Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1396
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, August 28 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1396

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:58:41 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Policy on Introduction of Registry Services

Marilyn,

Our General Counsel in his preliminary analysis on WLS noted that:  "ICANN 
has not yet developed a well-defined procedure for considering requests by 
registry operators to amend Appendix G to allow charging for an additional 
registry service. Because action on VGRS's proposal may serve as a model for 
future actions, it is important to carefully consider the process that should 
be followed."  

As Chair of the Transfers Task Force that handled the WLS matter, can you 
comment on the "procedure" that the task force has recommended to govern the 
future introduction of registry services by VeriSign and other registries?  I 
have not been able to find any such specific policy recommendation regarding 
future introductions of registry services in the TF report.  Did I miss it 
somewhere?  Wasn't it part of the Task Force's job to consider such policy 
matters?
- --
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, 27 Aug 2002 07:25:24 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: WHOIS Policy?

Dear Danny,
I hope that you have chosen to provide your comments, which would be welcomed,
to the WHOIS TF via the request for comments -- via the www.dnso.org. Comments close 8/28, but we would welcome any comments via that avenue. I can, of course, forward your posting to the WHOIS TF, if you would like. As a former member of the TF, and someone who has demonstrated a keen  interest in these issues, I am sure that the TF will be interested in your comments.

Regards, Marilyn Cade

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:28 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Subject: WHOIS Policy?

Marilyn,

Regarding the accuracy of data contained in the WHOIS database, your Task 
Force has stated:  "The Task Force believes that the approach of actually 
enforcing the existing contractual provisions is the essential first step 
toward improving WHOIS data accuracy in the gTLD environment."  One such 
contractual provision reads:

[3.7.7.2]  A Registered Name Holder's willful provision of inaccurate or 
unreliable information, its willful failure promptly to update information 
provided to Registrar, or its failure to respond for over fifteen calendar 
days to inquiries by Registrar concerning the accuracy of contact details 
associated with the Registered Name Holder's registration shall constitute a 
material breach of the Registered Name Holder-registrar contract and be a 
basis for cancellation of the Registered Name registration.

So, if I choose to provide inaccurate data in order to protect my privacy 
rights, are you are telling me that it is the current recommendation of the 
Task Force that registries/registrars be forced to cancel my domain name 
registration and that their failure to cancel my registration will result in 
sanctions against them?
- --
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, 27 Aug 2002 11:02:14 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: WHOIS Policy?

Marilyn,

I have posed a question regarding a recommendation that has been put forth by 
your Task Force and all I get from you is a non-answer.  Are you in training 
to become a member of the Board?
- --
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, 27 Aug 2002 08:43:05 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: WHOIS Policy?

Marilyn -
The real issue is ICANN's gross failure to force its Registrar's to enforce
the existing regulations and by allowing their (both ICANN and the
Registrars) interpretation of the US Law such that a simple disclaimer is
their protection. This could easily be dealt with an official ICANN
Registrar Operations Change Order. What they (both ICANN and the Registrars)
have, to the entity done, is to place up a legal disclaimer which they use
as a shield from being responsible. This is the lie of their process.

Now some Registrars like GoDaddy have taken their responsibilities more to
heart and have implemented an Auth Model using a non-machine interpretable
(to date) token exchanges so that the folks violating WHOIS harvesting rules
cant use their Registrar's Whois as a source. Bravo GoDaddy BTW!. But the
real issue is all the other Registrars that provide bulk whois data either
officially or through Social Engineering to whoever asks for it.

What needs to happen is two fold. That is that it needs to be a crime to
provide fraudulent information for domain registrations, and the Registrars
need to be held accountable for access to Whois Data however its managed. It
also needs to be enforced that the Registrars are responsible for the
integrity of their Whois Database and they should be fined for publishing
contact data that is not accurate.

This will encourage them to have much stronger contracts with their
customers and force them to do stupid stuff like verify through email all of
the email addresses for contacting a domain. Also looking for obviously
phony phone numbers like 123.456.7890 as a US phone number.

Anytime they discover (or have pointed out to them) fraudulent registration
data, they MUST immediately 'disconnect' that domain. This BTW is the best
way there is to fight SPAM since it will be possible to pull any SPAMMER
DOMAIN that was registered for the sole purpose of pushing SPAM with a real
return address on it. We can then worry about other SPAM vectors by setting
up more rigid SENDMAIL filters.

Oh and I wont get into the issues of caching domain names and the like
here..

Anyway - my two cents.

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:25 AM
Subject: [ga] RE: WHOIS Policy?

> Dear Danny,
> I hope that you have chosen to provide your comments, which would be
welcomed,
> to the WHOIS TF via the request for comments -- via the www.dnso.org.
Comments close 8/28, but we would welcome any comments via that avenue. I
can, of course, forward your posting to the WHOIS TF, if you would like. As
a former member of the TF, and someone who has demonstrated a keen  interest
in these issues, I am sure that the TF will be interested in your comments.
>
> Regards, Marilyn Cade
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:28 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Subject: WHOIS Policy?
>
>
> Marilyn,
>
> Regarding the accuracy of data contained in the WHOIS database, your Task
> Force has stated:  "The Task Force believes that the approach of actually
> enforcing the existing contractual provisions is the essential first step
> toward improving WHOIS data accuracy in the gTLD environment."  One such
> contractual provision reads:
>
> [3.7.7.2]  A Registered Name Holder's willful provision of inaccurate or
> unreliable information, its willful failure promptly to update information
> provided to Registrar, or its failure to respond for over fifteen calendar
> days to inquiries by Registrar concerning the accuracy of contact details
> associated with the Registered Name Holder's registration shall constitute
a
> material breach of the Registered Name Holder-registrar contract and be a
> basis for cancellation of the Registered Name registration.
>
> So, if I choose to provide inaccurate data in order to protect my privacy
> rights, are you are telling me that it is the current recommendation of
the
> Task Force that registries/registrars be forced to cancel my domain name
> registration and that their failure to cancel my registration will result
in
> sanctions against them?
> --
> 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, 27 Aug 2002 08:45:58 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Structure and values (was Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion)

The problem with ICANN is simple. If it is to be the provider of Earths IP
services then that needs to be ratified by both the UN and each and every
country formally.

My take is that this is not likely to happen and as such that the NTIA may
have over stepped its bounds in awarding a sole contract for this service
based technology to ICANN. The reason that it is not today is because ICANN
does not run the Internet, the Telco's do.

Todd
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>
To: "Patrick" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:59 AM
Subject: Structure and values (was Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion)

> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 07:17:58 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
>
> >It is a job best left to governments. While I can't say I'm particularly
happy
> >with my governments track record on that point as of late, at least I
have
> >some semblance of representation, and my governments pockets are deep
> >enough to engage in long, drawn-out suits involving monopolists.
>
> This perhaps is true in your country. Not in all countries - not even in
all
> Western countries (in fact, the Prime Minister of Italy is a
> quasi-monopolist in most media markets in the country - can you imagine
his
> government sueing monopolies?).
>
> So I still think we should question whether ICANN is the right
> non-governmental regulatory body and built in the right way, rather than
> suggesting that there should be an international governmental regulator
> rather than a non-governmental one.
>
> Said this, the recent decision on WLS seems to prove that the present
ICANN
> is unable to take into proper account the need to protect consumers and
> competition, even to the point of reversing the consensus in the
underlying
> constituency bodies; and also proves once again that ICANN's decisions
have
> a deep effect on the effectiveness and affordability of prices and
services
> in the DNS market for the registrants, and then, in cascade, for final
users
> (this for Ross Rader).
>
> I have been contributing to ICANN's Reform process (last, as a member of
the
> ALAC Advisory Group) because I think that we should avoid at any cost that
a
> governmental body replaces ICANN, and because I think that users like me,
> notwithstanding their good reasons, have to work to prove their ability to
> supply practical contributions to decision-making processes. But this last
> *policy* decision from the Board is very disappointing. If I had to prove
> why ICANN needs not just a structural reform, but a marked change of
> direction in terms of policy-making process and values, the WLS episode
> would be one of my top evidences.
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
> --
> 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, 27 Aug 2002 09:03:04 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

Danny - don't you know - the only real users of the Internet are the ICANN
board members. That's why they are the only ones queried for consensus... Or
at least that is how it seems. What I want to know is that in today's
Post-9/11 and Post-Enron/Post-WorldCom debacles, why ICANN thinks that it
can operate Status Quo.

What I propose is a formal end-to-end audit of ICANN, its finances and its
practices and that as "the" sole US Government appointee, that ICANN's
status as a Public trust demands this type of credibility.

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

> Dear Vint,
>
> One of the responsibilities of the Board is to "recognize consensus".
>
> 1.  3453 petitioners endorsed an Anti-WLS petition posted at
> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?antiwls
> 2.  A review of the comments posted to the Public Forums shows an
> overwhelming objection to the proposed WLS
> 3.  Members of the General Assembly were similarly overwhelmingly in
> opposition to the WLS
> 4.  Every single constituency with the exception of the gTLDs came out in
> opposition to the WLS
> 5.  The DNSO voted to reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement to
> enable it to introduce its proposed WLS
> 6.  The DNSO also voted to reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for
12
> months
>
> and yet the Board has resolved to launch the WLS.
>
> In your testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
> Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet on 8 February 2001 you
> stated, "ICANN is a consensus development body, not a regulatory agency.
Its
> decisions are intended to reflect consensus in the Internet community, not
> simply the policy preferences of those who happen to sit on its Board at
any
> given moment."
>
> As I am sure that you did not willfully lie to the US Government, I can
only
> assume that the Board's decision on WLS must reflect a consensus in the
> Internet community that I have somehow failed to notice.

perjury before a government committee would likely collapse US government
support for ICANN

> Otherwise one might
> conclude that you have chosen to act in defiance of the community will at
a
> time when the Department of Commerce has been looking for assurances that
the
> views of all Internet stakeholders are being heard.
>
> Perhaps you would be good enough to demonstrate the presence of such
> community consensus so that we don't arrive at the conclusion that your
> collective actions represent simply the policy preferences of those who
now
> sit on the Board... Unless of course, the Board is now of the view that it
> has no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the consensus of the
> community.
>
>
> --
> 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, 27 Aug 2002 12:06:08 -0400
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Policy on Introduction of Registry Services

Danny,

The ICANN Board Resolution with respect to the WLS stated:

Resolved [02.53] that the Board requests the Names Council to coordinate
within the DNSO a comprehensive review of issues concerning the deletion of
domain names and possible solutions for those issues and to submit to the
Board, no later than 10 June 2002, a status report on that review, with the
status report to include any recommendations (with supporting materials)
concerning VeriSign's request to modify the .com and .net agreements to
allow it to provide a wait-listing service, for a fee, as part of its
operation of the .com and .net registries;

Resolved [02.54] that the Secretary is directed to advise the Address and
Protocol Councils of VeriSign's request and the Board's intent to consider
that request at its Bucharest meeting on 28 June 2002, with an invitation to
those councils to submit comments (if any) on the request before that time; 

Resolved [02.55] that the Board invites public comments on VeriSign's
request and directs that a suitable mechanism be established for allowing
comments to be submitted over the Internet to ICANN for at least a
thirty-day period; and

Resolved [02.56] that the Board invites comments on VeriSign's request at
the Public Comment Forum to be held on 27 June 2002 in Bucharest, Romania.

It was followed with another bd resolution in Bucharest stating:

Resolved [02.84] that the Names Council is requested to provide, no later
than 26 July 2002, its final recommendations, with its supporting rationale
and any separate positions of DNSO constituencies, on the VeriSign WLS
request (including the modifications made on 27 June 2002), so that the
Board may act shortly thereafter.

Nowhere in any of these resolutions was the DNSO (especially the Transfers
Task Force) given authority to look at the issue you have referenced.
Please let us on the Transfer Task Force do our job with respect to
"Transfers" and not waste its time on matters that (1) Are not within the
scope of the Task Force's Terms of Reference and (2) may be beyond the scope
of the ICANN "policy process" in general.   

Being side tracked on other unrelated issues takes away valuable time from
considering the issues that you have complained constantly about us taking
too much time to look at in the first place.

Thank you.

Jeff Neuman

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:59 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Policy on Introduction of Registry Services

Marilyn,

Our General Counsel in his preliminary analysis on WLS noted that:  "ICANN 
has not yet developed a well-defined procedure for considering requests by 
registry operators to amend Appendix G to allow charging for an additional 
registry service. Because action on VGRS's proposal may serve as a model for

future actions, it is important to carefully consider the process that
should 
be followed."  

As Chair of the Transfers Task Force that handled the WLS matter, can you 
comment on the "procedure" that the task force has recommended to govern the

future introduction of registry services by VeriSign and other registries?
I 
have not been able to find any such specific policy recommendation regarding

future introductions of registry services in the TF report.  Did I miss it 
somewhere?  Wasn't it part of the Task Force's job to consider such policy 
matters?
- --
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, 27 Aug 2002 13:12:05 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: WHOIS Policy?

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 11:02 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: WHOIS Policy?

Marilyn,

I have posed a question regarding a recommendation that has been put forth by 
your Task Force and all I get from you is a non-answer.  Are you in training 
to become a member of the Board?
- --
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, 27 Aug 2002 13:14:07 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy on Introduction of Registry Services

Jeff,

There is a reason that ICANN uses "Whereas" clauses.  The clause immediately 
preceding the resolution you have referenced cites the General Counsel's 
report as a factor that should be taken into consideration by those dealing 
with the issue.  These clauses constitute a "sense of the Board" that cannot 
lightly be dismissed.  By referencing this report the Board sought to draw 
your attention to the matters described therein (including the need to 
establish a policy to deal with the future introduction of registry 
services).  

If your constituency doesn't seek to have a policy or set of procedures 
regarding the introduction of registry services, then I can appreciate your 
position even if I might not agree with your view.  Similarly, if you believe 
that such a policy is better left to another task force, then I would concur 
that this is indeed a better way forward.  My aggravation stems from the fact 
that we seem to have task forces that ignore the policy issues, that don't 
set timelines, that don't publish the minutes of their closed 
teleconferences, and that take forever seemingly getting nothing 
accomplished.  It's been over ten months, and still we don't have even a 
proposed policy on transfers.  Your chairman refuses to set any timeline for 
your efforts and the frustration is mounting as registrants are still not 
properly represented in this process and can't act to expedite the work of 
the TF.   

Sure, members of the BC will pop up and claim to represent registrants, but 
if they really were our representatives/advocates then we would have long ago 
had the work already completed.  They and other "pretenders" don't represent 
our interests and the work is clearly languishing without registrant input.  
Marilyn has long fought to keep registrants off of her task force and we are 
now reaping the consequences of this lack of representation.  It's not that 
tough to simply propose a policy and put it up for discussion.  One has to 
wonder what Marilyn's true agenda is...
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:02:17 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

http://log.does-not-exist.org/archive-0208.html#02082719481030470514

    Here's a first fragment of a draft for a [1]WHOIS policy primer.  
    This one's a walk-through of the registrar accreditation 
    agreements (actually, there are two of these, with small  
    differences), which is hopefully at least a bit more 
    understandable than the agreements themselves. Missing bits: A 
    review of the .name appendix to the RAA (which is currently 
    missing from the ICANN web site), which may contain changes to 
    query-based access, and an overview of registries' WHOIS 
    provisions. In any event, the most important policies (at least 
    from a privacy point of view...) are contained in the RAA: Even 
    the thick registries basically make the same query-based access 
    available as registrars (with [2].name as an exception), with the 
    same non-restrictions on use of the data, and, possibly, advanced 
    query possibilities. Bulk access to thick registries' whois data 
    is more limited than with registrars. So I hope that this is 
    useful even in its current incomplete state. I'll add more when I 
    find the time. That means, in particular, not this week.
						 
References
						 
    1. http://does-not-exist.org/whois-primer.html
    2. http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appo-29jun01.htm

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

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:40:59 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

Thomas,

For a long time we have all known what the policies are.  We have also known 
that many detest these policies and are looking for aggressive changes rather 
than aggressive enforcement.  Why is the task force of the view that 
"enforcing the existing contractual provisions is the essential first step"?

I, for one, don't want these policies enforced.  I want them changed.  I can 
contact my telephone services provider and request (for a slight fee) an 
unlisted number.  Neither my name, nor my postal address, nor my fax number, 
nor my email address will be published.  This represents no particular burden 
for the law enforcement community and I am able to have the measure of 
privacy that I deem important.  Why then should all my contact details have 
to be exposed in the WHOIS?  

Is the task force arguing that the rights of the intellectual property 
community trump my own privacy rights?  How did you arrive at the 
recommendation regarding enforcing existing contractual provisions?  I see 
that you and Steve Metalitz, president of the Intellectual Property 
Constituency, prepared the section that I find so objectionable:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00431.html  

How much discussion was there by the group on these recommendations, or were 
they all rushed through to meet your publication deadline?  I haven't found 
any discussion on this topic in this archives, and I don't take kindly to 
having the IPC position railroaded through the process.
- --
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, 27 Aug 2002 19:37:42 GMT
From: David Farrar <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

> Thomas,
> 
> For a long time we have all known what the policies are.  We have also known 
> that many detest these policies and are looking for aggressive changes rather 
> than aggressive enforcement.  Why is the task force of the view that 
> "enforcing the existing contractual provisions is the essential first step"?
> 
> I, for one, don't want these policies enforced.  I want them changed.  I can 
> contact my telephone services provider and request (for a slight fee) an 
> unlisted number.  Neither my name, nor my postal address, nor my fax number, 
> nor my email address will be published.  This represents no particular burden 
> for the law enforcement community and I am able to have the measure of 
> privacy that I deem important.  Why then should all my contact details have 
> to be exposed in the WHOIS?  

There is a slight difference here.  Your phone number is always held by a 
company which has an office in the country where the phone number is for.  ie 
in New Zealand the telco Telecom or Telstra and both are required by law to co-
operate with law enforcement agencies.

But with domain names and a thin registry you may register your name through a 
registrar based in say Iraq which is probably highly unlikely to co-operate 
with a request from the FBI.  You could put in the registrar contracts that 
they have to co-operate with the FBI but then why only force them to co-operate 
with law enforcement in one country.  So then you'd have to have registrars co-
operate with all law enforcement agencies in the world ....

DPF

- --
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, 27 Aug 2002 12:13:17 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

Danny -
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

> Thomas,
>
> For a long time we have all known what the policies are.  We have also
known
> that many detest these policies and are looking for aggressive changes
rather
> than aggressive enforcement.  Why is the task force of the view that
> "enforcing the existing contractual provisions is the essential first
step"?
>
> I, for one, don't want these policies enforced.  I want them changed.  I
can
> contact my telephone services provider and request (for a slight fee) an
> unlisted number.  Neither my name, nor my postal address, nor my fax
number,
> nor my email address will be published.  This represents no particular
burden
> for the law enforcement community and I am able to have the measure of
> privacy that I deem important.  Why then should all my contact details
have
> to be exposed in the WHOIS?

becuase there MUST be some way of registering a data base wherein the owner
operators of domains are accessible. If not WHOIS, then what?

>
> Is the task force arguing that the rights of the intellectual property
> community trump my own privacy rights?  How did you arrive at the
> recommendation regarding enforcing existing contractual provisions?

because the WHOIS entry pertains to the public name that you are publishing.
By that act, the registering of a domain name, there is an inherent
agreement to be published in WHOIS.

> I see
> that you and Steve Metalitz, president of the Intellectual Property
> Constituency, prepared the section that I find so objectionable:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00431.html
>
> How much discussion was there by the group on these recommendations, or
were
> they all rushed through to meet your publication deadline?  I haven't
found
> any discussion on this topic in this archives, and I don't take kindly to
> having the IPC position railroaded through the process.
> --
> 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, 27 Aug 2002 16:18:59 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

Todd, you wrote:  << there MUST be some way of registering a data base 
wherein the owner operators of domains are accessible. >>

I have an unlisted phone number.  Law enforcement entities have no difficulty 
gaining access to my contact information.  If I create a situation where my 
vanity phone number is confusingly similar to that of another, the IP folks 
can attempt to subpoena my information through the legal system.  I don't 
need to hand it to them on a platter just because they want to go on fishing 
expeditions.  The same principles should apply in the domain name system. 
- --
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, 27 Aug 2002 17:35:02 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Thanks Bret.  Just one more point of clarification.  Is the sixth hurdle
independent in the sense of not being part of ICANN as the IRP was
originally intended?

BTW, I had reviewed Becky's recommendation and thought it was good.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 5:58 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
> 
> 
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > Where is the "independent review?"  How are the other five 
> review steps
> > independent?
> 
> Two uses of "independent." When I said there were six 
> "independent" checks,
> I meant "independent" as in "not dependent on or conditioned 
> by or relative
> to anything else." When I said that one of those checks was 
> "independent"
> review, I meant "independent" as in "free from external control and
> constraint."
> 
> I thought my intention was apparent from context, but just to 
> be clear:
> there are six "distinct" hurdles to cross before something 
> becomes a policy,
> and one of those is "independent review."
> 
> Becky Burr recently submitted a recommendation on how 
> independent review
> might work: 
> http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/afap-report-23aug02.htm
> 
>       -- 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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:08:04 +0800
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Todd, you wrote:  << there MUST be some way of registering a data base
> wherein the owner operators of domains are accessible. >>
> 
> I have an unlisted phone number.  Law enforcement entities have no difficulty
> gaining access to my contact information.  If I create a situation where my
> vanity phone number is confusingly similar to that of another, the IP folks
> can attempt to subpoena my information through the legal system.  I don't
> need to hand it to them on a platter just because they want to go on fishing
> expeditions.  The same principles should apply in the domain name system.

It is not at all clear that the same principles apply. 

In the case of the phone number, the only people who may need to
contact you about network issues are the phone company, and they
certainly know how.

In the case of a domain, an administrator anywhere on the net may
need to contact you, and quickly. Suppose one of your users is
spamming, or some EvilDoer has subverted one of your machiness and
is using it a a base for attacks on other systems. I'd say it is
absolutely necessary, to keep the net running, that some mechanism
exist to get a technical contact quickly. 

The contact might be an administrator at the ISP, not the domain
owner, and the information might be made available through some
mechanism other than whois. For example, we might add a DNS record
type to hold this info, or just require that addresses like abuse@,
webmaster@ and postmaster@ be valid. However, neither adding
things to DNS protocols nor enforcing address validity is easy,
so at least in the short term, I think we need it in whois.

One way or another, the technical contact info must be available. 

Whether the owners must be accessible -- e.g. for libel suits,
copyright complaints, law enforcement, etc. -- is a completely
separate question. My take on that is that getting such
information should require a warrant or supoena.
- --
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, 27 Aug 2002 23:54:09 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

On 2002-08-27 14:40:59 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>For a long time we have all known what the policies are.  

Guess what, not everyone clearly understands these policies, and  
the summary is mostly intended for people who are not, at this  
point, familiar with the details.

(Just look at the language preceding the bulk access question on the 
WHOIS task force's survey form - that text is supposed to describe  
the current bulk access provisions.  The form is linked from  
http://does-not-exist.org/whois/. WARNING: That page was last  
updated during the Ghana meetings.)

>We have also known that many detest these policies and are looking 
>for aggressive changes rather than aggressive enforcement.  Why is 
>the task force of the view that "enforcing the existing  
>contractual provisions is the essential first step"?

You are quoting this out of context: The recommendation about  
enforcement was about a single concern, accuracy.  Supplying  
accurate data is one thing - you don't give a fake address when  
applying for an unlisted phone number, right? Giving everyone access 
to that data is an entirely different thing - though it's an idea  
you can find throughout ICANN's contracts with registries and  
registrars.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:11:05 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:08:04AM +0800, Sandy Harris wrote:
> The contact might be an administrator at the ISP, not the domain
> owner, and the information might be made available through some
> mechanism other than whois. For example, we might add a DNS record
> type to hold this info,

Of course, if the problem is that your dns servers are misbehaving, 
having contact info in the dns isn't much help.

Kent
- --
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, 27 Aug 2002 16:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, todd glassey wrote:

> becuase there MUST be some way of registering a data base wherein the owner
> operators of domains are accessible. If not WHOIS, then what?

That is a fallacy.

There is no operational reason to have publicly visible contact
information for a domain name.

The only reason that such information has been required has been to
placate the intellectual property interests who demand to know who domain
name owners are (but who want to hide their own identities when they file
WLS subscriptions.)

The contact information for IP addresses does have operational value,  
is more likely to be correct, and the lookup key (the IP address) is much 
less likely to be forged than a domain name.

If you want to know from whence something is coming or has come, look to 
the IP address then go to the IP allocation databases maintained by the 
RIRs.

Of course, with any database containing personally identifiable
information, the rules of access ought to require that you leave your own
identity and proof of that identity so that the data subject can know you
were looking.  But there is no such obligation placed on those who mine 
DNS/whois for commercial gain or worse.

> because the WHOIS entry pertains to the public name that you are publishing.
> By that act, the registering of a domain name, there is an inherent
> agreement to be published in WHOIS.

If that were the case then the identity of those buying WLS subscriptions
would have been made public.

Having known people who have been stalked as a result of DNS/whois 
information, and having myself received mountains of whois derived e-mail, 
fax, and phone spam, I do not believe that there is even a close balance 
of equities on the social contract that you suggest.

DNS/Whois is a holdover from the days of the net when we all knew one
another (and we would all fit into one meeting room in Pacific Grove,
California.)  The DNS/whois of today is a violation of all privacy
principles that have evolved over the last three decades.

		--karl--

- --
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 #1396
*************************