Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1370
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, August 11 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1370

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

Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:45:03 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] How to hijack a Domain Name

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,54455,00.html?tw=wn_ascii

- --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: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:30:38 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] How to hijack a Domain Name

Saturday, August 10, 2002, 6:45:03 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,54455,00.html?tw=wn_ascii

His story sounds highly suspicious to me.  It is inconsistent and
inaccurate with how things run.

I'd by highly skeptical of this story, or at least how it is being
portrayed.

- -- 
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: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:31:19 -0700
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] How to hijack a Domain Name

> Saturday, August 10, 2002, 6:45:03 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,54455,00.html?tw=wn_ascii

Saturday, August 10, 2002 7:30 PM William X Walsh wrote
> His story sounds highly suspicious to me.  It is inconsistent and
> inaccurate with how things run.
>
> I'd by highly skeptical of this story, or at least how it is being
> portrayed.
>

I fully agree with William, if you actually go to the site and click
through on the logo,
there is a 'nice' pop under advertisement for some porn
sites/affiliates/dial up

It smells of a marketing art ... the tech details in the story do not
make sense

Genie Livingstone

- --
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: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:44:44 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Outreach and labeling

Genie,

Yes there may be marketing involved there.
Your grouping and obvious disdain for marketers is exactly why we have no
Outreach.

We have to get over this abundance of negativeness towards groups of
people.

Marketers, Poor people, Lawyers and Politicians have a right to be here.
As do Gays, Women, Latin Americans, Indians, and my 90 year old father.

I respect all the work you have done here and only ask your respect for
others.

eric

Genie Livingstone wrote:

> > Saturday, August 10, 2002, 6:45:03 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,54455,00.html?tw=wn_ascii
>
> Saturday, August 10, 2002 7:30 PM William X Walsh wrote
> > His story sounds highly suspicious to me.  It is inconsistent and
> > inaccurate with how things run.
> >
> > I'd by highly skeptical of this story, or at least how it is being
> > portrayed.
> >
>
> I fully agree with William, if you actually go to the site and click
> through on the logo,
> there is a 'nice' pop under advertisement for some porn
> sites/affiliates/dial up
>
> It smells of a marketing art ... the tech details in the story do not
> make sense
>
> Genie Livingstone
>
> --
> 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, 11 Aug 2002 01:46:45 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

On 9 Aug 2002, at 15:27, todd glassey wrote:

> Leah you brought out some real issues. I think some of them should be
> painted differently than you portrayed, and my spin on them is below.
> 

We'll have to agree to disagree, I think. 

> Todd
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 9:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > On 8 Aug 2002, at 10:11, Don Brown wrote:
> >
> > > Competition, innovation, progress, no monopoly and lower registration
> > > costs for consumers, to name a few . . .
> >
> > If there were thousands of TLDs, or even hundreds, the monopoly issue
> > would be put to rest.  The market would take care of pricing.
> 
> Same is true of operating multiple root sets.

Yes.

> I dont think anyone really (commercially speaking) wants billions of TLD's;
> only people in these types of forums are pro millions and billions of TLD's

It's a mixed bag.  Many people do, some don't.  Most have no idea what 
it's all about.

> - The real issue is making namespace as easy to remember as possible and
> that isnt with adding yet another TLD. It would be much simplier to add
> another root and replicate .com, .net, and .org and restructure how the
> address space is split up amoungst the Registries and their Registrar
> front-ends.

This is where we really diverge.  If you have duplicates of any TLD, you 
have problems with all sorts of things, email being just one.  The roots 
need to agree to not duplicate TLDs and were working towards that until 
the duplication of .BIZ by ICANN.  I'm sure that someone somewhere 
will duplicate .com and there will be the biggest mess we've seen yet if 
and when that happens. Under the DNS, you still cannot duplicate TLD 
registries and not have technical problems. It will prove the point, 
though.  Keep in mind that the US can control only so much - even 
through legislation.  There is a big world out there.  

> 
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with having a single registrar for a regsitry if
> there
> > are many registries - small, large and in-between.  As with the problems
> > surrounding ICANN's elimination of the at-large, the artificial scarcity
> of
> > TLDs prevents the public's having a choice in the most basic areas of the
> > internet - the DNS.
> 
> The same is true of a multi-root scenario as well.

There are already several root systems and people are choosing among 
them - more all the time.  Most of them are based outside the US.

> 
> I actually  think that the opposite is true, that having a multitude of
> Root Domains is not a problem. Otherwise telephone numbers would have
> broken uears ago.

If there had been duplicate AC's the system would have broken.  That is 
why the standard was set up.  You can have a multitude of telco 
sytems, but they all operate in agreement so that numbers will work.  
The ones that do not, experience neighbors not being able to dial each 
other (I believe Kenya is one city that has this problem, but there are 
others outside the US).  With duplication of TLDs, people have to 
choose one over the other and email is truly screwed up, not to mention 
name servers.

> 
> What this is, is all about following the proven model that the telco people
> have laid out and the listening of ICANN and IETF executives jump up and
> down proletizing on how this wont work... But the reality is that just
> adding TLD after TLD is insane and really shows the problems with the folks
> currenly trying to "paint themselves" as the managers of the Internet.

We disagree here also, obviously.

> 
> 
> Leah I disagree here - the problem is not one that can be compared with
> Area Codes by your model. AC's preface a number not post-pend it. The
> intent is to use a smaller set of possible network address instances, and
> then replicate that set over any number of areas by prefacing the station
> and network address with the zone or area code. As to DNS there is an
> obvious parallel. A root zone idetifier to preface the station address.

Yes, we disagree.

> 
> Futher there is no play between the registrars and the search engines as
> there should be, also a failing of ICANN's current operations models as
> well.

I don't see how or where ICANN has anything to do with search engine 
functionality.  Search engines index based on a variety of criteria.  They 
will evolve along with innovations in net technology.  ICANN should have 
nothing to do with that, any more than the FCC should regulate the 
publshing of telehphone books.
> 

> 
> Thats if the average customer could do this. I assure you that most cannot
> wade through the mire her and their domains would be crashed until
> something happened to pick up the services of said registry.

It's a learning curve like anything else.  How much hand holding should 
registrars provide?  Of course the more they provide, the more 
customers they will attract.  Good service is good business.  There are 
registrars currently who provide good, personalized service and charge a 
bit more than the ones who are strictly "use the knowledge base" types. 
 If you know what the heck you're doing, use the less expensive ones 
with less service.  If not, use one that provides the hand holding and 
good follow through.

> 
> >
> > Leah
> >

- --
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: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:23:32 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Agreeing to disagree is the beginning of good dialogue and the convergence of
differing rivers of thought.
Please Senora Gallegos embrace this dialogue so we all may learn.  He asked
questions many of us less informed would ask.  It is very helpful to us
dotcommoners.
[long live the inclusives]

Eric

"L. Gallegos" wrote:

> On 9 Aug 2002, at 15:27, todd glassey wrote:
>
> > Leah you brought out some real issues. I think some of them should be
> > painted differently than you portrayed, and my spin on them is below.
> >
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree, I think.
>
> > Todd
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 9:21 AM
> > Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8 Aug 2002, at 10:11, Don Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > > Competition, innovation, progress, no monopoly and lower registration
> > > > costs for consumers, to name a few . . .
> > >
> > > If there were thousands of TLDs, or even hundreds, the monopoly issue
> > > would be put to rest.  The market would take care of pricing.
> >
> > Same is true of operating multiple root sets.
>
> Yes.
>
> > I dont think anyone really (commercially speaking) wants billions of TLD's;
> > only people in these types of forums are pro millions and billions of TLD's
>
> It's a mixed bag.  Many people do, some don't.  Most have no idea what
> it's all about.
>
> > - The real issue is making namespace as easy to remember as possible and
> > that isnt with adding yet another TLD. It would be much simplier to add
> > another root and replicate .com, .net, and .org and restructure how the
> > address space is split up amoungst the Registries and their Registrar
> > front-ends.
>
> This is where we really diverge.  If you have duplicates of any TLD, you
> have problems with all sorts of things, email being just one.  The roots
> need to agree to not duplicate TLDs and were working towards that until
> the duplication of .BIZ by ICANN.  I'm sure that someone somewhere
> will duplicate .com and there will be the biggest mess we've seen yet if
> and when that happens. Under the DNS, you still cannot duplicate TLD
> registries and not have technical problems. It will prove the point,
> though.  Keep in mind that the US can control only so much - even
> through legislation.  There is a big world out there.
>
> >
> > >
> > > There is nothing wrong with having a single registrar for a regsitry if
> > there
> > > are many registries - small, large and in-between.  As with the problems
> > > surrounding ICANN's elimination of the at-large, the artificial scarcity
> > of
> > > TLDs prevents the public's having a choice in the most basic areas of the
> > > internet - the DNS.
> >
> > The same is true of a multi-root scenario as well.
>
> There are already several root systems and people are choosing among
> them - more all the time.  Most of them are based outside the US.
>
> >
> > I actually  think that the opposite is true, that having a multitude of
> > Root Domains is not a problem. Otherwise telephone numbers would have
> > broken uears ago.
>
> If there had been duplicate AC's the system would have broken.  That is
> why the standard was set up.  You can have a multitude of telco
> sytems, but they all operate in agreement so that numbers will work.
> The ones that do not, experience neighbors not being able to dial each
> other (I believe Kenya is one city that has this problem, but there are
> others outside the US).  With duplication of TLDs, people have to
> choose one over the other and email is truly screwed up, not to mention
> name servers.
>
> >
> > What this is, is all about following the proven model that the telco people
> > have laid out and the listening of ICANN and IETF executives jump up and
> > down proletizing on how this wont work... But the reality is that just
> > adding TLD after TLD is insane and really shows the problems with the folks
> > currenly trying to "paint themselves" as the managers of the Internet.
>
> We disagree here also, obviously.
>
> >
> >
> > Leah I disagree here - the problem is not one that can be compared with
> > Area Codes by your model. AC's preface a number not post-pend it. The
> > intent is to use a smaller set of possible network address instances, and
> > then replicate that set over any number of areas by prefacing the station
> > and network address with the zone or area code. As to DNS there is an
> > obvious parallel. A root zone idetifier to preface the station address.
>
> Yes, we disagree.
>
> >
> > Futher there is no play between the registrars and the search engines as
> > there should be, also a failing of ICANN's current operations models as
> > well.
>
> I don't see how or where ICANN has anything to do with search engine
> functionality.  Search engines index based on a variety of criteria.  They
> will evolve along with innovations in net technology.  ICANN should have
> nothing to do with that, any more than the FCC should regulate the
> publshing of telehphone books.
> >
>
> >
> > Thats if the average customer could do this. I assure you that most cannot
> > wade through the mire her and their domains would be crashed until
> > something happened to pick up the services of said registry.
>
> It's a learning curve like anything else.  How much hand holding should
> registrars provide?  Of course the more they provide, the more
> customers they will attract.  Good service is good business.  There are
> registrars currently who provide good, personalized service and charge a
> bit more than the ones who are strictly "use the knowledge base" types.
>  If you know what the heck you're doing, use the less expensive ones
> with less service.  If not, use one that provides the hand holding and
> good follow through.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Leah
> > >
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:45:24 -0700
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Outreach and labeling

Eric wrote on : Saturday, August 10, 2002 10:44 PM

> Genie,
>
> Yes there may be marketing involved there.
> Your grouping and obvious disdain for marketers is exactly why we have
no
> Outreach.

Eric, how - where - when ?  My primary function in my business IS
marketing, my title is Director of Marketing....

>
> We have to get over this abundance of negativeness towards groups of
> people.
>
> Marketers, Poor people, Lawyers and Politicians have a right to be
here.
> As do Gays, Women, Latin Americans, Indians, and my 90 year old
father.

You can count me in with the Marketers, Poor people, Women groups,
Techies,  Czechs... and then some

>
> I respect all the work you have done here and only ask your respect
for
> others.

No disrespect ment at all Eric, merely lending observations based on
"been there done that..."

Cheers
Genie

- --
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, 11 Aug 2002 09:10:43 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

FYI, the PSO is also in the process of electing a Director, following the 
resignation of Phil Davidson. Deadline for nomination has been extended to 
2002-08-15.
RG

>From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director 
>candidates
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 21:09:49 +0200 (MET DST)
>
>Bret,
>
>Today Bylaws set up obligations on each SOs, one of them is to proceed
>on time and to elect ICANN Board directors.
>
>Until we receive the clear implementation schedule and timeline
>for ICANN 2 (whatever it is, as amended in Bucharest, work in progress,
>letters to DoC in progress, see your own blog), we have to follow rules.
>Otherwise it is anarchy.
>
>Elisabeth Porteneuve
>
>--
> > From [email-masked] Fri Aug  9 18:56 MET 2002
> > User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
> > Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:55:55 -0700
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board 
>Director
> > 	candidates
> > From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
> > To: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> > Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> > Mime-version: 1.0
> > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Can someone clarify what we're doing here? I'm a bit confused. By the 
>time
> > the new Director elected pursuant to the just announced process would be
> > seated, the Reform process will have been completed. I'm assuming that 
>the
> > Blueprint, or something very close to it, will be in place at that 
>point,
> > which would give the GNSO only two Board seats.
> >
> > In the likely event the Blueprint passes, the GNSO then will need to 
>hold
> > *new* elections for its two Board seats. Existing DNSO Board 
>representatives
> > might be reelected, but I wouldn't favor allowing them to retain their 
>seats
> > without standing for election, as that wouldn't account for the GNSO's 
>new
> > status (which will have a new make-up to the constituencies) or its new
> > priorities.
> >
> > Is there a way to compress this process so we don't waste time and 
>effort by
> > holding redundant elections?
> >
> >         -- Bret
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>--
>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

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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, 11 Aug 2002 13:25:48 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] How to hijack a Domain Name

"Earlier this year, Al Neda was being hosted on a server farm in Kuala
Lumpur. Messner believes the United States government pressured the
Malaysians to drop www.alneda.com from its site a few months ago.

When al-Qaida tried to move the domain, Messner struck. "After they pushed
it out of the Malaysian registry but before it entered the Indian registry,
in that split second the domain became exposed, and Snapback intercepted the
transfer and put my info in there," Messner said."
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,54455,00.html?tw=wn_ascii

There is something wrong. It looks like there was only a change in hosting
services and maybe a change in the domain name registrar. For these changes
there are no alterations needed in the ownership of the domain name. For
change of hosting services simly change nameservers via "domain name control
panel" or let the registrar do it for you. And if this would be true that
one can hijack a domain name during a registrar transfer no one would
transfer a domain name. But there are thousands of tansfers everyday.
I have not use snapnames until now, but what I heared from others Snapnames
is not that fast as claimed by Messner. And doesn't Snapnames only work with
expired domain names which were dropped?
As far as I know there a no Indian and no Malaysian registries for .com. ;-)
it is NetSol. Maybe the editor meant registrar.
According to NetSol whois the registrar of alneda.com is Directi.com, which
is an India based registrar.
http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=alneda.com&SearchType=do&ST
RING2.x=11&STRING2.y=8

Okay, there was a registrar transfer. But if it is true that one can
intercept a registrar trasfer the whole registrar transfer procedure should
be revised!

Simon Steinle

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] How to hijack a Domain Name

> > Saturday, August 10, 2002, 6:45:03 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,54455,00.html?tw=wn_ascii
>
> Saturday, August 10, 2002 7:30 PM William X Walsh wrote
> > His story sounds highly suspicious to me.  It is inconsistent and
> > inaccurate with how things run.
> >
> > I'd by highly skeptical of this story, or at least how it is being
> > portrayed.
> >
>
> I fully agree with William, if you actually go to the site and click
> through on the logo,
> there is a 'nice' pop under advertisement for some porn
> sites/affiliates/dial up
>
> It smells of a marketing art ... the tech details in the story do not
> make sense
>
> Genie Livingstone
>
>
> --
> 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, 11 Aug 2002 13:53:08 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

- --=======61804463=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-55FA4042; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 04:54 10/08/02, Michael D. Palage said:
>there are small to medium size businesses struggling to make a living

Michael makes a real point here. We are to select AS/Asia/Africa reps and 
we have real chances that the NC Members general concerns do change in the 
coming months with SME and individuals constituencies coming in. I think 
every candidate should clearly state if he commits to resign and rerun once 
the reform has been made and all the consituencies of the GNSO are 
represented at the NC.
jfc

- --=======61804463=======--

- --
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, 11 Aug 2002 06:41:52 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] How to hijack a Domain Name

It is also worth noting that web.archive.org shows no cached snapshots
of alneda.com.  I wonder if it was ever an Al Qaeda website to start
with.

Sunday, August 11, 2002, 1:25:48 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> "Earlier this year, Al Neda was being hosted on a server farm in Kuala
> Lumpur. Messner believes the United States government pressured the
> Malaysians to drop www.alneda.com from its site a few months ago.

> When al-Qaida tried to move the domain, Messner struck. "After they pushed
> it out of the Malaysian registry but before it entered the Indian registry,
> in that split second the domain became exposed, and Snapback intercepted the
> transfer and put my info in there," Messner said."
> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,54455,00.html?tw=wn_ascii

> There is something wrong. It looks like there was only a change in hosting
> services and maybe a change in the domain name registrar. For these changes
> there are no alterations needed in the ownership of the domain name. For
> change of hosting services simly change nameservers via "domain name control
> panel" or let the registrar do it for you. And if this would be true that
> one can hijack a domain name during a registrar transfer no one would
> transfer a domain name. But there are thousands of tansfers everyday.
> I have not use snapnames until now, but what I heared from others Snapnames
> is not that fast as claimed by Messner. And doesn't Snapnames only work with
> expired domain names which were dropped?
> As far as I know there a no Indian and no Malaysian registries for .com. ;-)
> it is NetSol. Maybe the editor meant registrar.
> According to NetSol whois the registrar of alneda.com is Directi.com, which
> is an India based registrar.
> http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=alneda.com&SearchType=do&ST
> RING2.x=11&STRING2.y=8

> Okay, there was a registrar transfer. But if it is true that one can
> intercept a registrar trasfer the whole registrar transfer procedure should
> be revised!

> Simon Steinle

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 9:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] How to hijack a Domain Name

>> > Saturday, August 10, 2002, 6:45:03 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> >
>> > > http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,54455,00.html?tw=wn_ascii
>>
>> Saturday, August 10, 2002 7:30 PM William X Walsh wrote
>> > His story sounds highly suspicious to me.  It is inconsistent and
>> > inaccurate with how things run.
>> >
>> > I'd by highly skeptical of this story, or at least how it is being
>> > portrayed.
>> >
>>
>> I fully agree with William, if you actually go to the site and click
>> through on the logo,
>> there is a 'nice' pop under advertisement for some porn
>> sites/affiliates/dial up
>>
>> It smells of a marketing art ... the tech details in the story do not
>> make sense
>>
>> Genie Livingstone
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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

- -- 
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, 11 Aug 2002 06:47:28 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] How to hijack a Domain Name

Also nothing in Google showing old links to the domain name, and
nothing in USENET which is commonly used in the Arabic world
especially for providing information about websites.

I think this whole thing was a hoax, and I've told the "reporter" as
much.

Sunday, August 11, 2002, 6:41:52 AM, William X Walsh wrote:

> It is also worth noting that web.archive.org shows no cached snapshots
> of alneda.com.  I wonder if it was ever an Al Qaeda website to start
> with.

> Sunday, August 11, 2002, 1:25:48 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

>> "Earlier this year, Al Neda was being hosted on a server farm in Kuala
>> Lumpur. Messner believes the United States government pressured the
>> Malaysians to drop www.alneda.com from its site a few months ago.

>> When al-Qaida tried to move the domain, Messner struck. "After they pushed
>> it out of the Malaysian registry but before it entered the Indian registry,
>> in that split second the domain became exposed, and Snapback intercepted the
>> transfer and put my info in there," Messner said."
>> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,54455,00.html?tw=wn_ascii

>> There is something wrong. It looks like there was only a change in hosting
>> services and maybe a change in the domain name registrar. For these changes
>> there are no alterations needed in the ownership of the domain name. For
>> change of hosting services simly change nameservers via "domain name control
>> panel" or let the registrar do it for you. And if this would be true that
>> one can hijack a domain name during a registrar transfer no one would
>> transfer a domain name. But there are thousands of tansfers everyday.
>> I have not use snapnames until now, but what I heared from others Snapnames
>> is not that fast as claimed by Messner. And doesn't Snapnames only work with
>> expired domain names which were dropped?
>> As far as I know there a no Indian and no Malaysian registries for .com. ;-)
>> it is NetSol. Maybe the editor meant registrar.
>> According to NetSol whois the registrar of alneda.com is Directi.com, which
>> is an India based registrar.
>> http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=alneda.com&SearchType=do&ST
>> RING2.x=11&STRING2.y=8

>> Okay, there was a registrar transfer. But if it is true that one can
>> intercept a registrar trasfer the whole registrar transfer procedure should
>> be revised!

>> Simon Steinle

>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
>> To: <[email-masked]>
>> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 9:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ga] How to hijack a Domain Name

>>> > Saturday, August 10, 2002, 6:45:03 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,54455,00.html?tw=wn_ascii
>>>
>>> Saturday, August 10, 2002 7:30 PM William X Walsh wrote
>>> > His story sounds highly suspicious to me.  It is inconsistent and
>>> > inaccurate with how things run.
>>> >
>>> > I'd by highly skeptical of this story, or at least how it is being
>>> > portrayed.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I fully agree with William, if you actually go to the site and click
>>> through on the logo,
>>> there is a 'nice' pop under advertisement for some porn
>>> sites/affiliates/dial up
>>>
>>> It smells of a marketing art ... the tech details in the story do not
>>> make sense
>>>
>>> Genie Livingstone
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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

- -- 
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, 11 Aug 2002 06:55:56 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Outreach and labeling

Just ignore him Genie.  He rarely makes sense.

Saturday, August 10, 2002, 11:45:24 PM, Genie Livingstone wrote:

> Eric wrote on : Saturday, August 10, 2002 10:44 PM

>> Genie,
>>
>> Yes there may be marketing involved there.
>> Your grouping and obvious disdain for marketers is exactly why we have
> no
>> Outreach.

> Eric, how - where - when ?  My primary function in my business IS
> marketing, my title is Director of Marketing....

>>
>> We have to get over this abundance of negativeness towards groups of
>> people.
>>
>> Marketers, Poor people, Lawyers and Politicians have a right to be
> here.
>> As do Gays, Women, Latin Americans, Indians, and my 90 year old
> father.

> You can count me in with the Marketers, Poor people, Women groups,
> Techies,  Czechs... and then some

>>
>> I respect all the work you have done here and only ask your respect
> for
>> others.

> No disrespect ment at all Eric, merely lending observations based on
> "been there done that..."

> Cheers
> Genie

> --
> 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

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1370
*************************