Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1363
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, August 7 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1363

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

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 07:50:00 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Wednesday, August 07, 2002, 7:40:57 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> 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?

Makes it easier for them to cover their tracks, Stephane.  Makes it
that much easier for them to hide from the consequences of their
actions.

Some antispam services automatically block all domains under TLDs
which do not have a public whois server available that provides full
contact information, for this very reason.

- -- 
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 10:53:48 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

While the thick registry is certainly convenient from a management point
of view, the cost to the network likely exceeds the value of the
savings...

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of Stephane Bortzmeyer
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 10:07 AM
> To: Rick Wesson; Joop Teernstra; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami 
> School of Law; Gary Osbourne; [email-masked]; [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
> 

- --
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 11:21:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

> 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.

you'll have to live with it - the european union has strict privacy
regulations seriously violated by a majority of whois servers.

regards
joe baptista

- --
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 17:31:04 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:21:37AM -0400,
 Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 22 lines which said:

> you'll have to live with it - the european union has strict privacy
> regulations seriously violated by a majority of whois servers.

Feel free to explain and defend this statement. According to our
lawyers, our whois server (I would add an s here but I'm not sure
about other European countries) is legal. It seems that, like William
X Walsh, you do not understand the difference between privacy and
secrecy.

- --
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 16:32:02 +0100
From: "Jon Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

What? Like .uk for instance?

From www.nic.uk:

<snip>
Domain Name: xxxxxxxxxxxxx.CO.UK

   Registered For: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

   Domain Registered By: xxxxxxxxxxx

   Registered on 23-Oct-1998.

   Record last updated on 24-Aug-2001 by <[email-masked]>.

   Domain servers listed in order:

   NS1.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx         i.p.addre.ss
   NS2.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx         i.p.addre.ss

   WHOIS database last updated at 06:39:00 07-Aug-2002
</snip>

I don't follow.

rgds
jon

>-- Original Message --
>Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 07:50:00 -0700
>From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
>
>
>Wednesday, August 07, 2002, 7:40:57 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>Makes it easier for them to cover their tracks, Stephane.  Makes it
>that much easier for them to hide from the consequences of their
>actions.
>
>Some antispam services automatically block all domains under TLDs
>which do not have a public whois server available that provides full
>contact information, for this very reason.
>
>-- 
>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
>

- --
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 11:38:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:21:37AM -0400,
>  Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> wrote
>  a message of 22 lines which said:
>
> > you'll have to live with it - the european union has strict privacy
> > regulations seriously violated by a majority of whois servers.
>
> Feel free to explain and defend this statement. According to our
> lawyers, our whois server (I would add an s here but I'm not sure
> about other European countries) is legal. It seems that, like William
> X Walsh, you do not understand the difference between privacy and
> secrecy.

check with the unions information and privacy people.  several laws exist
on their books concerning eu citizen privacy.  you should know this.

regards
joe baptista

- --
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 09:41:33 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

At 07:50 AM 07/08/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

> >> 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?
>
>Makes it easier for them to cover their tracks, Stephane.  Makes it
>that much easier for them to hide from the consequences of their
>actions.
>
>Some antispam services automatically block all domains under TLDs
>which do not have a public whois server available that provides full
>contact information, for this very reason.

The .ws WHOIS isn't that easy to find, and try VeriSign's
WHOIS on nic.ws for example and see what you get. The
only places I've found a working web interface online are:
http://whois.samoanic.ws/
http://whois.worldsite.ws/

The latter can be queried directly, I haven't tried
the former.

You get registrant name field, Date domain created and
updated fields. and primary and secondary nameservers,
and that's it. You also get a link to contact the owner
with a formfield that includes a dropdown of:
You are in violation of my Trademark. Contact me please.

I bet that works well. A direct query of course doesn't
even return that formfield, or any useful replacement.

I wonder how widespread the spamblocking of *.ws is.

As for .eu, despite their privacy policies, the French
government in particular has made an issue of allowing
for a WHOIS useable enough to protect IP interests. -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 10:08:46 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

Perhaps there is some fact that is too often overlooked;
Most rebids with the USgov. result in modifications to the original bid but the
current operator retaining the bid.
A rebid therefor is more of a cleansing process than a talent search for new
operators.
If you do not believe me ask Boeing.
Eric

Dan Steinberg wrote:

> 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

- --
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 15:25:50 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Evaluating Participation

In the "Case for Reform", Stuart Lynn made the following observation:  "It is 
clear to me that, without the steady and committed participation of all the 
major operational bodies of the Internet... this particular private sector 
model will not be able to fulfill its mission."  

I wish to draw the attention of the ERC to this issue of "steady and 
committed participation".  One only needs to look at list traffic to evaluate 
the degree of relevant participation by "major bodies".  The following is a 
compilation of the quantity of comments posted to major lists during this 
last week (August 1-7):

000 -- Transfers Task Force List
000 -- IDN Task Force List
000 -- IP Constituency List
000 -- ERC Public Forum
001 -- UDRP Task Force List
007 -- Whois Task Force List
010 -- ICANN-Europe Forum
013 -- NCDNHC List
014 -- Names Council List
046 -- Registrars List
148 -- General Assembly Forum
215 -- ICANN Public Forums
305 -- icannatarge.com Lists

The general public submitted 678 comments to the lists this week, ten times 
more than the aggregate of all of the constituencies.

In spite of all the plans to restructure, reorganize, and refocus the 
organization, one thing remains clear -- the "major bodies" who have voting 
rights and representation are still not participating as anticipated, while 
the general public without such voting rights and without such representation 
is actively discussing ICANN-related matters.

This raises the issue:  why are we continuing to provide voting rights and 
representation to those that are no longer viable contributing 
constituencies?  Why are we seeking to reward those whose lack of 
participation denies ICANN the promise of properly fulfilling its mission?  
Shouldn't there be legitimate criteria by which the viability of a 
constituency in the GNSO can be assessed?  Don't we owe it to ourselves to 
decommission non-performing, non-participating, and non-contributing groups?

Let's face it... the performance of many constituencies as participants has 
been pathetic -- and even worse... there are no signs of improvement on the 
horizon.  If this institution is going to be reformed, such problems cannot 
continue to be swept under the rug... doing so only postpones the inevitable 
demise of ICANN.  Just look at the "official" lists in the DNSO wherein 
"work" is supposed to get done... it isn't happening, and the public that 
could be contributing is excluded from those lists.

The ERC recognized that the size of the Council may change from time to time 
as "some constituencies cease to be active".  It is time to establish the 
necessary benchmarks so that the non-active constituencies (and we all know 
who they are) may be eliminated from the mix.  

Put them on notice.... shape up, or ship out.  You can start by requiring 
publicly-archived mailing lists for all constituencies in keeping with the 
Corporation's intent to achieve full transparency for itself and its 
subordinate entities.

- --
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 15:37:24 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Ross,

Do you have any data to back up your conclusion about the cost of the
network?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 10:54 AM
> To: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; 'Rick Wesson'; 'Joop Teernstra'; 'Michael
> Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'; 'Gary Osbourne'; 
> [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
> 
> 
> While the thick registry is certainly convenient from a 
> management point
> of view, the cost to the network likely exceeds the value of the
> savings...
> 
> 
> 
>                        -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
> 
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> > Of Stephane Bortzmeyer
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 10:07 AM
> > To: Rick Wesson; Joop Teernstra; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami 
> > School of Law; Gary Osbourne; [email-masked]; [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
> > 
> 
> --
> 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 13:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Evaluating Participation

Hi Danny,

(cc list trimmed)

- --- [email-masked] wrote:
> committed participation".  One only needs to look at list traffic to
> evaluate 
> the degree of relevant participation by "major bodies".  The
> following is a 
> compilation of the quantity of comments posted to major lists during
> this 
> last week (August 1-7):

You raise a good point. It would be nice if the mailing lists could
spit out statistics as to the number of posts of each contributor, or
allow a sorting by author (as they do for sorting by thread or by
date). Perhaps someone will write a script to do so, similar to the
stats that appear on Usenet newsgroups...

I'd be curious to know how many of the Board members are subscribed to
the various mailing lists, and are more "active" in following the
issues. They might not always respond, preferring to "lurk". However, I
viewed it as a positive that both Vint Cerf and Stuart Lynn are
actually subscribed to the GA list (as they both made posts recently).
Hopefully the discussions that are taking place have an impact on their
thinking.

What might be even better is if they'd occasionally ask questions,
raise issues, and give us insights as to what information/views are
required to make better decisions. E.g., a posting like "That's a good
point, XXXX -- can you elaborate on it?" or "Have you considered the
YYYY implications if we did ZZZZZ? How can we modify things to avoid
them?" They don't have 6 hours/day to be posting messages everyday, but
it'd be a positive if they'd participate in the open debate from time
to time, through questions or observations, instead of just absorbing
it all in "lurker mode".

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: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:02:16 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

It's not the cost of the network that is the variable, but the cost to
the network - ie, the Internet as a whole. For one, there is a
tremendous opportunity cost associated with a centralized structure a la
a thick registry in terms of lost innovation, competition etc. I was
actually thinking about fleshing out the concept a little bit further in
a document of some sort - the ambitious can get a head start on me by
drilling down on some of the theories surrounding the option value of a
network, the e2e principle etc. and apply them to the current
registry-registrar construct and its various iterations...

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:37 PM
> To: [email-masked]'; 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; 'Rick Wesson'; 
> 'Joop Teernstra'; 'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'; 
> 'Gary Osbourne'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
> 
> 
> Ross,
> 
> Do you have any data to back up your conclusion about the 
> cost of the network?
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 10:54 AM
> > To: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; 'Rick Wesson'; 'Joop Teernstra'; 
> 'Michael 
> > Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'; 'Gary Osbourne'; 
> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
> > 
> > 
> > While the thick registry is certainly convenient from a
> > management point
> > of view, the cost to the network likely exceeds the value of the
> > savings...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >                        -rwr
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the 
> shore like an 
> > idiot."
> > - Steven Wright
> > 
> > Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: 
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> > > Of Stephane Bortzmeyer
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 10:07 AM
> > > To: Rick Wesson; Joop Teernstra; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami 
> > > School of Law; Gary Osbourne; [email-masked]; [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
> > > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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 13:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Hello,

- --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Do you have any data to back up your conclusion about the cost of the
> network?
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > While the thick registry is certainly convenient from a 
> > management point
> > of view, the cost to the network likely exceeds the value of the
> > savings...

There are more "costs" than simply the operational costs incurred in
running the centralized WHOIS. One should also consider other things.
One example, for instance, is the abuse that can occur when such a
valuable database is centralized in hands that seem to have no problem
"testing the limits" of the law, as per the current FTC investigation
into the trade practises of a company we all know and love....

The costs to consumers, registrars, and other market participants due
to those practises are non-trivial, albeit difficult to measure.

Perhaps your colleagues can tell us exactly how many of those "renewal
notices" were mailed out, to assist us in estimating those costs. If 5%
of individuals got confused, had to call their registrars (incurring
increased support costs) for 10 minutes of support, at $20/hour, we can
provide some educated guesses as to some of the costs. Perhaps another
0.1 percent had their business disrupted (email, webservices, etc.) for
10 days, at a cost of $100/day, adding even more to the true "costs".

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: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:26:23 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

I look forward to further thoughts on this.  For the first time, we are now
getting to the point where we can begin to compare real differences of the
thin and thick registry models in the gTLD space.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 4:02 PM
> To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; 'Rick Wesson'; 'Joop
> Teernstra'; 'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'; 'Gary 
> Osbourne';
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
> 
> 
> It's not the cost of the network that is the variable, but the cost to
> the network - ie, the Internet as a whole. For one, there is a
> tremendous opportunity cost associated with a centralized 
> structure a la
> a thick registry in terms of lost innovation, competition etc. I was
> actually thinking about fleshing out the concept a little bit 
> further in
> a document of some sort - the ambitious can get a head start on me by
> drilling down on some of the theories surrounding the option 
> value of a
> network, the e2e principle etc. and apply them to the current
> registry-registrar construct and its various iterations...
> 
> 
> 
>                        -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
> 
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:37 PM
> > To: [email-masked]'; 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; 'Rick Wesson'; 
> > 'Joop Teernstra'; 'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'; 
> > 'Gary Osbourne'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
> > 
> > 
> > Ross,
> > 
> > Do you have any data to back up your conclusion about the 
> > cost of the network?
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 10:54 AM
> > > To: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; 'Rick Wesson'; 'Joop Teernstra'; 
> > 'Michael 
> > > Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'; 'Gary Osbourne'; 
> > > [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > While the thick registry is certainly convenient from a
> > > management point
> > > of view, the cost to the network likely exceeds the value of the
> > > savings...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                        -rwr
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the 
> > shore like an 
> > > idiot."
> > > - Steven Wright
> > > 
> > > Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: 
> > http://www.byte.org/heathrow
> > >  
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> > > > Of Stephane Bortzmeyer
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 10:07 AM
> > > > To: Rick Wesson; Joop Teernstra; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami 
> > > > School of Law; Gary Osbourne; [email-masked]; [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
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1363
*************************