a reminder to everyone.

> We have list rules which have been established by a vote of
> the GA members. They state:

> | - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
> | - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
> |   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
> |   - Not using offensive language
> (Full text at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html)

> The DNSO General Assembly is a forum for participation in the 
> work of the DNSO. It is neither a place for in-depth discussions
> about the credibility of members nor a place for retaliation of
> those members. This discussion must be taken off the list
> immediately -- it is irrelevant to the business of the GA and
> serves only to discourage and distract from work on the many
> domain name and ICANN issues currently on the table. 

> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
> | If you want to discuss personal issues, do so in private      |
> | and make sure that you do not accidentally CC to [email-masked]. |
> | Members which continue to abuse the GA as a forum for their   |
> | off-topic postings are violating our list rules.              |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+

> Please do not send follow-up postings to the list. Thanks! :)

> Best regards,
> /// the GA List Monitor 

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

- -- 
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: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:06:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-08-06 18:20:21 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>
> >Just about very US-based NGO person I know thinks time spent
> >inside ICANN's hall of mirrors is now wasted time.  I can't blame
> >them.
>
> And what's your perspective for the future?  Replacing ICANN?  By
> what?  Direct government oversight over Verisign?  How realistic is
> that?

your all looking a little lost these days - it's understandable.

hope the general gloome improves soon.

regards
joe

- --
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, 07 Aug 2002 02:07:01 +0200
From: GA List Monitor <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] REMINDER: On-topic discussion

I'm sorry if my message was unclear; I was and am referring to
the repeated "discussion about the credibility of a prolific member 
of this list" and the retaliation attempts of this member. Postings 
focussing purely on other participants are not reasonably related 
to the participation in the work of the DNSO and distract from
other issues.

Final remark:

William X Walsh wrote:
>all of these discussions were borne out of the same thread
>(which shows that even things that one person might think are offtopic
>can lead to many other issues that are clearly on topic) 

All kinds of off-topic discussions may eventually lead to 
on-topic discussions and vice versa. However, only on-topic 
postings comply with the list rules. 

Final posting.
/// GA List Monitor

- --
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, 07 Aug 2002 02:10:29 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Perspective for the future (was Re: [ga] Casting stones)

- --=======37727141=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-FAE711A; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Thomas,
actually I think the bluff of the "AmerICANN Joke" is coming to an end. 
Please remember that this "AmerICANN Joke" was a quote from an European 
Diplomat, member of the GAC. It expressed a very simple idea: as long as 
the ICANN is no more detrimental to the European businesses than to the US 
businesses we had nothing we could act upon. The same for China, or Japan. 
I think the Mayor of Nagasaki told a lot today.

The situation is becoming too complex to know who is at advantage. So we 
are going to see different groups of interests to start fighting each 
others, new alliances - like last week - (unfortunately built upon new 
ignorances). This might be an opportunity to develop some new ways of using 
the Internet and probably a new Internet as well. After 20 years and a big 
development this would be in order.

jfc

On 01:13 07/08/02, Thomas Roessler said:
>On 2002-08-06 18:20:21 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>>Just about very US-based NGO person I know thinks time spent inside 
>>ICANN's hall of mirrors is now wasted time.  I can't blame
>>them.
>
>And what's your perspective for the future?  Replacing ICANN?  By
>what?  Direct government oversight over Verisign?  How realistic is
>that?
>
>All this talk about a re-bid, or about working around ICANN,
>ultimately boils down to the suggestion to replace the lobbyist
>battleground called ICANN by the lobbyist battleground called
>Capitol Hill.  Same players, different coast.  How's that an
>improvement?
>
>Bad enough, you don't seem to have any plans for the event that the
>battleground remains at the West Coast.  What's the NGO community
>going to do when ICANN reform actually happens, and the DoC renews
>the MoU?  Still continue to lobby for a "re-bid", focus on the meta
>level, and let Intellectual Property interests dominate part of the
>debate down on the detail levels where policy and architecture (*)
>are made?  (Yes, I know that things are more complicated.)
>
>As I wrote you earlier today: The argument that people don't listen
>is a hell of a lot more credible when you have said something. Not in year 
>1, but now.
>
>(*) Used like Lessig does it. Think, for instance, about thick vs.
>thin registry.  Thick registry does, in particular, mean that you
>can do some jurisdiction shopping as far as privacy of registrants
>is concerned.  That's much more difficult with a thin registry.
>--
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 24/07/02

- --=======37727141=======--

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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:45:13 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] REMINDER: On-topic discussion

Knock off the thread attacking and defending Jeff Williams and move on
to something topical and positive.

That should be very clear.

Tuesday, August 6, 2002, 6:39:21 PM, William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:

WXW> Perhaps you should specify which discussion you are referring to.

WXW> Froomkin's attempt at defending the rebid effort?

WXW> The discussion about the credibility of a prolific member of this
WXW> list?

WXW> Danny's rant about people not doing things they way he thinks they
WXW> should since he knows best?

WXW> Or, since all of these discussions were borne out of the same thread
WXW> (which shows that even things that one person might think are offtopic
WXW> can lead to many other issues that are clearly on topic) do you want
WXW> ALL those discussions terminated?

WXW> I'm afraid your message here was not very clear, and could use some
WXW> clarification.

WXW> Tuesday, August 06, 2002, 3:39:50 PM, GA List Monitor wrote:

>> This is a reminder to everyone.

>> We have list rules which have been established by a vote of
>> the GA members. They state:

>> | - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
>> | - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
>> |   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
>> |   - Not using offensive language
>> (Full text at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html)

>> The DNSO General Assembly is a forum for participation in the 
>> work of the DNSO. It is neither a place for in-depth discussions
>> about the credibility of members nor a place for retaliation of
>> those members. This discussion must be taken off the list
>> immediately -- it is irrelevant to the business of the GA and
>> serves only to discourage and distract from work on the many
>> domain name and ICANN issues currently on the table. 

>> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
>> | If you want to discuss personal issues, do so in private      |
>> | and make sure that you do not accidentally CC to [email-masked]. |
>> | Members which continue to abuse the GA as a forum for their   |
>> | off-topic postings are violating our list rules.              |
>> +---------------------------------------------------------------+

>> Please do not send follow-up postings to the list. Thanks! :)

>> Best regards,
>> /// the GA List Monitor 

>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
>> 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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:56:50 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

> international) structures that can also achieve substantial buy-in.  I
> think that is do-able. But this is not the forum for that discussion.

Where is that forum?

Better design can happen in parallel to the execution of existing
instructions, but also remember that ad hoc solutions have a way of taking
root while the "better" protocol is being designed....

- -rwr
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
To: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Gary Osbourne" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

> I think there are many other alternatives.  I agree that simply expecting
> Congress to pull rabbits out of some hat and solve all these problems is
> not realistic.  The challenge is to design better (and even more truly
> international) structures that can also achieve substantial buy-in.  I
> think that is do-able. But this is not the forum for that discussion.
>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > On 2002-08-06 18:20:21 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> >
> > And what's your perspective for the future?  Replacing ICANN?  By
> > what?  Direct government oversight over Verisign?  How realistic is
> > that?
> >
> > All this talk about a re-bid, or about working around ICANN,
> > ultimately boils down to the suggestion to replace the lobbyist
> > battleground called ICANN by the lobbyist battleground called
> > Capitol Hill.  Same players, different coast.  How's that an
> > improvement?
> >
> > Bad enough, you don't seem to have any plans for the event that the
> > battleground remains at the West Coast.  What's the NGO community
> > going to do when ICANN reform actually happens, and the DoC renews
> > the MoU?  Still continue to lobby for a "re-bid", focus on the meta
> > level, and let Intellectual Property interests dominate part of the
> > debate down on the detail levels where policy and architecture (*)
> > are made?  (Yes, I know that things are more complicated.)
> >
> > As I wrote you earlier today: The argument that people don't listen
> > is a hell of a lot more credible when you have said something. Not
> > in year 1, but now.
> >
> > (*) Used like Lessig does it. Think, for instance, about thick vs.
> > thin registry.  Thick registry does, in particular, mean that you
> > can do some jurisdiction shopping as far as privacy of registrants
> > is concerned.  That's much more difficult with a thin registry.
> >
>
> --
> **NOTE: 7/31-8/14 law.miami.edu will have random downtime due to
> "network upgrades".  Mail will bounce, and www.law.tm will 404.**
>
> Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                       -->It's very hot here.<--
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 18:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FTC Probing Verisign

Hello,

Hot off the presses:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020806/tech_verisign_3.html

"The FTC is seeking information about the company's practices with
regard to transferring Web addresses, deleting domain names and sending
direct mail solicitations to customers of competitors in the marketing
campaign that ended in May, the source said, and the company later
confirmed."

"Deleting domain names" = WLS :)

I had asked a couple of months ago, openly, whether they were under
investigation. See:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01326.html

(near the very bottom) 

Of course, Chuck and Roger from Verisign ignored that question...time
has a way of proving people right, though. :)

If anyone has evidence to submit to the FTC, [email-masked]
would be the appropriate email to use.

Life at Verisign would be a lot simpler if they'd simply drop the WLS
proposal....

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.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: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 18:57:13 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

At 08:06 PM 06/08/02 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote:

>your all looking a little lost these days -
>it's understandable.

May be the lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer.
A lot of confusion going around. I suspect once
we see how the USG handles ICANN at the end of
September there might be more focus. Right now
it's like trying to solder mercury to a ceiling.

And perhaps some of the confusion going around is
intentional, like VeriSign's domain renewal mailouts:
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/020806/tech_verisign_2.html

Now confirmed, although only after more initial
confusion, as being the subject of an FTC probe,
along with a possible Interland connection.

Who's confused, it isn't even summer everywhere:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2172858.stm
Those place names can be so confusingly similar,
why doesn't the UN or somebody have a UDRP-like
process in place to sort it out?

That's probably at least 5 in 24 from me, but
at least it's off my prior off-topic topic. -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, 07 Aug 2002 16:36:12 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

At 07:31 p.m. 6/08/2002 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> > (*) Used like Lessig does it. Think, for instance, about thick vs.
> > thin registry.  Thick registry does, in particular, mean that you
> > can do some jurisdiction shopping as far as privacy of registrants
> > is concerned.  That's much more difficult with a thin registry.
> >

Perhaps I am not fully awake today, but isn't it the other way round?

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

correct, Michael appears to have reversed the meaning. in your context

  thick: mamanges contact
  thin: does not manage contacts

- -rick

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 07:31 p.m. 6/08/2002 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> > > (*) Used like Lessig does it. Think, for instance, about thick vs.
> > > thin registry.  Thick registry does, in particular, mean that you
> > > can do some jurisdiction shopping as far as privacy of registrants
> > > is concerned.  That's much more difficult with a thin registry.
> > >
>
>
> Perhaps I am not fully awake today, but isn't it the other way round?
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> 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, 7 Aug 2002 09:46:46 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

On 2002-08-06 23:16:58 -0700, Rick Wesson wrote:

>correct, Michael appears to have reversed the meaning. in your 
>context
>
>  thick: mamanges contact
>  thin: does not manage contacts

It wasn't Michael, but me, and I didn't reverse the meaning at all - 
I just wasn't overly clear who goes jurisdiction shopping for what  
purpose.

With the thick model (when implemented from the beginning of a TLD), 
the registry can go jurisdiction shopping in order to be able to  
implement whatever privacy policy they like.  (Ever thought about  
what happens when you put a thick registry into a country with  
strict privacy regulations?)

With the thin model, the customer can go jurisdiction shopping when  
selecting the registrar.  In theory, that should be sufficient to  
make sure that some possible abuses of registrants' data don't  
occur.

- -- 
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, 7 Aug 2002 11:06:23 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Public comments on WHOIS final report

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

REMINDER!

Public comments on Whois Final report open till 14th August
Archives: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc00/
Final report : http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/whoisTF/

ADDITIONAL DATA LINKS HAVE BEEN ADDED:

New ! Whois survey form used for the Whois survey
Thomas Roessler Whois raw data
Html version of the spreadsheet of evaluation results
SQL databases used to do evaluation

Please send your comments to:
[email-masked]

Thank you
DNSO Secretariat

- --
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, 07 Aug 2002 09:04:40 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

I agree with Ross. Just as there was no real harm and some possible good
from the GA taking a position a while back, there is no better forum to
discuss better design.  After all the better design...could be...a
revised ICANN.
The point at which someone starts to implement a better
structure....that is where divergence occurs.  Until then, I figure it
is extremely on-topic.

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> 
> > international) structures that can also achieve substantial buy-in.  I
> > think that is do-able. But this is not the forum for that discussion.
> 
> Where is that forum?
> 
> Better design can happen in parallel to the execution of existing
> instructions, but also remember that ad hoc solutions have a way of taking
> root while the "better" protocol is being designed....
> 
> -rwr
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Gary Osbourne" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 7:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones
> 
> > I think there are many other alternatives.  I agree that simply expecting
> > Congress to pull rabbits out of some hat and solve all these problems is
> > not realistic.  The challenge is to design better (and even more truly
> > international) structures that can also achieve substantial buy-in.  I
> > think that is do-able. But this is not the forum for that discussion.
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >
> > > On 2002-08-06 18:20:21 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> > >
> > > And what's your perspective for the future?  Replacing ICANN?  By
> > > what?  Direct government oversight over Verisign?  How realistic is
> > > that?
> > >
> > > All this talk about a re-bid, or about working around ICANN,
> > > ultimately boils down to the suggestion to replace the lobbyist
> > > battleground called ICANN by the lobbyist battleground called
> > > Capitol Hill.  Same players, different coast.  How's that an
> > > improvement?
> > >
> > > Bad enough, you don't seem to have any plans for the event that the
> > > battleground remains at the West Coast.  What's the NGO community
> > > going to do when ICANN reform actually happens, and the DoC renews
> > > the MoU?  Still continue to lobby for a "re-bid", focus on the meta
> > > level, and let Intellectual Property interests dominate part of the
> > > debate down on the detail levels where policy and architecture (*)
> > > are made?  (Yes, I know that things are more complicated.)
> > >
> > > As I wrote you earlier today: The argument that people don't listen
> > > is a hell of a lot more credible when you have said something. Not
> > > in year 1, but now.
> > >
> > > (*) Used like Lessig does it. Think, for instance, about thick vs.
> > > thin registry.  Thick registry does, in particular, mean that you
> > > can do some jurisdiction shopping as far as privacy of registrants
> > > is concerned.  That's much more difficult with a thin registry.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > **NOTE: 7/31-8/14 law.miami.edu will have random downtime due to
> > "network upgrades".  Mail will bounce, and www.law.tm will 404.**
> >
> > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> >                       -->It's very hot here.<--
> >
> > --
> > 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

- -- 
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, 7 Aug 2002 09:29:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

that wasn't my message

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Rick Wesson wrote:

> 
> correct, Michael appears to have reversed the meaning. in your context
> 
>   thick: mamanges contact
>   thin: does not manage contacts
> 
> -rick
> 
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
> > At 07:31 p.m. 6/08/2002 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> > > > (*) Used like Lessig does it. Think, for instance, about thick vs.
> > > > thin registry.  Thick registry does, in particular, mean that you
> > > > can do some jurisdiction shopping as far as privacy of registrants
> > > > is concerned.  That's much more difficult with a thin registry.
> > > >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps I am not fully awake today, but isn't it the other way round?
> >
> > --Joop
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> 
> 

- -- 
**NOTE: 7/31-8/14 law.miami.edu will have random downtime due to
"network upgrades".  Mail will bounce, and www.law.tm will 404.**

		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

- --
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, 7 Aug 2002 15:54:58 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 01:13:41AM +0200,
 Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 39 lines which said:

> And what's your perspective for the future?  Replacing ICANN?  By  
> what?  Direct government oversight over Verisign?  How realistic is  
> that?

I don't know if it is "realistic" (having a serious chance of being
implemented). But I agree with John Gilmore
<URL:http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/07/02/gilmore/print.html>.
 
> All this talk about a re-bid, or about working around ICANN,  
> ultimately boils down to the suggestion to replace the lobbyist  
> battleground called ICANN by the lobbyist battleground called  
> Capitol Hill.  Same players, different coast.  How's that an  
> improvement?

For the US citizen, it will allow him/her to invoke various rights
he/she is entitled to (such as the Freedom of Information act). For
the foreigner, it would change nothing (except that it would be
clearer who runs the root).
 
- --
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, 7 Aug 2002 16:07:04 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 09:46:46AM +0200,
 Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 30 lines which said:

> With the thick model (when implemented from the beginning of a TLD), 
> the registry can go jurisdiction shopping in order to be able to  
> implement whatever privacy policy they like.  

I'm not sure it is effective. For instance, ICANN accreditation for a
registrar in .com requires the registrar to escrow a copy ot its
database to ICANN (I do not know how many comply). Therefore, US rules
apply to everybody, whatever the registrar it chooses.

> (Ever thought about  
> what happens when you put a thick registry into a country with  
> strict privacy regulations?)

The future .eu will work that way (thick and under "strict" privacy
regulations). Registrants who find these regulations too strict ("I
want to give away my personal data") can always transmit them by
themselves :-)

> With the thin model, the customer can go jurisdiction shopping when  
> selecting the registrar.  

The .eu registry will probably (people in Brussels still think about
it) implement a different model, where people will be able to express
their privacy desires (may be with P3P
<URL:http://www.w3.org/P3P/)>. Two contenders for the management of
the Registry, CORE and us, are working on a common proposal (do not
hold your breath, there are complicated technical and political
issues) for expressing privacy requirments.

- --
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, 7 Aug 2002 07:14:45 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Wednesday, August 07, 2002, 7:07:04 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

>> (Ever thought about  
>> what happens when you put a thick registry into a country with  
>> strict privacy regulations?)

> The future .eu will work that way (thick and under "strict" privacy
> regulations). Registrants who find these regulations too strict ("I
> want to give away my personal data") can always transmit them by
> themselves :-)

Sounds like a TLD that spammers, defrauders, and other nefarious
characters will just LOVE to register in.

- -- 
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: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:40:57 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 07:14:45AM -0700,
 William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 21 lines which said:

> Sounds like a TLD that spammers, defrauders, and other nefarious
> characters will just LOVE to register in.

Care to explain  or is it just FUD?

- --
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, 7 Aug 2002 10:46:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> > All this talk about a re-bid, or about working around ICANN,
> > ultimately boils down to the suggestion to replace the lobbyist
> > battleground called ICANN by the lobbyist battleground called
> > Capitol Hill.  Same players, different coast.  How's that an
> > improvement?
>
> For the US citizen, it will allow him/her to invoke various rights
> he/she is entitled to (such as the Freedom of Information act). For
> the foreigner, it would change nothing (except that it would be
> clearer who runs the root).

if you think capitol hill runs the root - then you are serious mistaken.
there are several root operators world wide these days.  icann is one of
them.

now the real serious question is who controls it.  figured that out yet
stephane?

- --
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 #1362
*************************