Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1423
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Wednesday, September 18 2002        Volume 01 : Number 1423

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 22:34:58 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] IPC on ALAC

Steve Metalitz, in providing the "IPC Response to ALAC Assistance Group 
Report", makes the following comment in one of the footnotes:  

"The report seems to suggest that a regional at-large structure with as few 
as 200 individual members could be accredited to exercise responsibilities 
including direct appointment of a member of the Nominating Committee.  This 
number appears far too low to justify a claim of representativeness of the 
range of "individual Internet users" from any region, and certainly from 
regions in which there are tens or hundreds of millions of such Internet 
users."
http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/alacag/pdf00000.pdf

As of March 2002, the IPC had only 66 members.  Certainly this is far too low 
a number, even by their own standards, to justify a claim of 
representativeness for intellectual property holders worldwide.  Accordingly, 
as they have noted indirectly that their own membership roster is 
insufficient in size to exercise the responsibility of providing an 
appointment to the Nominating Committee (being well below the 200+ they posit 
as a requirement for At-Large organizations), I ask the ERC to eliminate the 
IPC as an entity that participates in the NonCom 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, 17 Sep 2002 19:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform them of WHOIS data that is wrong...

Damn,
How can the staff be so intrusive and yet incompetent at the same time?

I tell you after suffering through about 600 pages of VB.net re.NETv1.0
and reviewing Flemmings' matters and the real dotBIZ, it is conclusive 
the BoD as a body are complete boobs.  They are becoming and will soon be 
completely irrelevant. 
I hope Lacnic and Afnic are keeping their options open.  EU be careful.

Eric
> 
> Todd,
> 
> You are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> ICANN doesn't even maintain proper whois data for an entire TLD - .cx.
> 
> The whois data for the .cx TLD lists a company which has been defunct
> for three years.
> 
> And you think they are going to fix second-level domain registrations?
> 
> Dream on.
> 
> John
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of todd
>> glassey
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 10:24 AM
>> To: vint cerf
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Subject: [ga] Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform
>> them of WHOIS data that is wrong...
>>
>>
>> Vint - the operating process of the NIC's seem to have no way for
>> individuals to report domains that are either misregistered or have
>> fraudulent contact information or broken links for whatever reason.
>>
>> This is a real problem since these are the issues that spammers and
>> other peddlers of illicit materials create for themselves to hide
>> behind. For instance - I get this SPAM this morning showing half a
>> dozen school girls involved in various sexual acts and after doing a
>> header analysis, we find it comes from a domain called 99talk.com,
>> registered through the Boy Scouts
>> of Australia, only the contact email addresses for the domain all
>> bounce...
>>
>> And in instances like this one,  if the NIC bothered to check its
>> contact data on a regular basis of course this would not be true. So I
>> have to ask -
>> Why then do the InterNIC's not have any way of taking reports or doing
>> anything about these fraudulent or inaccurate listings in the
>> Whois or other
>> "client databases" maintained buy the NIC's?
>>
>> This is negligence in the Registrar and ICANN process, not an excuse
>> for plausible deniability and it needs to be addressed.
>>
>> Todd
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>
>>
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 00:08:09 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] icannatlarge.com

Alejandro,

The ICANN Board called "upon the ICANN community to devote sustained energy 
to the creation of At Large structures..."   The ICANN community responded by 
creating icannatlarge.com which now has over 1000 registered members.  

While I have never been a member of this group, I do believe that they (as 
the only set of folks to proactively respond to the Board's call), have 
earned the right to a seat on the ALAC.  However, your Second Interim 
Implementation Report did not recommend that they be chosen as an ALAC member 
- -- instead the proposal that you endorsed effectively eliminates their 
participation as it calls only for the five members of your Assistance Group 
to form the initial ALAC while awaiting the formation of regional councils 
from which ten additional members will be eventually be drawn.

In light of their commitment to the ICANN process, and in light of the 
massive expenditure of human effort and energy that was required to build 
this organization at the behest of the Board, would it not be eminently 
appropriate for the Board to grant an ALAC seat to a representative of 
icannatlarge.com?

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 00:51:33 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] icannatlarge.com

>
> The ICANN Board called "upon the ICANN community to devote
> sustained energy
> to the creation of At Large structures..."   The ICANN community
> responded by
> creating icannatlarge.com which now has over 1000 registered members.

Danny,

This "ICANN Community" responded by engaging in wholesale trademark
infringement and deception.  The website icannatlarge.com uses U.S.
Registered Trademarks 2,400,781 and 2,517,318 prominently in the domain name
and on the website, along with the ICANN logo, with no indication that the
website is not, in fact, authorized or licensed by ICANN.  There is nothing
I could find on the website which would tip off the unsuspecting visitor
that the site is not an official ICANN site.

Either ICANN has decided to abandon its trademarks through non-enforcement,
or the people responsible for that site should be held liable.

- --
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, 18 Sep 2002 00:15:04 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com

Danny and all assembly members,

  As an actual member of ICANNATLARGE.COM only, I must agree
with Danny's question here in it's obvious intent.

  I also must be honest and clear that there are some differences
of opinion amongst the members of ICANNATLARGE.COM as
to their actual desire to be too closely associated with ICANN
and therefore the ALAC.  These may be the very reasons
that ICANN/ALAC has decided at this time to not consider
ICANNATLARGE.COM as an ALAC representative.  As a number
of the ICANNATLARGE.COM members have noted  and in the
the ICANNATLARGE.COM mailing list, the ALAC seems to
be more of a trade association and not an actual membership
organization by which any and all stakeholders/users may
participate openly, freely and transparently.  I also tend to
agree with this assessment as well.  Hence Danny, it may be
that Alejandro has taken the position that he has on this
specific issue.  But it would be nice to hear his reasoning
from him.  Alejandro?

[email-masked] wrote:

> Alejandro,
>
> The ICANN Board called "upon the ICANN community to devote sustained energy
> to the creation of At Large structures..."   The ICANN community responded by
> creating icannatlarge.com which now has over 1000 registered members.
>
> While I have never been a member of this group, I do believe that they (as
> the only set of folks to proactively respond to the Board's call), have
> earned the right to a seat on the ALAC.  However, your Second Interim
> Implementation Report did not recommend that they be chosen as an ALAC member
> -- instead the proposal that you endorsed effectively eliminates their
> participation as it calls only for the five members of your Assistance Group
> to form the initial ALAC while awaiting the formation of regional councils
> from which ten additional members will be eventually be drawn.
>
> In light of their commitment to the ICANN process, and in light of the
> massive expenditure of human effort and energy that was required to build
> this organization at the behest of the Board, would it not be eminently
> appropriate for the Board to grant an ALAC seat to a representative of
> icannatlarge.com?
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 22:42:47 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com

You are all right Mr. Younger,

one thousand members and growing!
Wow.
ease in integration is difficult.  Travesty is much more often
accomplished.
Perhaps the icannatlarge.com is not interested?
Perhaps it would be better for ICANN to ignore them like inclusive roots
and
IPv* whatever, and ccTLDs?

Sincerely,
eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> Alejandro,
>
> The ICANN Board called "upon the ICANN community to devote sustained energy
> to the creation of At Large structures..."   The ICANN community responded by
> creating icannatlarge.com which now has over 1000 registered members.
>
> While I have never been a member of this group, I do believe that they (as
> the only set of folks to proactively respond to the Board's call), have
> earned the right to a seat on the ALAC.  However, your Second Interim
> Implementation Report did not recommend that they be chosen as an ALAC member
> -- instead the proposal that you endorsed effectively eliminates their
> participation as it calls only for the five members of your Assistance Group
> to form the initial ALAC while awaiting the formation of regional councils
> from which ten additional members will be eventually be drawn.
>
> In light of their commitment to the ICANN process, and in light of the
> massive expenditure of human effort and energy that was required to build
> this organization at the behest of the Board, would it not be eminently
> appropriate for the Board to grant an ALAC seat to a representative of
> icannatlarge.com?
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
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, 17 Sep 2002 22:59:33 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 10:34:58PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> Steve Metalitz, in providing the "IPC Response to ALAC Assistance Group 
> Report", makes the following comment in one of the footnotes:  
> 
> "The report seems to suggest that a regional at-large structure with as few 
> as 200 individual members could be accredited to exercise responsibilities 
> including direct appointment of a member of the Nominating Committee.  This 
> number appears far too low to justify a claim of representativeness of the 
> range of "individual Internet users" from any region, and certainly from 
> regions in which there are tens or hundreds of millions of such Internet 
> users."
> http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/alacag/pdf00000.pdf
> 
> As of March 2002, the IPC had only 66 members.

Your comparision is completely off base.  Most of the IPC members are
not individual members, but rather are organizational members which
collectively represents tens of thousands of members.

I know you know this.  Why do you deliberately make such a 
misrepresentation? 

- --
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, 18 Sep 2002 11:50:11 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 22:59:33 -0700, you wrote:

>Your comparision is completely off base.  Most of the IPC members are
>not individual members, but rather are organizational members which
>collectively represents tens of thousands of members.

While I understand this objection, I also note that many of the people
who participate in icannatlarge.com, in the ALOC or in the other At
Large efforts are acting on behalf of organizations who collectively
represent thousands of members.

I was the one who actually suggested the idea of the minimum threshold
of 200 members for a Regional At Large Organization to become
accepted; it was intended as an instrument to force the promoters of
each RALO to actually do some outreach, rather than simply sit there
with a few friends and claim they represent the Region. But it was
never intended as a magic "democracy trial" figure, because if you put
it this way, strictly speaking, no ICANN constituency will ever be
representative unless we get to the point to have to keep ICANN
meetings inside stadiums :-)
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- ----------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <--------------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:14:10 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

On 2002-09-18 11:50:11 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>I was the one who actually suggested the idea of the minimum  
>threshold of 200 members for a Regional At Large Organization to  
>become accepted; it was intended as an instrument to force the  
>promoters of each RALO to actually do some outreach, rather than  
>simply sit there with a few friends and claim they represent the  
>Region. But it was never intended as a magic "democracy trial"  
>figure, because if you put it this way, strictly speaking, no  
>ICANN constituency will ever be representative unless we get to  
>the point to have to keep ICANN meetings inside stadiums :-)

It should be noticed that the blueprint puts much weight into the  
notion of having "delegates" instead of "representatives"  
throughout ICANN bodies.  From that point of view, a low threshold  
is a relatively small problem.

I'm afraid that the IPC's criticism falls into the category of  
killing the good (and feasible) because it's not perfect.  Of course 
it's always possible to come up with representativity criteria which 
will fail with everything except general, global elections, with 50% 
participation of the world's population.  I don't think anyone  
should be fooled by this argument.

Let's go for the feasible, even if it's not perfect.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
- --
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, 18 Sep 2002 13:16:22 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

On 2002-09-18 01:39:58 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Why not set up a small, technically oriented task force with  
>people from ICANN and ccTLDs to find out what checks ICANN would  
>have performed, how these checks could be performed without  
>transferring zone files or at least in a much more secure way. If  
>the ccTLDs have to be content with a written assurance by ICANN  
>that their data will not be misused, ICANN should equally be  
>content with a written assurance by the ccTLD operator that a  
>suite of consistency tests has been performed according to  
>mutually agreed procedures. Of course, some ccTLDs may actually  
>prefer to have ICANN perform the tests independently.

A basis for this may be existing software, like dnswalk  
<http://www.visi.com/~barr/dnswalk/>.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
- --
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, 18 Sep 2002 14:31:04 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

On 2002-09-18 13:47:48 +0200, Sabine Dolderer/Denic wrote:

>The checks where even not performed during the ISI era as pointed 
>out in an email from Josh Elliot (see below) to the cctld-discuss 
>list it was a wish. And this wish is understandable if you have 
>performed such services in the beginning of DNS technologie. In 
>1994 and 1995 when people started to use DNS it was sometimes 
>helpful to give them advice in how to correct their configurations 
>and I would be happy if IANA will provide that on a voluntary 
>basis to those who want that.

Actually, why would this have to be a service, as opposed to a tool? 
I don't believe that IANA is inspecting zone files manually.

Thus, they are either using existing tools, or they have created  
something of their own.  In either case, it would be helpful for the 
entire community to make either the tool itself (if proprietary) or  
a recommendation for one of the existing tools available.

After all, there are still small zone files out there which are  
edited manually (not necessarily TLDs), and whose maintainers could  
greatly profit from the availability of such a tool.

Stuart, how about making that publication?
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
- --
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, 18 Sep 2002 06:22:34 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] icannatlarge.com

> This "ICANN Community" responded by engaging in wholesale trademark
> infringement and deception.  The website icannatlarge.com uses U.S.
> Registered Trademarks 2,400,781 and 2,517,318 prominently in the
> domain name and on the website, along with the ICANN logo, with no
indication that the
> website is not, in fact, authorized or licensed by ICANN.

Hello John,

I don't think you quite fully appreciate the events that lead our
organization to this point. Let's review the history. Danny has explained
that the site was commissioned, approved and paid for by Esther Dyson and
Pindar Wong, the former Chair and Vice-Chair of the ICANN Board, that
authorized Joop Teernstra's company (imachination) to do the work on the
website for Icannatlarge.com.  In addition, Esther and Pindar registered as
founding members of ICANNAtLarge, as did ICANN At Large Director, Karl
Auerbach, Marilyn Cade and former ICANN CEO and President, Michael Roberts,
amongst other leading ICANN players.

This organization grew from the work of the At Large Study Committee, and in
particular, an Esther Dyson and Pindar Wong membership drive instigated in
response to the Board's call for the At Large Community to self-organize
into a proposed ALSO, with Denise Michelle providing ICANN Staff support to
the ALSC at that time. The At Large community received assistance in this
effort from a number of independent sources, including Thomas Roessler, who,
as you know, is Chair of this GA, and provided the fledgling ICANNAtLarge
organization with mailing lists. The ICANN ALSC mailing list, which had
provided the resources needed for the members to self-organize up to that
point, closed its lists, but not before pointing all its members to the
Iannatlarge initiative. So what occurred in fact was that ICANN Staff
actually pointed the wider community towards this organization. All of this
is documented in the ICANN ALSC archives and all was done with ICANN prior
knowledge and consent.

Not only that. The name, ICANNAtLarge, was actually picked by Pindar Wong,
who together with Esther was still very much engaged with the ALSC and
funded by ICANN at the time they launched ICANNAtLarge. Pindar paid Joop for
the initial website to be built and Esther pledged a further US$10,000 to
the new organization in which she was proactively involved. Her donation was
listed under "funding" on the ICANNATLarge website, together with other
pledges intended to be distributed by a new Board once they had been elected
directly by the membership.

Esther then decided the best way forward for Icannatlarge would be to
appoint a liaison between our members and Icann staff. She offered the role
to Alexander Svennsson and there were objections that the appointment was
made without a proper election being held, which is how Denise Michelle, who
was recently out of work with the ALSC, slid neatly into the job quietly and
just assumed the role. Esther decided to use the $10,000 promised to
ICANNAtLarge to pay Denise's salary on a temporary basis. Members were told
that in return for the $10,000 to be paid to Denise, she would assist
ICANNATLarge with its self-organizing effort.

Of course, Denise Michelle was in a fact acting under contract to ICANN, as
a member of ICANN staff, not ICANNAtLarge. She was hired by Stuart Lynn to
manufacture a consensus for his Reform Plan in the At large community,
meanwhile trashing any form of individual participation or semblance of
democratic process along the way. Whether Denise ever received the $10,000 I
do not know, but she then evaporated for a little while, and when she
reappeared, she was attached to a completely new At Large organization, a
new and rather dysfunctional website, a confusingly similar domain name, a
new definition for what At Large meant and an ICANN At Large bank into which
she invites all pledges to be sent - nothing short of an At Large coup
d'estat, of which nothing had ever been discussed in advance amongst the
community. To add injury to insult, the ICANN fundraising tour redirected
precious independent sources into a competing entity from which direct
participation by individual At Large members, our members, was to be denied.

Understandably, some members felt this betrayal of the At large by ICANN
Staff warranted complete withdrawal of our organization from the Reformed
ICANN, including dropping ICANN from the name of the organization itself. A
heated debate followed and we will have the results on a vote of the full
membership to choose the organization name by the middle of next week.

Whatever it's name, here is an organization that is in it for the long haul,
is committed to actually engaging the user in cooperative processes, and is
working to have an impact on internet governance over the long term future.
The decision making, and therefore I guess also the responsibility, is
passed directly to individual members, not a Nominating Committee, so that
anybody who intends to start throwing stones at us, will need more than a
handful to make any impact....:-)

Probably the most important vision for our organization is to implement the
very things that ICANN is discarding. As ICANN is phasing out direct user
participation and abandoning any form of At Large elections or voting
mechanism, ICANNAtLarge will be phasing it in. This will put us in a
favorable position to show the world that there is another group around
ICANN that better serves the public interest than the window dressing being
paraded in the spotlight by ICANN Staff as meaningful At Large
participation.

With all the above aspects in mind, I hope you now view this effort in a
more favorable light than at the time you penned your comments. Should you
have any further comments to make, I'd be pleased to hear them.

Regards,
Joanna Lane
Chair, Icannatlarge

There is nothing
> I could find on the website which would tip off the unsuspecting visitor
> that the site is not an official ICANN site.
>
> Either ICANN has decided to abandon its trademarks through
> non-enforcement, or the people responsible for that site should be held
liable.

- --
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, 18 Sep 2002 07:47:41 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform them of WHOIS data that is wrong...

Vint the real issue is that for a large number of the APNIC's email and
other contact info items are/is bogus. The real issue is that the NIC's must
start to be accountable for the integrity of the information they are using
to justify or authorize their acting as publication agents and in instances
where the domains are just setup for spamming, the registrars really need to
be liable for their actions, i.e. the enablement of the SPAM itself.

In many cases its identical to the Firearms Reseller Issues and we all know
where those lawsuits have gone and what their outcome is. What I propose is
two fold. The first is that the registrars need to be accountable for
providing services that are used to hurt other people or to impede their IP
rights. The second is that the Layer Three ISP's have to be accountable for
what flows through their EMAIL GW's and oddly enough ICANN is still the best
place to enforce that. Because without DNS services they are dead in the
water.

Just my two cents.

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform them of
WHOIS data that is wrong...

> this is a fairly current topic and I agree it does need to be
> addressed. ICANN recently threatend Verisign with excommunication
> over this issue and Verisign did respond but the problem is plainly
> widespread. Of course, free email boxes exacerbate problems of this
> kind, too, I guess. Thanks for this input; it will motivate more
> effort on policy and implementation.
>
> vint
>
> At 07:23 AM 9/17/2002 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> >Vint - the operating process of the NIC's seem to have no way for
> >individuals to report domains that are either misregistered or have
> >fraudulent contact information or broken links for whatever reason.
> >
> >This is a real problem since these are the issues that spammers and other
> >peddlers of illicit materials create for themselves to hide behind. For
> >instance - I get this SPAM this morning showing half a dozen school girls
> >involved in various sexual acts and after doing a header analysis, we
find
> >it comes from a domain called 99talk.com, registered through the Boy
Scouts
> >of Australia, only the contact email addresses for the domain all
bounce...
> >
> >And in instances like this one,  if the NIC bothered to check its contact
> >data on a regular basis of course this would not be true. So I have to
ask -
> >Why then do the InterNIC's not have any way of taking reports or doing
> >anything about these fraudulent or inaccurate listings in the Whois or
other
> >"client databases" maintained buy the NIC's?
> >
> >This is negligence in the Registrar and ICANN process, not an excuse for
> >plausible deniability and it needs to be addressed.
> >
> >Todd
>
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
>

- --
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, 18 Sep 2002 17:40:12 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Shanghai attendance?

Folks,

I'd be curious to learn how many of you are planning to go to the 
Shanghai meetings.  If so, please drop me a line off-list.

Thanks,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
- --
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, 18 Sep 2002 16:54:30 +0100
From: "Jon Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform them of WHOIS data that is wrong...

<snip>
the registrars really need to be liable for their actions, i.e. the enablement
of the SPAM itself.
</snip>

...you don't need a domain name to send spam.

jon

>-- Original Message --
>From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
>To: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [ga] Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform
them
>of WHOIS data that is wrong...
>Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 07:47:41 -0700
>
>
>Vint the real issue is that for a large number of the APNIC's email and
>other contact info items are/is bogus. The real issue is that the NIC's
must
>start to be accountable for the integrity of the information they are using
>to justify or authorize their acting as publication agents and in instances
>where the domains are just setup for spamming, the registrars really need
>to
>be liable for their actions, i.e. the enablement of the SPAM itself.
>
>In many cases its identical to the Firearms Reseller Issues and we all
know
>where those lawsuits have gone and what their outcome is. What I propose
>is
>two fold. The first is that the registrars need to be accountable for
>providing services that are used to hurt other people or to impede their
>IP
>rights. The second is that the Layer Three ISP's have to be accountable
for
>what flows through their EMAIL GW's and oddly enough ICANN is still the
best
>place to enforce that. Because without DNS services they are dead in the
>water.
>
>Just my two cents.
>
>Todd
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
>To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 3:33 PM
>Subject: Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform them
of
>WHOIS data that is wrong...
>
>
>> this is a fairly current topic and I agree it does need to be
>> addressed. ICANN recently threatend Verisign with excommunication
>> over this issue and Verisign did respond but the problem is plainly
>> widespread. Of course, free email boxes exacerbate problems of this
>> kind, too, I guess. Thanks for this input; it will motivate more
>> effort on policy and implementation.
>>
>> vint
>>
>> At 07:23 AM 9/17/2002 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
>> >Vint - the operating process of the NIC's seem to have no way for
>> >individuals to report domains that are either misregistered or have
>> >fraudulent contact information or broken links for whatever reason.
>> >
>> >This is a real problem since these are the issues that spammers and
other
>> >peddlers of illicit materials create for themselves to hide behind.
For
>> >instance - I get this SPAM this morning showing half a dozen school
girls
>> >involved in various sexual acts and after doing a header analysis, we
>find
>> >it comes from a domain called 99talk.com, registered through the Boy
>Scouts
>> >of Australia, only the contact email addresses for the domain all
>bounce...
>> >
>> >And in instances like this one,  if the NIC bothered to check its contact
>> >data on a regular basis of course this would not be true. So I have
to
>ask -
>> >Why then do the InterNIC's not have any way of taking reports or doing
>> >anything about these fraudulent or inaccurate listings in the Whois
or
>other
>> >"client databases" maintained buy the NIC's?
>> >
>> >This is negligence in the Registrar and ICANN process, not an excuse
for
>> >plausible deniability and it needs to be addressed.
>> >
>> >Todd
>>
>> Vint Cerf
>> SVP Architecture & Technology
>> WorldCom
>> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
>> Ashburn, VA 20147
>> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
>> 703 886 0047 fax
>>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform them of WHOIS data that is wrong...

Todd,

your email address is harvestable from the archive of this list, from each
post to usenet, from your web page etc. the whois is but one source that
provides harvestable email addresses.

As for enforcement; ICANN is not the place becuase it has no powers to
enforce, the place is the courts, and congress;

- -rick

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, todd glassey wrote:

> Vint the real issue is that for a large number of the APNIC's email and
> other contact info items are/is bogus. The real issue is that the NIC's must
> start to be accountable for the integrity of the information they are using
> to justify or authorize their acting as publication agents and in instances
> where the domains are just setup for spamming, the registrars really need to
> be liable for their actions, i.e. the enablement of the SPAM itself.
>
> In many cases its identical to the Firearms Reseller Issues and we all know
> where those lawsuits have gone and what their outcome is. What I propose is
> two fold. The first is that the registrars need to be accountable for
> providing services that are used to hurt other people or to impede their IP
> rights. The second is that the Layer Three ISP's have to be accountable for
> what flows through their EMAIL GW's and oddly enough ICANN is still the best
> place to enforce that. Because without DNS services they are dead in the
> water.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Todd
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform them of
> WHOIS data that is wrong...
>
>
> > this is a fairly current topic and I agree it does need to be
> > addressed. ICANN recently threatend Verisign with excommunication
> > over this issue and Verisign did respond but the problem is plainly
> > widespread. Of course, free email boxes exacerbate problems of this
> > kind, too, I guess. Thanks for this input; it will motivate more
> > effort on policy and implementation.
> >
> > vint
> >
> > At 07:23 AM 9/17/2002 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> > >Vint - the operating process of the NIC's seem to have no way for
> > >individuals to report domains that are either misregistered or have
> > >fraudulent contact information or broken links for whatever reason.
> > >
> > >This is a real problem since these are the issues that spammers and other
> > >peddlers of illicit materials create for themselves to hide behind. For
> > >instance - I get this SPAM this morning showing half a dozen school girls
> > >involved in various sexual acts and after doing a header analysis, we
> find
> > >it comes from a domain called 99talk.com, registered through the Boy
> Scouts
> > >of Australia, only the contact email addresses for the domain all
> bounce...
> > >
> > >And in instances like this one,  if the NIC bothered to check its contact
> > >data on a regular basis of course this would not be true. So I have to
> ask -
> > >Why then do the InterNIC's not have any way of taking reports or doing
> > >anything about these fraudulent or inaccurate listings in the Whois or
> other
> > >"client databases" maintained buy the NIC's?
> > >
> > >This is negligence in the Registrar and ICANN process, not an excuse for
> > >plausible deniability and it needs to be addressed.
> > >
> > >Todd
> >
> > Vint Cerf
> > SVP Architecture & Technology
> > WorldCom
> > 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> > Ashburn, VA 20147
> > 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> > 703 886 0047 fax
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1423
*************************