Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1372
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, August 13 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1372

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

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:32:07 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Proposed changes in .name Whois

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00485.html

.name Whois Proposal
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/bin00022.bin
(save as .pdf file, 140 kB)

- ------------------------------------
[...]

Issues
  In the time that the .name registry has been operating, several problems 
  related to the public availability  of Whois data have come to light. 
  Specifically:
   1. Although name and e-mail address in the registrant information fields 
      is suppressed, technical, administrative, and billing contact 
      information continues to be required. This makes sense where the 
      registrant is a large corporation, but in a top level domain designed 
      for individual use, the practical result is that protected registrant 
      information is publicly available as technical, administrative, and 
      billing contact information.
   2. Corporate entities with whom Global Name Registry is negotiating 
      long-term partnerships related to the creation of secure consumer 
      digital identities or conversion of existing e-mail users are 
      concerned about the personal safety of their consumers.

Proposal
  This proposal incorporates certain solutions, taking into account the 
  various suggestions made by the groups consulted with. The objective  
  of Global Name Registry, in proposing changes to its Whois Specification, 
  is to create a readily available and administratively simple process 
  where legitimate Whois requestors can gain access to the Whois database, 
  while creating obstacles designed to deter those who would use Whois data 
  for marketing and other inappropriate purposes.

1. Public Whois. [...]

2. Password Protected Detailed and Extensive Whois [...]

3. Messenger Service [...]

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

Found via Thomas Roessler's http://log.does-not-exist.org/

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 09:26:28 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: Why People Should NOT Depend on "Root Servers"

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: "'The IETF'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>; "todd glassey"
<[email-masked]>; "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>; "Kristy McKee" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Elisabeth Porteneuve"
<[email-masked]>; "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>; "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:04 AM
Subject: Why People Should NOT Depend on "Root Servers"

> http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg02459.html
> gentlemen, stop your engines
>
>   a.. From: Paul Vixie
>   b.. Date: Mon Aug 12 12:07:20 2002
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> after six reports that 192.5.5.241's address has been forged as the source
> of a tcp "fragmented scan" probe, i'm ready to have it stop.  but just in
> case it doesn't, this is fair warning to the community: F's address is in
> unlawful use by as-yet-unidentified third parties.
>
> re:
>
> ------- Forwarded Message
>
> From: ...
> To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Unauthorized Fragmented Scan
> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 06:56:08 -0700
>
> To whom it may concern,
>
> The Security Information & Analysis Center has detected an
> unauthorized scan against one of our networks that has a possible origin at
> 192.5.5.241.
>
> Please review the following initial information:
>
> IPHalfScan  08-11-2002 17:34:02 UTC 192.5.5.241:53
> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:53 TCP
> IPHalfScan  08-11-2002 17:28:00 UTC 192.5.5.241:53
> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:53 TCP
>
> Please take action to verify this address on your network
> and it's intent to scan our networks.  Thank you for your assistance.
>
> SECURITY INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS CENTER
> 1-877-...
>
> ------- End of Forwarded Message
>
>
> Modern DNS software finds the TLD Clusters, tracks them, and
> does not use ANY "root servers" (legacy or alt). People who rely
> on a dozen 32-bit IPv4 addresses to be coherently routed are fools,
> in my opinion. Any organization that promotes that type of structure
> and architecture as "secure" is perpetrating a fraud on unsuspecting
> users, who assume the system is stable and secure. Root servers are
> out of date, do not always track the TLD Cluster(s), do not support
> fail-over to back-up TLD Clusters, in cases of a major corporate
> failure. People continue to use them at their peril, yet clearly profit
> from telling people to use them.
>
> Jim Fleming
> 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>
>
>

- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 10:32:52 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:203     ONLINE.....Re: [csif-l 696] Yahoo silent on signing Chinese self-censorship pact

Sounds like the I* society at work....

By the way, who owns http://www.Yahoo.ONLINE ?

http://www.name-space.com
http://www.adns.net/NEWS/2002070101.html

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:203     ONLINE

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Chiu" <[email-masked]>
To: "Csif-L@Jca. Apc. Org (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:11 AM
Subject: [csif-l 696] Yahoo silent on signing Chinese self-censorship pact

> "Yahoo! officials have remained tight-lipped after being criticised by human
> right groups for signing a voluntary self-censorship pledge in China to help
> purge Web content that the government deems subversive.
> 
> "Human Rights Watch, in a letter to Yahoo!'s chief executive Terry Semel,
> said that by agreeing to the pledge, the portal would undermine the positive
> potential of the Internet in China.
> 
> "'Were Yahoo! to implement its provisions, it could become complicit in
> violations of the right to free expression,' wrote Kenneth Roth, executive
> director of Human Rights Watch. ...
> 
> "Yahoo!, which has been a supporter of freedom of expression elsewhere in
> the world, was one of 300 companies in the mainland agreeing to implement
> the 'Public Pledge on Self-discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry',
> which was launched in March.
> 
> "The pledge, sponsored by government-affiliated Internet Society of China,
> aims to promote Internet use, prevent cyber crime, foster healthy industry
> competition and avoid violation of intellectual property rights.
> 
> "However, signatories also agree to refrain from 'producing, posting or
> disseminating pernicious information that may jeopardise state security and
> disrupt social stability'.
> 
> "They agree to investigate all Web sites to which they provide links, block
> anything the Chinese government would consider 'harmful information', and
> report them to Chinese authorities.
> 
> "The self-discipline pledge is seen as a move by Beijing to have tighter
> control over public expression of views on controversial subjects such as
> religion and politics. ...
> 
> "Yahoo! has not responded to the criticism. Its regional office in Hong Kong
> yesterday said no one was available for comment.
> 
> "'It is undoubtedly a case that firms sacrifice freedom for money. More and
> more companies carry out self-censorship for the opportunity to do business
> in China,' said Hong Kong-based human rights activist Ho Hei-wah." 
> 
> See Sidney Luk, "Portal silent on censor claims in China," South China
> Morning Post, 13 August 2002 at
> http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/Weekly2002/08.13.2002/China5.htm
> 
> Sincerely,
> Christopher Chiu
> Global Internet Liberty Campaign Organizer
> American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> 

- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 20:06:21 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WHOIS Public comment period extended till August 28, 2002

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

 The Public Comment Period on the WHOIS Final  Report of the Names Council's
WHOIS Task Force is extended to AUGUST 28, 2002.
Archives: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc00/
Final report : http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/whoisTF/
Please consult:
http://www.dnso.org/

All members of the internet community are invited to comment on the WHOIS
Report.

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: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:20:23 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Outreach and labeling

Eric, I disagree - the reason we have no outreach is because we haven't
bothered to even get the goals defined and the milestones set such that we
can approach people about joining.

Folks lives are very busy these days and to have to spend hours digging
amongst the garbage to pick out a gem here and there when there are no goals
or milestones setup to even define what would in this case constitute a gem,
simply means that we cannot go to the outside for members - they are
uninterested in getting into some organization group-grope... They need
assurance that our act is together and that we know where we are going and
that it benefits them to such a point that they cannot help but be a member
of our little club here.

What this organization needs is a goal and a set of processes for reaching
that goal... Then Outreach has a chance.

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 10:44 PM
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
>

- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 12:21:11 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] How to hijack a Domain Name

Genie and William are dead on here. This is merde, BS, and otherwise pretty
stinky.

Todd Glassey

- ----- 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: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:28:27 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Bret,

I do not see Article V as easy adapted to the exceptional
situation when you have to coordinate actions in ALL 3 SOs.
Not much doubt for myself, it requires Board action (but
I am not a lawyer).

But my real point in not there.

The acting Board Director need to be reelected, and to have
a strong support to achieve the work on Reform. What if extension
of 90 days is not sufficient ? 
How long does it take to have a request for extension ready
and ratified by the Board ?

Please note that after Shaghai the Board will be reduced 
to SOs Directors only (see below), and probably until
the first ICANN meeting in 2003. The time is necessary
to set up the Nominating Committee representing 19 various groups 
of interest and respecting the geographic diversity.
Once this Nominating Committee is set up, it will have to find 
and seat Board Directors.

Am I pessimistic on implementation ? Maybe.

Anyway, it is easier in my opinion to have SOs Directors
in place and to replace all of them by new structure, when
ready.

To be clear: I think that the DNSO election underway is in 
support of Mr Pisanty.

Elisabeth
- --

1. Article V, Section 1. INITIAL BOARD
   ...
   The remaining four "At Large" members of the Initial Board 
   shall serve until the conclusion of the Annual Meeting of 
   the Corporation in 2002. No At Large member of the Initial 
   Board shall be eligible for additional service on the Board 
   until two years have elapsed following the end of his or her 
   term on the Board.

   Will leave: Hans Krajinenbrink, Linda Wilson, Jun Murai 
   and Frank Fitzsimmons

2. Article II, about FIVE "AT LARGE" DIRECTORS elected IN THE YEAR 2000

   Section 3. TERMS OF "AT LARGE" DIRECTORS

   The five "At Large" Directors seated as described in 
   Section 2 shall serve terms that expire at the conclusion of 
   the Annual Meeting of the Corporation in 2002.

   Will leave: Nii Quaynor, Ivan Campos, Masanobu Katoh, Karl Auerbach, 
   Andy Mueller-Maguhn

> From [email-masked] Fri Aug  9 23:37 MET 2002
> X-UIDL: RhY!!+JU!!%QJ"!kIY"!
> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 14:39:04 -0700
> Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director
> 	candidates
> From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
> To: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Mime-version: 1.0
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> 
> There's more than one way to do this...without throwing ourselves into
> anarchy. Here are just three alternatives, each possible under the current
> bylaws:
> 
> (1) Ask each of the DNSO-elected Directors to resign now but effective at
> the close of the Board meeting on 31 October 2002. Hold elections now for
> two replacements (plus one alternate in the event that three Directors are
> required under ICANN 2.0). The current bylaws permit the DNSO to fill a
> vacancy under Article V, Section 12.
> 
> (2) Vote now to remove the sitting DNSO Directors under Article V, Section
> 11 effective at the close of the Board meeting on 31 October 2002. Then, as
> described in (1), hold new elections.
> 
> (3) Have the Council vote to extend the term of Mr. Pisanty, with the
> blessing of the Board, for a period of 90 days, which ought to be sufficient
> to finalize reform and hold new elections within the new GNSO.
> 
> Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> --
- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 23:03:49 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

- --=======8476275=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-76C15559; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 21:28 13/08/02, Elisabeth Porteneuve said:
>Please note that after Shaghai the Board will be reduced
>to SOs Directors only (see below),

Dear Elisabeth,
Vint committed on this list that it will noty be so because the @large 
Directors will stay seated until replaced. I trust Vint.

The ICANN could not have any legitimacy left..
jfc

- --=======8476275=======--

- --
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 #1372
*************************