Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1410
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, September 6 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1410

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:17:24 -0500
From: "Hugh Blair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk acces...

> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
> 
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> > Here are some thoughts on what bulk access provisions 
> should look like. 
> 
> My answer to what it ought to look like is this:
> 
> 	{ }  (empty set)

Nail. Head. Hammer.

- -- 
    Hugh
- --
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: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] YesNIC hoarding joesworld.com 

I don't know the proper venue for this issue. If someone knows of a better 
venue, please privately reply with a pointer.

In short, YesNIC is the registrar for 'joesworld.com' yet their whois 
servers denies the existance for the registration, returning "No match" 
to 'joesworld.com' searches. 

(background: I've been trying for some time now - maybe a year or more - 
to snag joesworld.com for a friend who runs a nonprofit that currently 
lives @ joesworld.org)

When I recently asked YesNic about the whois discrepency, they threw me a 
sales pitch!?! See email below.

I've responded to YesNic with a pointer to ICANN's accreditation 
agreement, however, the accreditation agreement isn't clear on one key 
point. The agreement says a registrar must provide whois data for any 
active domain, but nowhere in the agreement does it define "active." 
joesworld.com doesn't exist in the root zone files, but it's registered. 
Does this mean the domain is "inactive" and that valid whois responses 
don't need to be returned?? I think not, but alas, IANAL nor a ICANN 
insider.

A helpful person has suggested I buy a 'SnapBack' on the domain from 
snapdomains. Surely this can't be my best option? Is ICANN's domain-name 
system so messed up that "accredited" registrars are simply hoarding good 
names, hiding whois details and then offering to be a "broker" to 
unsuspecting customers??

Ug.

Abe

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:17:54 +0900
From: "Kang,In-Soon" <[email-masked]>
To: Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: joesworld.com

Dear Abraham

Thank you for contacting YesNIC.
I have been manage to contact the owner of 'joesworld.com' domain name but I am afraid that I am not allowed to release the contact information.
However, the owner is my client and has appointed me as his agent to proceed this deal for the domain name with you.
Hence, if you wish to purchase this domain name, please let me know how much you are willing to invest.
Once you give me your proposed price, I will consult about it with my client and try to actively negotiate with you.
Thank you.

Kind Regards,
Jason Lee

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Abraham Ingersoll" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:35 AM
Subject: joesworld.com

> 
> Hello,
> 
> I wish to buy 'joesworld.com', yet it seems that the domain is "taken", 
> even though your whois system FAILS to provide contact information for the 
> current owner.
> 
> What is wrong with your systems? Could you please release joesworld.com so 
> that I may buy it?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Abraham Ingersoll <[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: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 07:19:02 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk acces...

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
|> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:25 AM
|> To: Thomas Roessler
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk acces...
|> 
|> 
|> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
|> 
|> > Here are some thoughts on what bulk access provisions should look 
|> > like.
|> 
|> My answer to what it ought to look like is this:
|> 
|> 	{ }  (empty set)
<snip>

To me there seems to be some misconceptions about what various privacy
laws are meant to protect.  Looking over a variety of the laws that are
applicable in a few countries it seems that people are confusing between
what is allowed to be collected and used and access to correct incorrect
data.

For the most part it is totally acceptable for "private" data to be
collected by third parties where such data is freely available in the
public domain and providing access is permitted for individuals to view
and correct any data held about themselves.  There are also some aspects
of data security covered and this is to a large part related to the type
and amount of data.

I know the above is simplistic but the basics are there.

Like a lot of people from the cold war generation, I value my own
privacy but I do not get paranoid about it.  It seems to me that online
people who normally don't consider privacy to be such a big issue
suddenly decide they want total privacy and no information collected and
available about themselves.  People who are quite happy to have their
details displayed in phone books and other forms of databases suddently
decide they don't want to have their information out in the public at
all.  Where does this come from?  My belief is fear, people are fearful
as others appear to be totally anonymous whilst they have information
exposed.  Is the solution to hide more data away?

My own idea is to make even more information available, there should not
be any anonymous activity on the Networks, all activity should be
traceable.  Take away the fear factor.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch 

- --
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: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 01:22:53 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Bulk acces...

- --=======112477E0=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-13DD9D; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 23:19 05/09/02, Dassa wrote:
>My own idea is to make even more information available, there should not 
>be any anonymous activity on the Networks, all activity should be 
>traceable.  Take away the fear factor

In a debate over that subject in France (we were the first to introduce 
privacy laws and we have quite an experience about social relations with 
online personal directories, since the Minitel was frist about 
telephone  and added value directories). The debate was hot as anywhere, 
with some very interesting remarks about memory aspects (please remember 
that we also have very "innovative" laws in term of anti-racist actions: 
private assocaition can directly prosecute on racist delicts, like in the 
Yahoo case).

1. we clearly identified that the real novelty was that computers do not 
forget. You are never frogiven.
2. that computers do not correct mistakes. So a wrong entry is for ever.
3. that the real thing is not the databases which are static and can 
possibly be corrected, but the profiling which is just a dynamic process 
using any data. For example whois entries are not only important though the 
data, but though the dates of the entries
4. that the concept of Big Brother knowing everything on everyone was 
outdated and replaced by the Leviathan concept of everyone knowing 
everything true on wrong on everyone without any correction being really 
possible because no one knows where the information is and has been hacked 
from.

Globally the conclusion was that by nature all the data and information 
should be anonymous for self protection. That database oriented privacy 
laws should be extended to profiling, ie that you should be given the right 
to have the details of any profiling and to make them corrected as well as 
the profiling parameters.

It also was that democracy and civil right protection was to give you the 
capacity to sign your name without fearing from doing that. This is very 
interesting, because in the whois case it means the reverse of what VRSN 
and ICANN do. And when you consider it, it is quite positive.

The proposition would be the following.

1. registration are secret and anonymous.
2. there is an asbolute right to hide oneself behind a proxy
3. disclosure can only be otained on international warrant

but

4. registrants have the right to disclose their names
5. in such a case they must demonstrate it
6. wrong names will be considered an offense and prosecuted

This makes the whois a space of trust. Instead of considering negatively a 
wrong address, UDRP panelists would consider positively the disclosure of 
the address.

I suppose the result in term of average accuracy would be the same. But it 
would be extremely different in term of trust, e-commerce etc.. The whois 
address could be certified. Adding to the trust snice an online charged 
letter could be sent to the registrant.
jfc

- --=======112477E0=======--

- --
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: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:57:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS: Bulk access users?

Marilyn and all assembly members,

Cross-Registry Whois is already being offered by a number of companies
and organizations and has been for some time. Example See:
http://swhois.net/  So, for the life of me, I cannot understand why
Cross-Registry services was not mentioned...

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I believe there is probably one additional service not mentioned: cross-registry WHOIS services.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Lawrence [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 7:24 AM
> To: Thomas Roessler; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS: Bulk access users?
>
> Thomas
>
> In my experience the customers for bulk access come in three groups:
>
> (1) Law firms or firms providing IP related services to law firms - using
> the data to provide search services to their clients for brand protection
> purposes and so forth.
> (2) competing registrars - for market analysis as well as to build mailing
> lists (to be fair some don't use it for mailing lists - the ones who do
> are well known).
> (3) major resellers - ditto.
>
> rgds
> jon
>
> >-- Original Message --
> >Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:28:42 +0200
> >From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
> >To: [email-masked]
> >Subject: [ga] WHOIS: Bulk access users?
> >
> >
> >A quick and maybe stupid question: Does anyone know what use is
> >actually being made of the bulk access provisions?  What are the
> >services offered on the basis of these data?
> >
> >Any pointers would be welcome.
> >
> >Regards,
> >--
> >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
> >
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 22:24:50 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk acces...

Karl and all assembly members,

  If I understand it, I think I agree with Karl's thoughts here completely.

  My understanding of Karls comments/position is thus:

1.)  "personally identifiable information" in Whois or Bulk Whois Accesses
needs significant legal justification.

2.) "veiled version of the information" for Whois not bulk is open and should
be available to any and all.

3.) Anonymous access should not be allowed under any circumstances to
     Whois records.

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > Here are some thoughts on what bulk access provisions should look like.
>
> My answer to what it ought to look like is this:
>
>         { }  (empty set)
>
> The reason is that there should be NO access to whois data whatsoever
> without a demonstrated, and supportable, reason to look at the personally
> identifiable information.
>
> This does not mean that the casual person might not be able to take a
> veiled look now and then at a veiled version of the information.  But
> today's wide open access is at varience with what are becoming widely
> accepted principles of privacy.
>
> Bulk access ought to be eliminated. To my way of thinking, "bulk access"
> (except to those doing research) is something that is simply inconsistent
> with the reasons that "whois" is claimed to be needed, i.e.  the checking
> for identity of those who are accused of transgressing on the rights of
> the person making the inquiry.  Whois is not a toy that is justified
> because it is "fun".
>
> (Trolling for unused names is *not* a valid reason to violate privacy.
> If one must be a troll then it is a more efficient use of net resources to
> do a DNS query itself to see whether a name is in use or not.)
>
> It's not necessary for us to engage in discussions of the needs of law
> enforcement or other public safety needs.  As a general principle, privacy
> limitations give way to public health and safety in those situations where
> time is of the essence or when the data subject is under observation.
> The terms and condititions of this kind of access are generally beyond
> ICANN's scope and are, instead, established by law.
>
> Anonymous access ought to be eliminated.  Except as provided by law, no
> access should be anonymous.  If anyone looks at your record you should be
> able to know who and when they looked.
>
> Anyone making access must identify themselves and make a reasonable
> demonstrating that that identity is correct.  E-mail addresses are an
> interesting kind of lesser identity that might be of use when allowing
> access, more on that below.
>
> When there is *no* demonstration of identity of the person making the
> query, such as in classical "whois", then the data returned should be
> veiled - for example, full telephone numbers should be replaced by area
> codes/country codes (and perhaps exchange codes), and full addresses
> should be replaced by postal codes.
>
> So here's my suggestion:
>
> A multi-tier form of access to the registration meta-data (i.e. "whois"):
>
> 1. People (e.g. intellectual property attorneys, ISP NOC staff, etc.) may
> "pre-qualify" for access by demonstrating and proving their identity and
> showing a general need for access and that they are generally responsible.
> These people would receive a "credential" (a password or digitial
> certificate or something of that ilk) that they can use to obtain fast,
> unhindered access to full records.
>
> 2. One who has not pre-qualified can still obtain access to full contents
> of records by going through some sort of identification/authentication
> sequence. There might be a limitation on the number of queries that may be
> made without requalifiying, and the qualification may be limited to some
> class of records expressed in the form of some kind of regular expression.
>
> 3. E-mail addresses could serve as even a lower form of identification
> that permits access, but in this case the response would be via e-mail to
> that e-mail address.  Rate limitations would clamp the number of replies
> per day to any e-mail address to some reasonable number.
>
> 4. In direct query/response mechanisms in which the querier is not
> required to provide any identification, i.e. today's whois, then the
> returned information ought to be veiled as described previously.
>
> In all of these cases every data subject (i.e. the people named in the
> whois data) would have access to the list of identities of who looked, and
> when.
>
> (The list of names and what those people are looking at is itself a
> database of personally identifiable information and is, itself deserving
> of some protection.  What those protections are is left to another day.)
>
> Yes, this will be slower than today's system.
>
> Yes, what I suggest will be more expensive than today's non-system.
> And if there is a cost to be borne it ought to be borne by those who are
> making the inquiries, not by the data subjects.
>
>                 --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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:11:10 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] YesNIC hoarding joesworld.com

I've used this case to test-drive the newly introduced WHOIS problem
reporting form at www.internic.net.  Let's see what happens.

Regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler				<[email-masked]>

On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 01:37:06PM -0700, Abraham Ingersoll wrote:
> Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] YesNIC hoarding joesworld.com 
> 
> 
> I don't know the proper venue for this issue. If someone knows of a better 
> venue, please privately reply with a pointer.
> 
> In short, YesNIC is the registrar for 'joesworld.com' yet their whois 
> servers denies the existance for the registration, returning "No match" 
> to 'joesworld.com' searches. 
> 
> (background: I've been trying for some time now - maybe a year or more - 
> to snag joesworld.com for a friend who runs a nonprofit that currently 
> lives @ joesworld.org)
> 
> When I recently asked YesNic about the whois discrepency, they threw me a 
> sales pitch!?! See email below.
> 
> I've responded to YesNic with a pointer to ICANN's accreditation 
> agreement, however, the accreditation agreement isn't clear on one key 
> point. The agreement says a registrar must provide whois data for any 
> active domain, but nowhere in the agreement does it define "active." 
> joesworld.com doesn't exist in the root zone files, but it's registered. 
> Does this mean the domain is "inactive" and that valid whois responses 
> don't need to be returned?? I think not, but alas, IANAL nor a ICANN 
> insider.
> 
> A helpful person has suggested I buy a 'SnapBack' on the domain from 
> snapdomains. Surely this can't be my best option? Is ICANN's domain-name 
> system so messed up that "accredited" registrars are simply hoarding good 
> names, hiding whois details and then offering to be a "broker" to 
> unsuspecting customers??
> 
> Ug.
> 
> Abe
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:17:54 +0900
> From: "Kang,In-Soon" <[email-masked]>
> To: Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: joesworld.com
> 
> Dear Abraham
> 
> Thank you for contacting YesNIC.
> I have been manage to contact the owner of 'joesworld.com' domain name but I am afraid that I am not allowed to release the contact information.
> However, the owner is my client and has appointed me as his agent to proceed this deal for the domain name with you.
> Hence, if you wish to purchase this domain name, please let me know how much you are willing to invest.
> Once you give me your proposed price, I will consult about it with my client and try to actively negotiate with you.
> Thank you.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Jason Lee
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Abraham Ingersoll" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:35 AM
> Subject: joesworld.com
> 
> 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I wish to buy 'joesworld.com', yet it seems that the domain is "taken", 
> > even though your whois system FAILS to provide contact information for the 
> > current owner.
> > 
> > What is wrong with your systems? Could you please release joesworld.com so 
> > that I may buy it?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 19:40:29 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: ERC's report on GA

> It looks like the Evolution and Reform Committee is moving into the
> right direction as far as the GA is concerned.  See
>
>
> http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-
> report-02sep02.htm#2C1b

Which part? Is that the part that abolishes the GA altogether, the part that
overturns the GA's Resolution to elect its own Chair and puts Esther and
Denise in charge instead, or the part that recommends increased censorship
of the list so that only ICANN accredited topics may be discussed?

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 04:28:20 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] YesNIC hoarding joesworld.com - Specl attn Abraham

Thomas and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,

  This approach to solving a registrar or any sort of problem is commonly
called or referred to as a "Circle Jerk" in not so polite parlance's.  I can bet
that it will be months if ever this problem is resolved in a satisfactory
manner to the registrant/complaintant.

  ICANN is supposed to be a SERVANT to the internet community.  I
amongst a growing number of other stakeholders/users are well aware
that ICANN in this amongst a host of other areas at issue is failing
terribly in it's servant capacity.

  Abraham, I would strongly suggest that you seek the assistance of
a good internet Law atty.  If you need some help in finding one,
please contact me off list.

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> I've used this case to test-drive the newly introduced WHOIS problem
> reporting form at www.internic.net.  Let's see what happens.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler                         <[email-masked]>
>
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 01:37:06PM -0700, Abraham Ingersoll wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ga] YesNIC hoarding joesworld.com
> >
> >
> > I don't know the proper venue for this issue. If someone knows of a better
> > venue, please privately reply with a pointer.
> >
> > In short, YesNIC is the registrar for 'joesworld.com' yet their whois
> > servers denies the existance for the registration, returning "No match"
> > to 'joesworld.com' searches.
> >
> > (background: I've been trying for some time now - maybe a year or more -
> > to snag joesworld.com for a friend who runs a nonprofit that currently
> > lives @ joesworld.org)
> >
> > When I recently asked YesNic about the whois discrepency, they threw me a
> > sales pitch!?! See email below.
> >
> > I've responded to YesNic with a pointer to ICANN's accreditation
> > agreement, however, the accreditation agreement isn't clear on one key
> > point. The agreement says a registrar must provide whois data for any
> > active domain, but nowhere in the agreement does it define "active."
> > joesworld.com doesn't exist in the root zone files, but it's registered.
> > Does this mean the domain is "inactive" and that valid whois responses
> > don't need to be returned?? I think not, but alas, IANAL nor a ICANN
> > insider.
> >
> > A helpful person has suggested I buy a 'SnapBack' on the domain from
> > snapdomains. Surely this can't be my best option? Is ICANN's domain-name
> > system so messed up that "accredited" registrars are simply hoarding good
> > names, hiding whois details and then offering to be a "broker" to
> > unsuspecting customers??
> >
> > Ug.
> >
> > Abe
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:17:54 +0900
> > From: "Kang,In-Soon" <[email-masked]>
> > To: Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Re: joesworld.com
> >
> > Dear Abraham
> >
> > Thank you for contacting YesNIC.
> > I have been manage to contact the owner of 'joesworld.com' domain name but I am afraid that I am not allowed to release the contact information.
> > However, the owner is my client and has appointed me as his agent to proceed this deal for the domain name with you.
> > Hence, if you wish to purchase this domain name, please let me know how much you are willing to invest.
> > Once you give me your proposed price, I will consult about it with my client and try to actively negotiate with you.
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Jason Lee
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Abraham Ingersoll" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:35 AM
> > Subject: joesworld.com
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I wish to buy 'joesworld.com', yet it seems that the domain is "taken",
> > > even though your whois system FAILS to provide contact information for the
> > > current owner.
> > >
> > > What is wrong with your systems? Could you please release joesworld.com so
> > > that I may buy it?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:53:53 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] YesNIC hoarding joesworld.com 

This is covered under 1.7 of the RAA...

1.7 "Registered Name" refers to a domain name within the domain of a TLD
that is the subject of an appendix to this Agreement, whether consisting
of two or more (e.g., john.smith.name) levels, about which a TLD
Registry Operator (or an affiliate engaged in providing Registry
Services) maintains data in a Registry Database, arranges for such
maintenance, or derives revenue from such maintenance. A name in a
Registry Database may be a Registered Name even though it does not
appear in a zone file (e.g., a registered but inactive name).

In this case, the whois appears to be inaccurate at the registrar ("No
match for "joesworld.com") - unless we assume that the registry whois is
wonky...

   Domain Name: JOESWORLD.COM
   Registrar: YESNIC CO. LTD.
   Whois Server: whois.yesnic.com
   Referral URL: http://www.yesnic.com
   Name Server: No nameserver
   Updated Date: 16-apr-2002

Given the email below, I'd be inclined to believe that the problem
exists at the registrar level and they need to update their whois data
to make sure that it is accurate.

                       -rwr

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

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

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

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of Abraham Ingersoll
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 4:37 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] YesNIC hoarding joesworld.com 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the proper venue for this issue. If someone 
> knows of a better 
> venue, please privately reply with a pointer.
> 
> In short, YesNIC is the registrar for 'joesworld.com' yet their whois 
> servers denies the existance for the registration, returning 
> "No match" 
> to 'joesworld.com' searches. 
> 
> (background: I've been trying for some time now - maybe a 
> year or more - 
> to snag joesworld.com for a friend who runs a nonprofit that 
> currently 
> lives @ joesworld.org)
> 
> When I recently asked YesNic about the whois discrepency, 
> they threw me a 
> sales pitch!?! See email below.
> 
> I've responded to YesNic with a pointer to ICANN's accreditation 
> agreement, however, the accreditation agreement isn't clear 
> on one key 
> point. The agreement says a registrar must provide whois data for any 
> active domain, but nowhere in the agreement does it define "active." 
> joesworld.com doesn't exist in the root zone files, but it's 
> registered. 
> Does this mean the domain is "inactive" and that valid whois 
> responses 
> don't need to be returned?? I think not, but alas, IANAL nor a ICANN 
> insider.
> 
> A helpful person has suggested I buy a 'SnapBack' on the domain from 
> snapdomains. Surely this can't be my best option? Is ICANN's 
> domain-name 
> system so messed up that "accredited" registrars are simply 
> hoarding good 
> names, hiding whois details and then offering to be a "broker" to 
> unsuspecting customers??
> 
> Ug.
> 
> Abe
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:17:54 +0900
> From: "Kang,In-Soon" <[email-masked]>
> To: Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: joesworld.com
> 
> Dear Abraham
> 
> Thank you for contacting YesNIC.
> I have been manage to contact the owner of 'joesworld.com' 
> domain name but I am afraid that I am not allowed to release 
> the contact information. However, the owner is my client and 
> has appointed me as his agent to proceed this deal for the 
> domain name with you. Hence, if you wish to purchase this 
> domain name, please let me know how much you are willing to 
> invest. Once you give me your proposed price, I will consult 
> about it with my client and try to actively negotiate with 
> you. Thank you.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Jason Lee
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Abraham Ingersoll" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:35 AM
> Subject: joesworld.com
> 
> 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I wish to buy 'joesworld.com', yet it seems that the domain is 
> > "taken",
> > even though your whois system FAILS to provide contact 
> information for the 
> > current owner.
> > 
> > What is wrong with your systems? Could you please release 
> > joesworld.com so
> > that I may buy it?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 08:53:48 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: ICANN's poor Corp. Responsibility example to: Re: [ga] YesNIC hoarding joesworld.com

Ross Abraham and all assembly members,

  Abraham, Ross is essentially correct here.  However there are
a couple of problems with the RAA agreement and in the sections
that Ross referenced below in his response.

  One problem is really the first problem and that is that the
RAA agreement itself is not a consensus of the stakeholders/users
as required under the White Paper and the MoU.

  Another more specific problem with the RAA is that regardless
if any such DN is active or not, it should remain in the zone file.
This in effect causes registrars Whois's to sometimes be inaccurate
unnecessarily.

  And another problem is as Ross rightly stated it.  The
Registrar in question here, http://www.yesnic.com  should keep
their whois database updated more frequently so as to be
more accurate.

  And a final problem is that ICANN should as the first level of
oversight in the White Paper, take deliberate steps to get the
registrar to adhere to their RAA agreement regardless if such
an agreement is a Stakeholder/user consensus or not, as ICANN
itself is the other party in the RAA agreement by contract.

  To me and now a growing number of stakeholders/users this
type of situation which ICANN created itself shows a decided
lack in Corporate Responsibility on the part of the ICANN
Staff, and to a leser degree the ICANN BoD for not taking
adjective action on the ICANN staff...

  If ICANN cannot, or will not police it's own "Accredited" Registrars,
it is clear that as a Corp. entity it is acting irresponsibly and
improperly.

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> This is covered under 1.7 of the RAA...
>
> 1.7 "Registered Name" refers to a domain name within the domain of a TLD
> that is the subject of an appendix to this Agreement, whether consisting
> of two or more (e.g., john.smith.name) levels, about which a TLD
> Registry Operator (or an affiliate engaged in providing Registry
> Services) maintains data in a Registry Database, arranges for such
> maintenance, or derives revenue from such maintenance. A name in a
> Registry Database may be a Registered Name even though it does not
> appear in a zone file (e.g., a registered but inactive name).
>
> In this case, the whois appears to be inaccurate at the registrar ("No
> match for "joesworld.com") - unless we assume that the registry whois is
> wonky...
>
>    Domain Name: JOESWORLD.COM
>    Registrar: YESNIC CO. LTD.
>    Whois Server: whois.yesnic.com
>    Referral URL: http://www.yesnic.com
>    Name Server: No nameserver
>    Updated Date: 16-apr-2002
>
> Given the email below, I'd be inclined to believe that the problem
> exists at the registrar level and they need to update their whois data
> to make sure that it is accurate.
>
>                        -rwr
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> > Of Abraham Ingersoll
> > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 4:37 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ga] YesNIC hoarding joesworld.com
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't know the proper venue for this issue. If someone
> > knows of a better
> > venue, please privately reply with a pointer.
> >
> > In short, YesNIC is the registrar for 'joesworld.com' yet their whois
> > servers denies the existance for the registration, returning
> > "No match"
> > to 'joesworld.com' searches.
> >
> > (background: I've been trying for some time now - maybe a
> > year or more -
> > to snag joesworld.com for a friend who runs a nonprofit that
> > currently
> > lives @ joesworld.org)
> >
> > When I recently asked YesNic about the whois discrepency,
> > they threw me a
> > sales pitch!?! See email below.
> >
> > I've responded to YesNic with a pointer to ICANN's accreditation
> > agreement, however, the accreditation agreement isn't clear
> > on one key
> > point. The agreement says a registrar must provide whois data for any
> > active domain, but nowhere in the agreement does it define "active."
> > joesworld.com doesn't exist in the root zone files, but it's
> > registered.
> > Does this mean the domain is "inactive" and that valid whois
> > responses
> > don't need to be returned?? I think not, but alas, IANAL nor a ICANN
> > insider.
> >
> > A helpful person has suggested I buy a 'SnapBack' on the domain from
> > snapdomains. Surely this can't be my best option? Is ICANN's
> > domain-name
> > system so messed up that "accredited" registrars are simply
> > hoarding good
> > names, hiding whois details and then offering to be a "broker" to
> > unsuspecting customers??
> >
> > Ug.
> >
> > Abe
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:17:54 +0900
> > From: "Kang,In-Soon" <[email-masked]>
> > To: Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Re: joesworld.com
> >
> > Dear Abraham
> >
> > Thank you for contacting YesNIC.
> > I have been manage to contact the owner of 'joesworld.com'
> > domain name but I am afraid that I am not allowed to release
> > the contact information. However, the owner is my client and
> > has appointed me as his agent to proceed this deal for the
> > domain name with you. Hence, if you wish to purchase this
> > domain name, please let me know how much you are willing to
> > invest. Once you give me your proposed price, I will consult
> > about it with my client and try to actively negotiate with
> > you. Thank you.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Jason Lee
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Abraham Ingersoll" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:35 AM
> > Subject: joesworld.com
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I wish to buy 'joesworld.com', yet it seems that the domain is
> > > "taken",
> > > even though your whois system FAILS to provide contact
> > information for the
> > > current owner.
> > >
> > > What is wrong with your systems? Could you please release
> > > joesworld.com so
> > > that I may buy it?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 #1410
*************************