Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1467
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, October 11 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1467

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:12:19 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

ummmmm I have a bit of trouble following this discussion. Can you tell me what
law (either national law, treaty or regulation enacted under some sort of
multilateral agreement) must be conformed to in order to preclude someone
international organization from registering in .org?

Come to think of it...what would define an international organization as such in
the first place? The Who play all over the world. Are they an international
organization? The Canadian Relief Fund for Chernobyl VIctims in Belarus(CRFCCB)
is based in Canada. Are they an international organization?

Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:

> Well, to begin with, simply that they were not meant to register it there;
> they have their own specific gTLD, and in abusing gTLDs like that, they
> preclude other persons' rights to register in .org.
>
> Say for example WHO.ORG; who should be entitled to that domain? The World
> Health Organization (who should register under .INT), or the rock band (if
> they were still playing, that is)?.
>
> My perspective is much more about order, respecting other people's rights
> and conforming to the law than just about controlling them, Professor.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 04:58 PM
> Para: Rodrigo Orenday Serrato
> CC: 'Leah Gallegos'; 'Andy Gardner'; [email-masked]
> Asunto: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
>
> Why is it so important to make rules and control people?  What's the
> *harm* if an international organization chooses to register in .org?
>
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>
> > Alright, then let's prevent international organizations from registering
> in
> > ..org, since that's what .int was meant for in the first place.
> >
> > Atentamente, Regards
> > Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: Leah Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 02:20 PM
> > Para: [email-masked]; 'Andy Gardner'; [email-masked]
> > Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
> >
> >
> > On Thursday 10 October 2002 01:15 pm, Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:
> > > I insist that the naming of States is a matter of public interest, and
> > > therefore registrars should ban the registration of domain names
> > comprising
> > > the names of States, unless registration is requested by the State
> > > concerned.
> >
> > Fortunately, IMO, the law does not agree.  States and governments in
> general
> > should use .gov or the equiv. for official uses.  If this were not the
> case,
> > there would never be songs like "New York, New York"  or "Chicago" and
> there
> > would not have been a ship named the Queen Mary because commercial use of
> a
> > government name would be illegal.  In addition, there would be hundreds of
> > thousands of businesses that would never have existed if the use of
> regions
> > or government names were illegal.  UDRP should be disallowed if the result
> > is
> > the out and out theft of legitmately held domains.
> >
> > Leah
> >
> > The US has .gov for government domains and ccTLDs should do the same.
> > Actually, .US should be the home of governmental sites for the US, IMO,
> with
> > a .gov.us, but that is another discussion.
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  | http://www.law.tm
>                       -->It's very hot here.<--
>
> --
> 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

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:53:12 -0500
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

Domain Name Registration Policies themselves set forth, generally, that the
.INT gTLD is meant exclusively for international organizations created by
international treatises, and that the .ORG domain name is only for
non-profit organizations. That's your basis.

To understand whether or not an organization in international (as opposed to
transnational), you must refer to its constitutient charter.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: Dan Steinberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 06:12 PM
Para: [email-masked]
CC: 'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'; 'Leah Gallegos'; 'Andy
Gardner'; [email-masked]
Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

ummmmm I have a bit of trouble following this discussion. Can you tell me
what
law (either national law, treaty or regulation enacted under some sort of
multilateral agreement) must be conformed to in order to preclude someone
international organization from registering in .org?

Come to think of it...what would define an international organization as
such in
the first place? The Who play all over the world. Are they an international
organization? The Canadian Relief Fund for Chernobyl VIctims in
Belarus(CRFCCB)
is based in Canada. Are they an international organization?

Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:

> Well, to begin with, simply that they were not meant to register it there;
> they have their own specific gTLD, and in abusing gTLDs like that, they
> preclude other persons' rights to register in .org.
>
> Say for example WHO.ORG; who should be entitled to that domain? The World
> Health Organization (who should register under .INT), or the rock band (if
> they were still playing, that is)?.
>
> My perspective is much more about order, respecting other people's rights
> and conforming to the law than just about controlling them, Professor.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 04:58 PM
> Para: Rodrigo Orenday Serrato
> CC: 'Leah Gallegos'; 'Andy Gardner'; [email-masked]
> Asunto: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
>
> Why is it so important to make rules and control people?  What's the
> *harm* if an international organization chooses to register in .org?
>
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>
> > Alright, then let's prevent international organizations from registering
> in
> > ..org, since that's what .int was meant for in the first place.
> >
> > Atentamente, Regards
> > Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: Leah Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 02:20 PM
> > Para: [email-masked]; 'Andy Gardner'; [email-masked]
> > Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
> >
> >
> > On Thursday 10 October 2002 01:15 pm, Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:
> > > I insist that the naming of States is a matter of public interest, and
> > > therefore registrars should ban the registration of domain names
> > comprising
> > > the names of States, unless registration is requested by the State
> > > concerned.
> >
> > Fortunately, IMO, the law does not agree.  States and governments in
> general
> > should use .gov or the equiv. for official uses.  If this were not the
> case,
> > there would never be songs like "New York, New York"  or "Chicago" and
> there
> > would not have been a ship named the Queen Mary because commercial use
of
> a
> > government name would be illegal.  In addition, there would be hundreds
of
> > thousands of businesses that would never have existed if the use of
> regions
> > or government names were illegal.  UDRP should be disallowed if the
result
> > is
> > the out and out theft of legitmately held domains.
> >
> > Leah
> >
> > The US has .gov for government domains and ccTLDs should do the same.
> > Actually, .US should be the home of governmental sites for the US, IMO,
> with
> > a .gov.us, but that is another discussion.
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  | http://www.law.tm
>                       -->It's very hot here.<--
>
> --
> 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

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:04:57 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

At 6:53 PM -0500 10/10/02, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>and that the .ORG domain name is only for
>non-profit organizations

Where did you get this from?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:19:32 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:12:19PM -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> Come to think of it...what would define an international organization
> as such in the first place?

Irrelevant.  This discussion is in the context of .int, and in that
context, the definition of "international organization" is quite
precise. 

> The Who play all over the world.  Are they
> an international organization? The Canadian Relief Fund for Chernobyl
> VIctims in Belarus(CRFCCB) is based in Canada.  Are they an
> international organization?

Not in the context of .int.

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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:09:59 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Generics [Was RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz]

At 5:51 PM -0500 10/10/02, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>On the other hand, it is funny that you should mention the interest of
>Mexico on what a Norwegian does through a Brazilian registry, because the
>last time I checked, a Norwegian holds TEQUILA.COM, and uses it for a mobile
>phone website. As you know, TEQUILA is not only our foremost national
>liquor, but it is also an apellation controlle, which may not be used for
>anything else but for the identification of the aforesaid beverage.

So anyone who lives in Tequila, Jalisco, is not allowed to say where
they're from, unless they hav a drink in their hand at the time?

Are cartographers allowed to mark Tequila, Jalisco on maps?

You sound like you want to progress TM law to the stage where people get
jailed for uttering a TM'ed term.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:14:10 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

ummmmmm how does this constitute a 'law'? A policy written down by someone? what
authority was there for the original distinction?  was it decided at an
international conference and ratified by treaty and accompanying enabling
legislation by the various member states? Is it even US law?

and if it is...who gets to decide how it is enforced? I sure would not want that
job.

as for the distinction between .int and .org....I think that gets pretty blurred
very fast since both might be non-profit and the WHO calls itself...right in the
name the....
World Health ....Organization. Is it an .int or an .org?

Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:

> Domain Name Registration Policies themselves set forth, generally, that the
> .INT gTLD is meant exclusively for international organizations created by
> international treatises, and that the .ORG domain name is only for
> non-profit organizations. That's your basis.
>
> To understand whether or not an organization in international (as opposed to
> transnational), you must refer to its constitutient charter.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Dan Steinberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 06:12 PM
> Para: [email-masked]
> CC: 'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'; 'Leah Gallegos'; 'Andy
> Gardner'; [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
>
> ummmmm I have a bit of trouble following this discussion. Can you tell me
> what
> law (either national law, treaty or regulation enacted under some sort of
> multilateral agreement) must be conformed to in order to preclude someone
> international organization from registering in .org?
>
> Come to think of it...what would define an international organization as
> such in
> the first place? The Who play all over the world. Are they an international
> organization? The Canadian Relief Fund for Chernobyl VIctims in
> Belarus(CRFCCB)
> is based in Canada. Are they an international organization?
>
> Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:
>
> > Well, to begin with, simply that they were not meant to register it there;
> > they have their own specific gTLD, and in abusing gTLDs like that, they
> > preclude other persons' rights to register in .org.
> >
> > Say for example WHO.ORG; who should be entitled to that domain? The World
> > Health Organization (who should register under .INT), or the rock band (if
> > they were still playing, that is)?.
> >
> > My perspective is much more about order, respecting other people's rights
> > and conforming to the law than just about controlling them, Professor.
> >
> > Atentamente, Regards
> > Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> > [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 04:58 PM
> > Para: Rodrigo Orenday Serrato
> > CC: 'Leah Gallegos'; 'Andy Gardner'; [email-masked]
> > Asunto: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
> >
> > Why is it so important to make rules and control people?  What's the
> > *harm* if an international organization chooses to register in .org?
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
> >
> > > Alright, then let's prevent international organizations from registering
> > in
> > > ..org, since that's what .int was meant for in the first place.
> > >
> > > Atentamente, Regards
> > > Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> > >
> > > -----Mensaje original-----
> > > De: Leah Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 02:20 PM
> > > Para: [email-masked]; 'Andy Gardner'; [email-masked]
> > > Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday 10 October 2002 01:15 pm, Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:
> > > > I insist that the naming of States is a matter of public interest, and
> > > > therefore registrars should ban the registration of domain names
> > > comprising
> > > > the names of States, unless registration is requested by the State
> > > > concerned.
> > >
> > > Fortunately, IMO, the law does not agree.  States and governments in
> > general
> > > should use .gov or the equiv. for official uses.  If this were not the
> > case,
> > > there would never be songs like "New York, New York"  or "Chicago" and
> > there
> > > would not have been a ship named the Queen Mary because commercial use
> of
> > a
> > > government name would be illegal.  In addition, there would be hundreds
> of
> > > thousands of businesses that would never have existed if the use of
> > regions
> > > or government names were illegal.  UDRP should be disallowed if the
> result
> > > is
> > > the out and out theft of legitmately held domains.
> > >
> > > Leah
> > >
> > > The US has .gov for government domains and ccTLDs should do the same.
> > > Actually, .US should be the home of governmental sites for the US, IMO,
> > with
> > > a .gov.us, but that is another discussion.
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  | http://www.law.tm
> >                       -->It's very hot here.<--
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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, 11 Oct 2002 09:57:49 +0800
From: "James Seng" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPv6 and child pornographers

Oh, these problem don't exist in IPv4?

"Security" is a loaded word, but to who involved in "Information Security",
there are five pillars, namely: Confidentity, Availability, Integrity,
Privacy and Non-reputation.

Unfortunately, in designing a protocol, some of the requirements conflict
with the pillars.

In this case, IP exist is uniquely *identify* machines on the network. By
that definition, privacy (as you defined it) does not exist. However, there
are limited privacy because other than the IP address, they know nothing
else about you.

How about another approach Joe? Since you are obviously so intelligent to
spot this "security" problem that none of the IPv6 engineers have, why not
propose a solution and stop "crying wolf"?

- -James Seng

From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
> Well this is my last article on IPv6 - the next will deal with
> infrastructure.
>
>         October 9, 2002, IPv6: In Search Of Internet Security
>         http://www.circleid.com/articles/2543.asp
>
> It is important that members of the GA consider the privacy implications
> of IPv6 - dissendents in china will be liberated and so will child
> pornographers.  My other two artticles are also posted below.
>
>         September 12, 2002, Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat
>         http://www.circleid.com/articles/2533.asp
>
>         September 25, 2002, IPv6 Transition: Preparing For The Big Shift
>         http://www.circleid.com/articles/2539.asp
>
> Cheers
> Joe Baptista
>
> --
> Planet Communications & Computing Facility
> a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
>
> --
> 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, 10 Oct 2002 22:23:57 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Generics [Was RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz]

>As you know, TEQUILA is not only our foremost national
> liquor, but it is also an apellation controlle, which may not be used for
> anything else but for the identification of the aforesaid beverage.

No, it is the title of a song, composed and recorded in 1959 by saxophonist
Chuck Rio.

Is it illegal to play it on Mexican radio? Or does the song have another
title there?

("Mexican Radio" also being a good song)

- --
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, 10 Oct 2002 22:29:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPv6 and child pornographers

On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, James Seng wrote:

> Oh, these problem don't exist in IPv4?

which problems dont exist.

> "Security" is a loaded word, but to who involved in "Information Security",
> there are five pillars, namely: Confidentity, Availability, Integrity,
> Privacy and Non-reputation.
>
> Unfortunately, in designing a protocol, some of the requirements conflict
> with the pillars.
>
> In this case, IP exist is uniquely *identify* machines on the network. By
> that definition, privacy (as you defined it) does not exist. However, there
> are limited privacy because other than the IP address, they know nothing
> else about you.

security and pillars.  most of what you have written above is alot of
nonsense.

> How about another approach Joe? Since you are obviously so intelligent to
> spot this "security" problem that none of the IPv6 engineers have, why not
> propose a solution and stop "crying wolf"?

I am quoting engineers.

try to follow along as best you can

cheers
joe baptista

>
> -James Seng
>
> From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
> > Well this is my last article on IPv6 - the next will deal with
> > infrastructure.
> >
> >         October 9, 2002, IPv6: In Search Of Internet Security
> >         http://www.circleid.com/articles/2543.asp
> >
> > It is important that members of the GA consider the privacy implications
> > of IPv6 - dissendents in china will be liberated and so will child
> > pornographers.  My other two artticles are also posted below.
> >
> >         September 12, 2002, Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat
> >         http://www.circleid.com/articles/2533.asp
> >
> >         September 25, 2002, IPv6 Transition: Preparing For The Big Shift
> >         http://www.circleid.com/articles/2539.asp
> >
> > Cheers
> > Joe Baptista
> >
> > --
> > Planet Communications & Computing Facility
> > a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
> >
> > --
> > 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, 10 Oct 2002 22:37:31 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

> From: John
> Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> This is the first time I've seen someone arguing that there
> should be a ban
> on generic and common terms AND trademarks.

If the UDRP banned generic last names from birth certificates, that would
work. Alternatively, we could lobby for a "discrimination against generics
and common terms act", which would be needed to protect the right of those
unfortunates who are born with generic last names, or have pre-existing
generic corporation names. Count me in with any class action suit.

>
> That leaves few other choices, but maybe we should just ban registering
> domain names entirely.

Let's just revert to IP numbers, it's less contentious. Google can do the
rest.

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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:11:18 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPv6 and child pornographers

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

James Seng wrote:

> Oh, these problem don't exist in IPv4?

  Actually, no they don't.  Most of these security problems are
specific to IPv6 as part of the IPv6 design.

>
>
> "Security" is a loaded word, but to who involved in "Information Security",
> there are five pillars, namely: Confidentity, Availability, Integrity,
> Privacy and Non-reputation.

  Right here.  IPv6 does not meet any of these criterion adequately,
and several not at all.  Not at all are: Confidentity, and Privacy.
Not adequately: Information Security, Integrity and Non-reputation.
Although IPv6 come close to Non-reputation.

>
>
> Unfortunately, in designing a protocol, some of the requirements conflict
> with the pillars.

  Exactly right in some cases.

>
>
> In this case, IP exist is uniquely *identify* machines on the network. By
> that definition, privacy (as you defined it) does not exist.

  Sure it exists!  Where or how do you come to such an exacting
conclusion?

> However, there
> are limited privacy because other than the IP address, they know nothing
> else about you.

  True enough!  But with that as a start, allot more can be found out
as you PC/Server is now effectively hacked when using IPv6 when
implemented using auto-install.  For an individual user with a static
IPv6 IP address, he/she has no option.  Hence, he/she are
vulnerable to privacy loss as well as open to seriptious viruses
and identity theft.  That's just not expectable, nor secure.

>
>
> How about another approach Joe? Since you are obviously so intelligent to
> spot this "security" problem that none of the IPv6 engineers have, why not
> propose a solution and stop "crying wolf"?

  IPv8!

>
>
> -James Seng
>
> From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
> > Well this is my last article on IPv6 - the next will deal with
> > infrastructure.
> >
> >         October 9, 2002, IPv6: In Search Of Internet Security
> >         http://www.circleid.com/articles/2543.asp
> >
> > It is important that members of the GA consider the privacy implications
> > of IPv6 - dissendents in china will be liberated and so will child
> > pornographers.  My other two artticles are also posted below.
> >
> >         September 12, 2002, Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat
> >         http://www.circleid.com/articles/2533.asp
> >
> >         September 25, 2002, IPv6 Transition: Preparing For The Big Shift
> >         http://www.circleid.com/articles/2539.asp
> >
> > Cheers
> > Joe Baptista
> >
> > --
> > Planet Communications & Computing Facility
> > a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
> >
> > --
> > 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, 11 Oct 2002 12:51:33 +0900
From: Soobok Lee <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPv6 and child pornographers

On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 10:11:18PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> James Seng wrote:
> 
> > "Security" is a loaded word, but to who involved in "Information Security",
> > there are five pillars, namely: Confidentity, Availability, Integrity,
> > Privacy and Non-reputation.
> 
>   Right here.  IPv6 does not meet any of these criterion adequately,
> and several not at all.  Not at all are: Confidentity, and Privacy.
> Not adequately: Information Security, Integrity and Non-reputation.
> Although IPv6 come close to Non-reputation.

I suggest simple correction:   Non-reputation ==>  non-repudiation .
I guess there was transcription mistakes. 
If you both  have had other ideas about that term, correct me , please.

Cheers.
Soobok Lee
an observer in Seoul
- --
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, 10 Oct 2002 22:31:19 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Ouch and stepping in it.

Some folks around here are tracking some worn out do do upon their shoes
and spreading it.
If you do not understand the numbers and security issues of IPv6 and do
not understand the
stability issues of generics and geographics please read our archives.
Otherwise you kind of look a little silly, I mean just kind of.  I still
love your involvement and
welcome you. and If you still want it on the list I will be happy to
oblige in your embarrassment.
e
- --
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, 10 Oct 2002 23:56:21 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] New approach

You little monkeys that are trying to create a perception of
intelligence but have no basis in logic, law or fact, just back off and
shut up.  or  State your real position and who you work for at this
time, because I am sure it goes to the highest bidder.  IPv6 has been
shown for the fraud it is and geographic are stupid- Evian Water is
entitled as is someone who wants a full security measure placed in the
platform of IP.

Who ever are teaming up with TR and AS to prevent intelligent discussion
are pitiful fools and you remind us all of Crispin and Crocker.
e

- --
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, 11 Oct 2002 09:53:11 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPv6 and child pornographers

On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 10:29:28PM -0400,
 Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 74 lines which said:

> I am quoting engineers.

Sure, Jeff Williams and Jim Fleming. As we say in French, "Qui se
ressemble s'assemble" (Those who looks the same go together).

- --
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, 11 Oct 2002 05:56:29 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New approach

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: MD5

Hello eric,

Friday, October 11, 2002, 2:56:21 AM, you wrote:

ehtc> You little monkeys that are trying to create a perception of
ehtc> intelligence but have no basis in logic, law or fact, just back off and
ehtc> shut up.  or  State your real position and who you work for at this
ehtc> time, because I am sure it goes to the highest bidder.  IPv6 has been
ehtc> shown for the fraud it is and geographic are stupid- Evian Water is
ehtc> entitled as is someone who wants a full security measure placed in the
ehtc> platform of IP.

Incorrect.  You made the assertion that IPv6:

"...sucks raw eggs like a weasel, and one should be most cautious of
any person selling it."

If you make an assertion like that, you should expect to have to back
it up.  So back it up.  Show us evidence from reliable, independent
third parties which demonstrate that IPv6 "sucks raw eggs like a
weasel", or that "IPv6 has been shown for the fraud it is".

So go ahead and back it up...

As to your first question, although I feel it is irrelevant to this
discussion I am a security engineer for Symantec.  I am also the
author of the book "The Practice of Network Security: Deployment
Strategies for Production Environments", published by Prentice Hall.

Now, I ask the same of you, what is your position and who do you work
for?

allan
- - --
Allan Liska
[email-masked]
http://www.allan.org

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAwUAPaagUSkg6TAvIBeFAQHsIwQAiNKyrhTogqh/E8oKK+Pq6ux+rtF+T3Nf
r0JHhJbp9h7SYYuBt0K+1LXc0bP217PsFvoAMHxaSHpVBZAYfVOw8EJ8bubcs36A
g4VaSqMt/WT+pJz33ybSJkPkHUsdi07mLCoF2zeKz9RHKMPewH5XHZuEiWIR7tTS
RY0PrPlzQEo=
=k7BW
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
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 #1467
*************************