Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1487
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, October 23 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1487

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:34:40 +0100
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Text Posting of Michael Palage's Comments on Whois Task Force

Let me begin with stipulating that this answer is my personal opnion,
and as such has been cc'd to the TF, but has no bearing whatsoever on
the Whois TaskForce or the consensus opinion of that TF, nor do I speak
for or on behalf of the Task Force.

I too am worried about the privacy ramifications within whois.
I do not doubt the usefullness of the whois, as some, but am sure that
as it was written in the earlier days and was intended, that it is a
good and decent tool.

We seem however to have forgotten that the use of whois was intended not
for marketing, and that the contacts in the whois were there for a
purpose:

Admin / Tech C / had a clear position. I still remember that when I
registered my first domain I was not allowed to be tech contact, that
was host of the machine the domain ran on, as for admin contact, that
was my provider and the only place my name (and that only) showed was
udner "registrant"

No email address. No home phonenumber. No address.

It was simple. The reason for those contacts, in case of a problem they
could contact the appropriate contact.

With dig/host/nslookup & whois we have tools that some of us use for
seroous technical problems, like black-hling or dumpnig IP's that dDoS
an uplink, server or such and in that way prevent the "normal"
operations.

The admin contact made sure he was able to reach me, since I had to pay
him monthly for the honour of hosting my website and dialling in through
them.

Would such still be the case then there would imo be little wrong with
whois, however reality kicks in, there is something wrong.

Long has this been forgotten as a usage, and it has become a database
that is dealt in, that is "mined" by those with a sense for the value of
such a large database and used as a source for scaring the living
daylights out of ppl by the IP lawyers.

It now is something that shows vital data on everyone who has a domain
registered and as such is a very grave breach of privacy laws in lots of
countries, the EU foremost.

None of the so-called arguments for keeping it as it is now fail in my
opinion, but as I said before, such is MY opinion.
As it was it is usefull or can be, the foremost use should be the
tech-contact data.
The IP lawyers argue falsely that there is an emergency on their part in
accessing this information, none of the information gathered that way is
solving a problem if there is a legitimate reason to "shut down" a site
very fast, one needs the host, which can only be found by finding the
nameservers for the domain.

Law enforcement has the same arguing flaws, since real crooks will never
tell the world via a whois who they are, and the "smaller" cases can
easely be solved by consulting with the host of said site, since they
would most likely have data of payments and such and therefore a greater
chance of getting "real" data.

It should still be usefull in it's original form if the data was in
confirmation with that original RFC, however it isn't anymore.

The proposals made by the dot name registry are therefore somewhat
refreshing, and far more based on EU law (UK to be precise) nad far more
protective of the privacy, but again imo not far fetching enough, though
I can understand their difficulty for manouvering between ICANN and the
UK laws.

If the RFC was "adepted" we could surely take one source for "angst"
away from ppl, namely mining, and if ICANN and the registry/registrars
agreed on dropping the clause in which they are to sell their database
we would be near perfection:

A usefull whois, containing the name of the registrant, the contacts for
a "techie" that can intervene in case of problems and an admin who can
forward law-enforcement where needed.

As a whois that would suffice imo. And protect all users from being
spammed to death, though mail-servers take the hardets beating and loads
of bandwidth is stolen by trying to find relay-capable servers.

The report is a work in progress, many things have not yet been
distilled from the information, yet with the right input I still believe
in the TF being able to deliver a very good job in it's final findings.
This of course is also very dependant on the input from all concerned.

Kind regards

Abel Wisman

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Karl AuerbacSent: 23 October 2002 07:10
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Text Posting of Michael Palage's Comments on Whois
Task Force

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Michael D. Palage wrote:

I am slowly digesting your comments, which are, as usual, interesting
and enlightening.

Right now I only want to deal with one point:

> .	Some of the Whois Task Force's recommendations explicitly rely
on changes
> to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Per Louis 
> Touton's note of October 20, 2002, ICANN lacks the contractual 
> authority to unilaterally renegotiate this or other agreements.

Let's not forget the value of comity.

ICANN had no way of forcing Verisign/NSI into the major amendment of
their contract with ICANN, but with the carrot that ICANN offered, the
perpetual control of .com, Verisign was happy to be induced.

What I'm saying is that perhaps there is no unilateral power, but there
is 
value in future comfortable relations.

At the risk of violating ICANN's policy of having comments in the form
of messages tossed over a wall and disappearing from view, please pardon
me if I take this opportunity to post my own comment on the report:

>From [email-masked] Tue Oct 22 22:58:10 2002
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 14:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Comment on Oct. 14 Interim report

I see nothing in this interim report that answers the primary question
why 
personally identifiable information must be published to the public at 
all.

In other words, the report fails to answer what I believe must be the 
first question: Why is "whois" needed, and by whom?

It is my sense that there is little public value in the existance of a 
publicly available "whois" database.

There are, of course, small groups who find such a database useful and
perhaps even valuable - groups such as marketeers (spammers) and
trademark people who seek to redress perceived violations of their
rights without resorting to the processes that nations have established
for that purpose 
(i.e. the legal system.)

However, the report fails to indicate that the needs of those groups is
of sufficient weight to justify what amounts to a wholesale violation of
privacy principles that amounts to nothing less than an anti-privacy tax
on anyone who wishes to become visible on the internet through the
mechanism of acquiring a domain name.

The report fails to consider privacy protection mechanisms such as the 
following:

  - Requirements that the data subjects (i.e. the people named in whois 
    records) have free and effective means to maintain the data.

  - Requirements that those who examine the records must first identify 
    themselves, offer proof of that identity, and indicate working means

    of contact, in particular a valid e-mail address.

     + To ensure that the contact of the person making the inquiry is 
       valid, the response to the query should be returned by e-mail 
       rather than being made online.

    + Special arrangements might be established for those in operational

      roles (such as people in ISP network operating centers) to have 
      pre-arranged access credentials.

  - That the time, date, and identity of every inquiry be recorded and 
    made available to the data subjects.

  - Requirements that the registries and registrars make no use of the 
    information for any purpose except that for which it was gathered,
the 
    maintainence of the registrant's domain name (including the issuance

    of billing and status statements.)

  - Requirements that registries and registrars take concrete steps
ensure
    that this data is protected by adequate and appropriate security 
    measures.

		--karl--

- --
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

- --
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, 23 Oct 2002 16:40:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .de nameservers updated

As of serial number 2002102300 (i.e. today) ICANN has updated the
nameservers for .DE in the root zone. It seems this struggle is over. Who
is the winner?

- --
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, 23 Oct 2002 16:54:22 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .de nameservers updated

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 04:40:51PM +0200,
 Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 9 lines which said:

> As of serial number 2002102300 (i.e. today) ICANN has updated the
> nameservers for .DE in the root zone. It seems this struggle is
> over. 

No, five European ccTLD still have ns.eu.net in the ICANN zone file
(but no longer in the ccTLD registry zone file). The struggle is not
over.

http://tac.eureg.org/mon/
- --
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, 23 Oct 2002 11:20:39 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] .de nameservers updated

Are you sure they have asked for the change? I saw a note some time ago which
indicated that some ccTLDs hadn't yet requested a change. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 10:54 AM
To: Marc Schneiders
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] .de nameservers updated

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 04:40:51PM +0200,
 Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 9 lines which said:

> As of serial number 2002102300 (i.e. today) ICANN has updated the
> nameservers for .DE in the root zone. It seems this struggle is
> over. 

No, five European ccTLD still have ns.eu.net in the ICANN zone file
(but no longer in the ccTLD registry zone file). The struggle is not
over.

http://tac.eureg.org/mon/
- --
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, 23 Oct 2002 17:32:45 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .de nameservers updated

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:20:39AM -0400,
 Cade,Marilyn S - LGA <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 30 lines which said:

> Are you sure they have asked for the change? I saw a note some time ago which
> indicated that some ccTLDs hadn't yet requested a change. 

No, I cannot be positive, I do not work for these NIC. But I observe
that Albania and Romania, for instance, have a correct list of name
servers at the primary, but not in ICANN zone file. Therefore, I
assume they are not neglecting their work.

- --
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, 23 Oct 2002 17:40:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] .de nameservers updated

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, at 11:20 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Are you sure they have asked for the change?

I merely noted the change in the root zone file. I would hope though, that
ICANN does NOT change nameservers unless requested by the delegated ccTLD
manager...

> I saw a note some time ago which
> indicated that some ccTLDs hadn't yet requested a change.

On this list the head of DENIC, Sabine Dolderer, made very clear two weeks
or so ago, that ICANN was putting preconditions in the way of an update.
This must mean .DE requested it. And I am sure someone from ICANN would
have pointed out, that .DE hadn't requested the update, if that would
have been the case.

- --
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, 23 Oct 2002 18:17:50 +0200
From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .de nameservers updated

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 05:32:45PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer took time to write:
> > Are you sure they have asked for the change? I saw a note some time ago which
> > indicated that some ccTLDs hadn't yet requested a change. 
> 
> No, I cannot be positive, I do not work for these NIC. But I observe
> that Albania and Romania, for instance, have a correct list of name
> servers at the primary, but not in ICANN zone file. Therefore, I
> assume they are not neglecting their work.

Assumptions are not proof nor guarantees.

If I were you, before crying wolf I would asked those NIC if they
requested the change, and then I would ask ICANN if they have
received the request and why they have not reacted to it.

From first hand experience I know, for example, that some people running
nameservers used for ccTLDs are not aware that they need to follow a
special procedure to update IP of their nameserver (outside normal
procedure for all changes of IP).

Patrick Mevzek.
- --
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, 23 Oct 2002 18:37:10 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .de nameservers updated

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 06:17:50PM +0200,
 Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 26 lines which said:

> If I were you, before crying wolf I would asked those NIC if they
> requested the change, and then I would ask ICANN if they have
> received the request and why they have not reacted to it.

ICANN has a marketing department, they don't need accredited
registrars to defend them.
 
> >From first hand experience I know, for example, that some people running
> nameservers used for ccTLDs are not aware that they need to follow a
> special procedure to update IP of their nameserver (outside normal
> procedure for all changes of IP).

From first-hand experience, I know that the update of .fr (suppressing
ns.eu.net) was delayed by ICANN because of the infamous contract (the
one which mandates zone transfer access, see
<URL:http://www.centr.org/news/ICANN-Zone-Access-Comments.html>). The
people of .de also experienced the same problem and reported it. Other
ccTLD described the same experience at CENTR meetings.

Do note that, in his recent interview to Demys
<URL:http://www.demys.net/news/printer/02_oct_18_inside_icann.htm>,
Jonathan Cohen did not deny the problem: when asked about it, he
talked of something else.

- --
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, 23 Oct 2002 12:43:05 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] .de nameservers updated

I wasn't thinking of .de but the reference to another 5... Sorry for the confusion.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:41 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] .de nameservers updated

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, at 11:20 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Are you sure they have asked for the change?

I merely noted the change in the root zone file. I would hope though, that
ICANN does NOT change nameservers unless requested by the delegated ccTLD
manager...

> I saw a note some time ago which
> indicated that some ccTLDs hadn't yet requested a change.

On this list the head of DENIC, Sabine Dolderer, made very clear two weeks
or so ago, that ICANN was putting preconditions in the way of an update.
This must mean .DE requested it. And I am sure someone from ICANN would
have pointed out, that .DE hadn't requested the update, if that would
have been the case.

- --
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, 23 Oct 2002 18:53:12 +0200
From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .de nameservers updated

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 06:37:10PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer took time to write:
> > If I were you, before crying wolf I would asked those NIC if they
> > requested the change, and then I would ask ICANN if they have
> > received the request and why they have not reacted to it.
> 
> ICANN has a marketing department, they don't need accredited
> registrars to defend them.

You have trouble reading ? 
Were did I say I defend ICANN ?

I just say, that rather than speaking without knowing you should
first try to find _facts_ before speaking.

This was also Marylin comment.

> > >From first hand experience I know, for example, that some people running
> > nameservers used for ccTLDs are not aware that they need to follow a
> > special procedure to update IP of their nameserver (outside normal
> > procedure for all changes of IP).
> 
> >From first-hand experience, I know that the update of .fr (suppressing

And ? I though we were speaking about Romania and Albania.
And I was giving you a specific example of a situation where people
may blame someone/thing which has no relationship to their problem.

You seem to have trouble sticking to facts pertaining to the subject.
And you seem eager to spray FUD and insult others. I already warned
you elsewhere to stop putting in my mouth things I did not say.

Then let's drop this discussion that you seem unable to have.

BTW, I do not need CC.

Patrick Mevzek.
- --
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, 23 Oct 2002 12:04:56 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Developing Nations/Whois

Eric and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Each unique internet community of users has unique needs and concerns.
> Privacy is entirely different in India then it is in Mexico. The examples are
> too obvious and many.
>
> However there are some universal truths that we may hold self evident.  The
> higher the level of privacy the better for the individual.  The lower the level
> of privacy the better for big business. Now if you are hungry do you want
> privacy or a job?

  If I am hungry, I should not have to sacrifice my privacy for a job.
This is a canonized principal of what the Privacy Act in the US
is all about.  Hence Eric, your question, leading in it's nature,
presupposes a either - or requirement.  That sort of logic
and idea was rejected over 100 years ago now...

>
> As to expiry and developing nations, I know of no place where if you do not
> continue to pay for a service you still receive it, oh it may be a communal
> payment or a subsidy but you pay.  Furthermore in most developing countries for
> most services you get no written bill, much less friendly reminders.

  How true.  And in some ways very unfortunate as well as unreasonable.
This however does not presuppose that such should remain.  In fact,
in Afghanistan for instance, this very attitude is being eroded now as it
should be.  And that is only one example...  There are many many more.

>
>
> Users and individuals in developing countries are entitled to two things when it
> comes to the Internet, dignity of the individual and a chance at using it.
> Within these two rules you have Accessibility, reliability and Security.
> Keep in mind also that the violations of privacy are quite generally directly
> proportionate to your electronic/telecommunications access. It is very difficult
> to interrupt a family dinner with a phone solicitation if the family has no
> phone.

  Good point to this issue, Whois.    As the present Task Forces recommendations
seem to require that a registrant have a contact Phone #.  I believe as do
many if not most of our [INEGroup] members, feel such a requirement is
not realistic and impedes participation at the Registrant level.  Hence
this could be considered a restraint of trade issue...

>
>
> e
>
> "Michael D. Palage" wrote:
>
> > Here are some additional comments that I received that I would like to share
> > and which I believe supports a more flexible approach to inaccurate whois.
> >
> > Although I remain committed to solving the Whois problems, I believe only a
> > comprehensive solution addressing the various issues/concerns will work. I
> > regret to say that a piecemeal solution is likely to fail.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Srikanth Narra [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:29 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Some comments on WHOIS (third world perspective)
> >
> > Briefly, from third world perspective here is what I
> > have to say, from personal experience.
> >
> > India / Africa / Philippines :-
> >
> > Quite often the domain name is registered by a friend
> > living in US on behalf of and in the name of someone
> > living in these countries.
> >
> > The email address is not accessed often. Maybe once in
> > a while. The sites if they exist are brochureware'ish.
> > The phone number might very well be neighbours not own. (Not to mention
> > language issues - person picking the phone might now speck English or
> > comprehend the topic at hand)
> > The only reliable thing might be the postal address.
> > The mail takes (easily) over a month in some cases to reach from
> > US.
> >
> > Given this circumstance, cancelling domain name or putting it on hold
> > because someone did not answer a phone or email in 15 days is pretty much
> > unrealistic from their perspective.
> >
> > The best confirmation of a domainname is the fact that
> > someone is actually paying for it. The reliable
> > mechanism to check WHOIS information might be at the
> > time of renewal. And the method of communication snail
> > mail.
> >
> > These people will be at extreme disadvantage.
> >
> > China / MiddleEast :-
> >
> > Accurate WHOIS information in case of sites might be at
> > physical / social risk to the registrant.
> >
> > Bottomline -
> >
> > What is the exact benefit the domain name owners get
> > from all the accurate WHOIS information ?
> >
> > *** (New additions I did not have on earlier email).
> > Reseller perspective -
> >
> > Reselling domain name registrations is a very risky venture given all the
> > legal and trademark hassles. Lot of registrars seem to be getting into it
> > (especially to be able to target foreign markets) as the local reseller has
> > more feel and proximity to the market.
> >
> > With shifting sand situation it places the resellers at much greater risk
> > and turbulence.
> >
> > ***
> > Foreign exchange regulations - Not all countries have freely convertible
> > currency. This forces (friend paying overseas, local reseller vs. US based
> > register usage,etc) some innovative methods to get on net.. (for background
> > perspective).
> >
> > --
> > 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: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:15:24 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text Posting of Michael Palage's Comments on Whois Task  Force

Chuck and all assembly members,

  Interesting you should mention and bring this up Chuck.  I am also
glad that you did as well, your exactly right IMHO.  It is also funny
or and odd coincidence as well as I along with two other IT
business folks, one in Tulsa Ok.,  and one in Washington DC,
are formulating a business to specialize in just this sort of thing.  >;)
In the early process of formulating this business, I found that
funding for instance was very easy to get as the demand
seems to be great.  We had the initial funding in just over
two weeks, and now have far more funds than we originally
thought we would need.  >;)

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Well said Karl. I strongly believe that until we deal with the issue of
> privacy, any solution to the perceived problems with Whois will just mask
> the real problems and will be very ineffective because users will find ways
> to protect their privacy in ways avoid new regulations.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:10 AM
> To: Michael D. Palage
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Text Posting of Michael Palage's Comments on Whois
> Task Force
>
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>
> I am slowly digesting your comments, which are, as usual, interesting and
> enlightening.
>
> Right now I only want to deal with one point:
>
> > ·     Some of the Whois Task Force's recommendations explicitly rely on
> changes
> > to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Per Louis Touton's
> > note of October 20, 2002, ICANN lacks the contractual authority to
> > unilaterally renegotiate this or other agreements.
>
> Let's not forget the value of comity.
>
> ICANN had no way of forcing Verisign/NSI into the major amendment of their
> contract with ICANN, but with the carrot that ICANN offered, the perpetual
> control of .com, Verisign was happy to be induced.
>
> What I'm saying is that perhaps there is no unilateral power, but there is
> value in future comfortable relations.
>
> At the risk of violating ICANN's policy of having comments in the form of
> messages tossed over a wall and disappearing from view, please pardon me
> if I take this opportunity to post my own comment on the report:
>
> >From [email-masked] Tue Oct 22 22:58:10 2002
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 14:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Comment on Oct. 14 Interim report
>
> I see nothing in this interim report that answers the primary question why
> personally identifiable information must be published to the public at
> all.
>
> In other words, the report fails to answer what I believe must be the
> first question: Why is "whois" needed, and by whom?
>
> It is my sense that there is little public value in the existance of a
> publicly available "whois" database.
>
> There are, of course, small groups who find such a database useful and
> perhaps even valuable - groups such as marketeers (spammers) and trademark
> people who seek to redress perceived violations of their rights without
> resorting to the processes that nations have established for that purpose
> (i.e. the legal system.)
>
> However, the report fails to indicate that the needs of those groups is of
> sufficient weight to justify what amounts to a wholesale violation of
> privacy principles that amounts to nothing less than an anti-privacy tax
> on anyone who wishes to become visible on the internet through the
> mechanism of acquiring a domain name.
>
> The report fails to consider privacy protection mechanisms such as the
> following:
>
>   - Requirements that the data subjects (i.e. the people named in whois
>     records) have free and effective means to maintain the data.
>
>   - Requirements that those who examine the records must first identify
>     themselves, offer proof of that identity, and indicate working means
>     of contact, in particular a valid e-mail address.
>
>      + To ensure that the contact of the person making the inquiry is
>        valid, the response to the query should be returned by e-mail
>        rather than being made online.
>
>     + Special arrangements might be established for those in operational
>       roles (such as people in ISP network operating centers) to have
>       pre-arranged access credentials.
>
>   - That the time, date, and identity of every inquiry be recorded and
>     made available to the data subjects.
>
>   - Requirements that the registries and registrars make no use of the
>     information for any purpose except that for which it was gathered, the
>     maintainence of the registrant's domain name (including the issuance
>     of billing and status statements.)
>
>   - Requirements that registries and registrars take concrete steps ensure
>     that this data is protected by adequate and appropriate security
>     measures.
>
>                 --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
> --
> 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: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Developing Nations/Whois

What you say on this thread is exactly why we refer to us as developing 
nations. Our process and due process and need over rights are being 
developed.  What you say is idealic in nature.

Just as with our whois data bases being marketable, we must review the here 
and now and adjust not ignore it, and talk of what should be but rather what 
is.

I agree with you that these are not technical or even policy issues but are 
becoming basic human right issues.  the right to be educated and have access 
to information is really becoming a human right, perhaps that is the best 
gift to come out of 911 and Afghanastan.  

Sincerely,
eric

- --
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, 23 Oct 2002 20:21:33 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] .de nameservers updated

Marilyn,

One of problems is certainly related to the fact that even to remove
a ccTLD name server, ICANN staff was pushing for zone file transfer,
explaining they have to check it. The ccTLD has been widely sharing
that absurd request among themselves.

On the other hand the ccTLDs have been getting an extraordinary help,
the real solidarity, from RIPE NCC, and know that ns.eu.net 
will be removed in November. Power off.

The big ccTLD Manager, who did not succeed since June or July 
to have IANA _remove_ ns.eu.net as secondary for its zone,
and which case is well known as example to others,
will have it done anyway by fact of life in few days.

So there is no more big deal to ask IANA for anything regarding
ns.eu.net server. Whether you ask or not, IANA was not updating.

Elisabeth
- --

Marilyn wrote:
> 
> Are you sure they have asked for the change? I saw a note some time ago which
> indicated that some ccTLDs hadn't yet requested a change. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 10:54 AM
> To: Marc Schneiders
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] .de nameservers updated
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 04:40:51PM +0200,
>  Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote 
>  a message of 9 lines which said:
> 
> > As of serial number 2002102300 (i.e. today) ICANN has updated the
> > nameservers for .DE in the root zone. It seems this struggle is
> > over. 
> 
> No, five European ccTLD still have ns.eu.net in the ICANN zone file
> (but no longer in the ccTLD registry zone file). The struggle is not
> over.
> 
> http://tac.eureg.org/mon/
> --
- --
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, 23 Oct 2002 22:31:21 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Dial-in instructions for Transfers Session

From: "Denise Michel" <[email-masked]>

To join the Public Discussion on Transfers of gTLD Domain Names from 
10:30 - 12:30 on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 (Shanghai time) by phone, 
dial +1-484-630-4207, or 877-562-9747 if you are dialing from the 
US, and give the passcode "Transfers." To check your local time for 
the call, use http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.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, 23 Oct 2002 21:24:38 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> > If this is the way to go, it might well be that one or more functions be
> > delegated to the ITU. For instance, the assignment of IP addresses, that
> > seems similar to the management of the frequency spectrum or the 
>telephone
> > system, and seems to be perfectly adequate for an International Treaty
> > Organization.
>
>And will they do better than, say, the current RIRs? In what way? Will
>they "take", at least, some of the many unused IP addresses from the
>North to give them to the South?

I don´t think that the point is whether they will do better than the RIRs, 
because the overseeing body (ICANN, or in the example the ITU) will not 
"replace" the RIRs, but only provide the primary allocation to RIRs that 
will "fine tune" the process, possibly under guidlines provided by the 
overseeing body.
Anyway, since you ask, my answer follows.

Yes, indeed.
First of all, it already happened for other media (E.164, RF, etc.). The 
point is that North and South are represented in the ITU via the member 
states, while ICANN is representative of the one and only member state. This 
member state used to have North and South, but that was 1.5 centuries ago, 
and I´m sure that when you mean distribution between North and South you 
mean something else than the fight in the US Civil War. I shall add ;>), 
just in case.

>
>I'm not interested in which bureaucracy will manage the Internet. I'm
>interested in the actual policy they will follow.
>

Exactly.
The ITU bureaucracy might be heavier than the "consensus building process" 
of ICANN, but is surely more transparent.
The problem is, in this case, who should decide about the policy for 
distribution of IP addresses. Up to now, it has been IANA, with certain 
criteria. I am not criticising these criteria, I´m just saying that to give 
to one university in a country of which I don´t remember the name more 
addreses than to China is a criterion that had its validity in times when 
the Internet was mainly a research network, not in times when it is a tool 
for commerce and economic development.
With all its limits, the ITU, and specifically ITU-D, has done a lot for 
supporting the South of the world. It still is a body where the South of the 
world has its voice, surely more than in ICANN, and the policy they will 
follow will be decided by the Member States.

All of them, not just one.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

- --
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 #1487
*************************