Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1497
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, November 5 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1497

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 00:55:23 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] How to steal a domain name.....

Hello,

Today's lesson is on how to steal a domain name.....

Step 1. Find a high value domain name with an invalid administrative
email address, preferably one that is not actively being used so that
it won't be noticed.

Example: nigger.com, nigger.net, nigger.org (owned by NAACP)

Step 2. Note in the WHOIS that the admin email is [email-masked],
which until yesterday was on a domain (BAWAVE.com) that had long
expired and been deleted.

Step 3. Register the aforesaid domain name in Step #2. Oh my, some
folks have caught on, as you can see the WHOIS for BAWAVE.com, freshly
registered yesterday:

Registrant:
  Nigger Inc [email-masked] +62.3189598
  Hendra Gunawan
  JL. Bengawan 56
  Surabaya,Jawa Timur,Indonesia 60000

Domain Name:bawave.com 
Record last updated at 2002-11-04 20:31:57
Record created on 2002/11/4

Step 3a: Ideally, make the registrant in step 3 very obscure, like in a
far away land. ;)

Step 4: Activate the domain in Step #3 so that email is working, namely
the email address in Step 2.

Step 5: Initiate a transfer request, and accept using the email in step
4.

Step 6: Enjoy

Given the NAACP's inability to fix the problem (I emailed them about
this months ago), I acquired a SnapBack, in case someone tried to take
the name. I imagine now that the process is unveiled, someone at
Verisign (Chuck?) or at ICANN will do something.....(maybe someone in
Washington, DC can give the NAACP a call, or something....

Since we're now potentially at Step 5, the time to act is now, guys and
gals...

Your kind Samaritan,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.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: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:27:21 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] who are the root server operators?

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:11:42PM -0800,
 George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 53 lines which said:

> Perusing the list, 10 of the 13 root servers are in the US, leaving
> only 3 outside the US (1 in Japan, 1 in UK and 1 in Sweden).
> 
> Are there any plans to expand the list of root-servers, maybe to 26
> from 13, for greater internet stability?

Technically, it would be a very good thing. Politically, I do not
believe that ICANN/USA would accept to relinquish its control. The
rest of the world is not trustworthy.
 
> Offhand, looking at a map of the world, I would think the following
> countries would be candidates for at least 1 root server:

I suggest to write down explicit criteria for the placement of the
root servers. Decisions could then be based on these
criteria. Connectivity (not physical location) would be the first
one. But the availability of a serious and efficient team to babycare
the machine is another. Ego ("I want a root server near me") should
not be considered.

I'm not aware of such criteria at ICANN. Do they have public criteria?
Do they document the process of decision?
 
> 4) France (or Italy)

Yes for France :-) Because of the connectivity criterium, the
availability of a great exchange point near the root server is a
premium. In Europe, it means London and Stockholm (which already have
a root server) and then Amsterdam (which has the AMS-IX: it may be a
small country but it is a major European hub, unlike France where the
large Sfinx exchange point is only for national traffic).

- --
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, 5 Nov 2002 10:53:03 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] who are the root server operators?

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 07:07:11PM -0500,
 Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 33 lines which said:

> > Are there any plans to expand the list of root-servers, maybe to 26
> > from 13, for greater internet stability?
> 
> they can't.  the limit is 13 mainly due to protocol limitations.

I'm not aware of any such limitation in the DNS protocol. Read RFC
1035. 

If you refer to the 512-bytes limit of UDP packets (you can check the
size of the current root with 'dig . ns' and read the MSG SIZE field:
there is room for two more servers), I do not regard it as a good
reason:

* with DNSSEC (cryptographical signatures in the DNS replies) and IDN
  (long labels), the DNS will have to move to TCP anyway,

* there is never a DNS query for the root name servers: they are
  hardwired in the hints file (/etc/bind/db.root or something like
  that). Unlike the TLD name servers (which ICANN limit to 13 per
  TLD), there is no good technical reason to limit the number of root
  name servers.

- --
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, 5 Nov 2002 11:08:58 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ** who are the root server operators?

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:52:04PM -0800,
 George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 36 lines which said:

> I had meant "or another country to *serve* Africa". I highlighted
> Israel as it's a transit-point between Africa and the middle-East/Asia,
> so is in a good spot geographically.

Geographically, Israel is between Africa and Asia. But I do not
believe it is an Internet transit point. I'm not aware of any
Africa-Asia link going through Israel. <URL:http://trace.knet.co.il/>
You can see that from Israel to Egypt, you go via New York (USA).
 
> If someone has a good map of current and projected internet traffic
> flows, 

You have a lot of data at CAIDA. Warning: it is not easy to
read. <URL:http://www.caida.org/> 

For the people who are not fluent in Internet routing, Traceroute is a
better tool. <URL:http://www.traceroute.org/>.

The important thing to remember is that connectivity has few
relationships with the actual geography. For instance, between two
African countries, Internet communications typically goes through
Europe or the USA (or both). It is very uncommon to have direct links
between two African countries. Therefore, if you want to serve Africa,
you should be located in Europe or in the USA (Asia or Latin America
is a different matter).
- --
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, 05 Nov 2002 09:34:23 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] How to steal a domain name.....

George,

What makes you think this is not exactly what the GAC and ICANN intend to 
happen.  What proof do you have otherwise?

At 12:55 AM 11/5/2002 -0800, George Kirikos wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Today's lesson is on how to steal a domain name.....
>
>Step 1. Find a high value domain name with an invalid administrative
>email address, preferably one that is not actively being used so that
>it won't be noticed.
>
>Example: nigger.com, nigger.net, nigger.org (owned by NAACP)
>
>Step 2. Note in the WHOIS that the admin email is [email-masked],
>which until yesterday was on a domain (BAWAVE.com) that had long
>expired and been deleted.
>
>Step 3. Register the aforesaid domain name in Step #2. Oh my, some
>folks have caught on, as you can see the WHOIS for BAWAVE.com, freshly
>registered yesterday:
>
>Registrant:
>   Nigger Inc [email-masked] +62.3189598
>   Hendra Gunawan
>   JL. Bengawan 56
>   Surabaya,Jawa Timur,Indonesia 60000
>
>Domain Name:bawave.com
>Record last updated at 2002-11-04 20:31:57
>Record created on 2002/11/4
>
>Step 3a: Ideally, make the registrant in step 3 very obscure, like in a
>far away land. ;)
>
>Step 4: Activate the domain in Step #3 so that email is working, namely
>the email address in Step 2.
>
>Step 5: Initiate a transfer request, and accept using the email in step
>4.
>
>Step 6: Enjoy
>
>Given the NAACP's inability to fix the problem (I emailed them about
>this months ago), I acquired a SnapBack, in case someone tried to take
>the name. I imagine now that the process is unveiled, someone at
>Verisign (Chuck?) or at ICANN will do something.....(maybe someone in
>Washington, DC can give the NAACP a call, or something....
>
>Since we're now potentially at Step 5, the time to act is now, guys and
>gals...
>
>Your kind Samaritan,
>
>George Kirikos
>http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
>http://hotjobs.yahoo.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, 5 Nov 2002 10:45:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] who are the root server operators?

On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 07:07:11PM -0500,
>  Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> wrote
>  a message of 33 lines which said:
>
> > > Are there any plans to expand the list of root-servers, maybe to 26
> > > from 13, for greater internet stability?
> >
> > they can't.  the limit is 13 mainly due to protocol limitations.
>
> I'm not aware of any such limitation in the DNS protocol. Read RFC
> 1035.
>
> If you refer to the 512-bytes limit of UDP packets (you can check the
> size of the current root with 'dig . ns' and read the MSG SIZE field:
> there is room for two more servers), I do not regard it as a good
> reason:

That is correct the 512 byte limit.  I do not dispute our estimate that 2
more root can be added provided the byte limit does not exceed the magic
512 number.  At this time I estimate they have about 70 bytes to fit in
those 2 extra roots.

>
> * with DNSSEC (cryptographical signatures in the DNS replies) and IDN
>   (long labels), the DNS will have to move to TCP anyway,

I agree UDP has it's limitations.

> * there is never a DNS query for the root name servers: they are
>   hardwired in the hints file (/etc/bind/db.root or something like
>   that). Unlike the TLD name servers (which ICANN limit to 13 per
>   TLD), there is no good technical reason to limit the number of root
>   name servers.

Actually a good server should be able to refresh it's root server list
from the hints file.  It only needs to contact one of those servers listed
in the hints and if the list of roots is different from the hints that
data would be captured.

regards
joe

- --
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, 05 Nov 2002 11:10:48 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations

Michael and all assembly members,

  Michael, you again bring up yet another good point of concern
that has and continues to plague and discredit the "ICANN Process".

  As you likely know, I amongst a number other GA participants
have long worried and been frankly quite aware that the "TF method"
of determining policy is a poor one for a number of reasons of which
you again have brought up one.

  As you also likely also know anything I as spokesman for INEGroup
have put forward to the Whois, and Transfer Task Force has by
Marilyn been, as she herself has stated only considered "Noise"
in her opinion, which is questionable at best.  Hence any public input
through these skewed Task Force Methods or processes is
only what the members or chair's of those task forces WANT to
hear or read about, nothing else.  Hence no good or reasonable
policy can be derived adequately.

  So unless as you indicate in your comments and observations below,
Michael, a transparent and open discussion and debate for specific
issues such as Whois can be entertained or "Allowed" we as
stakeholders/users will continue to see inadequate or inappropriate
policy for these issues to continue.  For the life of me, I cannot
understand such utter nonsensical approaches of dealing with
issues to policy.

  I guess this is why just last friday AT&T announced a 5 for 1 Reverse
stock split, Worldcom is in deeper trouble than first even imagined,
and ICANN seeks to choose its BoD members now by and election
committee.

Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Dear Marilyn:
>
> After three years I think we have moved beyond the formality of addressing
> each other on a last name basis :-)
>
> As you can see from my email header below, I did submit these comments on
> the "record" to the Whois Task Force on Friday, November 1st. The fact that
> they were not received raises the question of what other submissions may
> have also been lost in the mail.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:18 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Michael Palage's Proposed Recommendations
>
> Attached please find my proposed recommendations for the Whois Task Force
> based upon my earlier comments to the Task Force,
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00012.html
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 12:08 AM
> To: Michael D. Palage; [email-masked]
> Cc: Antonio Harris (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force
> Recommendations
>
> Dear Mr. Palage,
>
> May we have your permission to post this particular email to the WHOIS TF?
>
> Also, as you are aware there is an open comment site. We urge you, IF you
> are interested in having your comments included in the TF documentation, to
> post to that site. It can be found at dnso.org, or icann.org, click on
> announcements.  While we post to the WHOIS TR site, WHEN requested, we make
> it pretty clear that individuals should take responsibility for their own
> postings, to open sites.  We urge you to follow the procedures to ensure
> that your comments are included and available to others.  The TF is
> committed to reading the open comments site.  We have and will continue to
> advise that we cannot guarantee reading of other lists. We know that you
> understand the need to ensure a centralized posting site.
>
> We also wish to thank you for attending the public meeting with the
> Registrars/Registries, Sunday in Shanghai. As committed in that meeting, the
> TF is working toward follow up with the registrars, especially, shortly.
>
> We hope that you will join that call, as well.
>
> Your thoughtful insights should be part of the "record". We hope you will
> chose to submit your comments [below]  through the formal comment process.
> And, we look forward to your further participation.
> Best Regards, Marilyn Cade                      Antonio Harris=
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:25 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations
>
> On October 23rd I submitted my personal comments to the Whois Task Force,
> see
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00012.html.
> Listed below are my personal recommendations for the Whois Task Force based
> upon my earlier comments.
>
> Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage
>
> Recommendations Preamble
>
> The current Whois system fails to adequately meet the needs and concerns of
> governments, intellectual property owners, domain name registration
> authorities, as well as consumer and privacy advocacy groups. Although one
> can attempt to solve certain aspects of the current problems in a piecemeal
> fashion, only a comprehensive bottoms-up review and overhaul is likely to
> succeed.
>
> ICANN's role in this and other potential global policy issues should be to
> identify and bring to the table those individuals and parties potentially
> impacted by its processes, particularly those in developing countries that
> may not have their voices and concerns heard in the current structure, as
> well as registration authorities that are signatories to bi-lateral
> contracts with ICANN. ICANN's role is not, nor should it be, to artificially
> manufacture consensus under the auspices of Task Forces.
>
> The ICANN Names Council Whois Task Force (Task Force) should be commended
> for its pioneering efforts in starting a constructive dialogue on some of
> the complex issues surrounding Whois.  However, the Task Force's failure to
> address certain fundamental issues directly bears upon the validity of the
> Task Force's ultimate recommendations. In light of these shortcomings, the
> following recommendations are submitted.
>
> Recommendation 1
>
> Whereas, the Task Force has endeavored over the last twenty (20) months to
> undertake an analysis of various Whois issues;
>
> Whereas, the Task Force has published an interim report dated October 14,
> 2002 in which four (4) interim recommendations were put forth for public
> comment;
>
> Whereas, despite the best efforts undertaken by the Task Force volunteer
> members, there are certain fundamental aspects that were not properly
> addressed and which directly bear upon the validity of the Task Force's
> recommendations, including but not limited to, applicability of natural and
> local law and their impact on registration authorities that are signatories
> to bi-lateral contracts with ICANN; new market conditions (.NAME); evolving
> technical standards (CRISP); international domain name considerations; and
> ICANN's Evolution and Reform  Committee calling for more input from the
> public sector (governments).
>
> Therefore, it is resolved that the Names Council:
>
> Extend it heartfelt appreciation to the members of the Task Force for their
> diligent and tireless efforts to date;
>
> Immediately dissolve the Task Force;
>
> Reject implementing the proposed recommendation at this time until further
> review can be conducted incorporating those data points not properly
> considered by the Task Force;
>
> Respectfully submit to the ICANN Board that it create a Blue Ribbon Global
> Whois Panel (Panel) to ensure that the viewpoints and concerns of all
> Internet stakeholders are addressed, with such Panel ideally being composed
> of the following representatives:
>
> GAC Representative: This representative shall provide the Panel with the
> various viewpoints (consensus if possible) regarding governmental positions
> regarding access and accuracy of Whois data (i.e. data privacy, law
> enforcement, consumer protection, etc.)
>
> ITU Representative: Although the ITU is currently a participating member in
> the GAC, their experience in two areas would be of particular value to the
> Panel: (i) in the area of soliciting and representing the viewpoints of
> emerging countries and economies that may not have a representative voice in
> the current process and (ii) in the area of promoting the role of ITU Member
> States in the internationalization of domain names and addresses of their
> respective languages.
>
> ICANN Registry Representative: This representative would be tasked with
> soliciting input from all ICANN accredited registry operators to provide the
> Panel with firsthand operational considerations.
>
> ICANN Registrar Representative: This representative would be tasked with
> soliciting input from all ICANN accredited registrars to provide the Panel
> with a better understanding of the legal and technical dynamics of the
> domain name registration marketplace.
>
> ccTLD Registry Operator/Administrator: This representative would be tasked
> with soliciting input from the ccTLD registry operator/administrator
> regarding Whois policies and national laws.
>
> Civil Libertarian: This representative would be tasked with representing the
> interests of individual domain name registrants, specifically with regard to
> a wide range of privacy issues.
>
> IETF/IAB Technical Representative: This representative would be able to
> provide the Panel with insight regarding standards efforts currently
> underway in connection with Whois (CRISP) and international domain names.
>
> Multi-National Business Representative: This individual would be tasked with
> soliciting input from large multi-national businesses regarding concerns
> about diverse and divergent Whois practices and the importance of Whois in
> law enforcement and intellectual property rights.
>
> SME Business Representative: This representative would be required to
> solicit and provide the viewpoint of small and medium enterprises regarding
> Whois considerations.
>
> Respectfully submit to the ICANN Board that ICANN extend invitations to
> potential Panel participants to prevent any partisan politics that may exist
> within the various ICANN constituencies. In the alternative, ICANN should
> also consider outsourcing the coordination of this Panel to a neutral third
> party organization with expertise in this subject matter similar to the work
> undertaken by the World Intellectual Property Organization in connection
> with the initial draft of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). One
> potential neutral third party with expertise in this area would be the
> Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
>
> Recommendation 2
>
> Whereas, the Task Force has endeavored over the last twenty (20) months to
> undertake an analysis of various Whois issues;
>
> Whereas, the Task Force has published an interim report dated October 14,
> 2002 in which four (4) interim recommendation were put forth for public
> comment;
>
> Whereas, despite the best efforts undertaken by the Task Force volunteer
> members, there are certain fundamental aspects that were not properly
> addressed and which directly bear upon the validity of the Task Force's
> recommendations, including but not limited to, applicability of natural and
> local law and their impact on registration authorities that are signatories
> to bi-lateral contracts with ICANN; new market conditions (.NAME); evolving
> technical standards (CRISP); international domain name considerations; and
> ICANN Evolution and Reform  Committee calling for more input from the public
> sector.
> Whereas, notwithstanding the aforementioned shortcoming of the Task Force's
> efforts, there were several concepts would could be implemented in the short
> term that would increase the accuracy of the Whois data.
>
> Therefore, it is resolved that the Names Council respectfully request that
> the ICANN Board take the following actions:
>
> ICANN approve a standardize Whois Accuracy Inquiry Notice (WAIN) prepared by
> ICANN accredited registrars in consultation with domain name representatives
> regarding inquires about false or inaccurate Whois data;
>
> ICANN assist in translating the WAIN into as many languages as possible;
>
> ICANN require that registrars shall send the standardized WAIN to their
> domain name registrant after receiving a notification of potentially false
> or inaccurate Whois data from ICANN's Internic.net whois portal (or
> equivalent);
>
> ICANN accredited registrars shall be required to send any WAIN in the
> language(s) of the registration agreement, along with links to translations
> of the WAIN in other languages;
>
> The current 15 day time frame for registrants to respond to inquiries
> regarding the accuracy of the Whois data shall be extended to 30 days to
> provide the registrant and registrar adequate time to investigate and
> respond to inquiries;
>
> Registrars shall be required to comply with ICANN instructions regarding the
> docketing software maintained in connection with the Internic.net whois
> portal (or equivalent);
>
> Registrars that are unable to verify the accuracy of the Whois data or fail
> to receive instructions from the registrant within thirty (30) days shall
> place the domain name of hold (i.e. the name is removed from the zone file
> and it will not resolve) indefinitely;
>
> Registrar shall not remove the domain name from hold status or renew the
> domain name until registrant has provided documented proof which the
> registrar shall be required to retain;
>
> In the situation where the registrar receives a secondary inquiry regarding
> the accuracy of Whois data for a specific domain name, the Registrar shall
> require documented proof from the domain name registrant within the 30 day
> time frame or have the domain name places on indefinite hold in accordance
> with the process described above;
>
> ICANN shall immediately modify the Internic.net Whois portal to require
> third parties submitting Whois accuracy inquiries to acknowledge that the
> submission is not intended to interfere with the lawful operations of the
> domain name registrant or registrar;
>
> ICANN shall immediately modify the Internic.net Whois portal to require that
> third parties provide additional contact information to allow the domain
> name registrant or registrar to initiate legal action against the third
> party if such submission was designed to tortuously interfere with their
> legal activity.
>
> ICANN's General Counsel and Staff are instructed to move forward with
> implementation of the above referenced recommendations as follows:
>
> Option 1:
>
> A bi-lateral amendment to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
> executed by ICANN and every accredited registrar. However, if one or more
> registrars fail to execute this bi-lateral amendment proceed to Option 2
> below.
>
> Option 2:
>
> Establish a dialog with the registrar community to see if consensus exists
> among the accredited registrars about adopting the above referenced
> recommendations within the context of a Code of Conduct. If there is
> consensus among the registrars about adopting this proposal as a Code of
> Conduct, this Code of Conduct would then be unilaterally enforced against
> all ICANN accredited registrars in accordance with the terms of the RAA. If
> the registrars refuse or are unable to adopt a Code of Conduct, then proceed
> to Option 3 below.
>
> Option 3:
>
> If ICANN is unable to implement the above referenced recommendations under
> either Option 1 or 2, ICANN General Counsel and Staff are instructed to
> enter into individual bi-lateral amendments to the RAA with registrars
> incorporating these procedures.
>
> For those registrars that execute the bi-lateral amendment to the RAA, ICANN
> will provide that domain name registrar and its registrants with an extend
> time window (30 days total) to investigate and respond to Whois data
> accuracy inquires. ICANN also agrees to not publicly disclose any
> statistical information on that registrar's compliance with Internic,net
> Whois portal inquiries.
>
> For those registrars that refuse not to enter into a bi-lateral amendment to
> the RAA, ICANN will continue to enforce the shorter 15 notice and deletion
> policy instead of the more flexible 30 day notice and hold policy.
> Additionally, ICANN will publicly disclose statistical information on that
> registrars' compliance with Internic.net Whois portal inquiries.
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 11:19:35 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] How to steal a domain name..... And get away with it...

George and all assembly members,

  You are indeed a kind samaritan George.  Of that I have never had
any doubt.  Your good example and lesson below makes that
also perfictly clear as well should anyone have any doubt.

  Don't expect however ICANN to do anything about this sort of
problem anytime soon as they have time and time again had
similar situations pointed out to them directly from members of
this very DNSO GA forum, and completely ignored them or
stated, as Stuart Lynn has, that they cannot or will not do anything
about them or even try to assist.  Hence the second lesson is that
although ICANN Claims to be a good public servant of a public
resource, it certainly does not show it.

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Today's lesson is on how to steal a domain name.....
>
> Step 1. Find a high value domain name with an invalid administrative
> email address, preferably one that is not actively being used so that
> it won't be noticed.
>
> Example: nigger.com, nigger.net, nigger.org (owned by NAACP)
>
> Step 2. Note in the WHOIS that the admin email is [email-masked],
> which until yesterday was on a domain (BAWAVE.com) that had long
> expired and been deleted.
>
> Step 3. Register the aforesaid domain name in Step #2. Oh my, some
> folks have caught on, as you can see the WHOIS for BAWAVE.com, freshly
> registered yesterday:
>
> Registrant:
>   Nigger Inc [email-masked] +62.3189598
>   Hendra Gunawan
>   JL. Bengawan 56
>   Surabaya,Jawa Timur,Indonesia 60000
>
> Domain Name:bawave.com
> Record last updated at 2002-11-04 20:31:57
> Record created on 2002/11/4
>
> Step 3a: Ideally, make the registrant in step 3 very obscure, like in a
> far away land. ;)
>
> Step 4: Activate the domain in Step #3 so that email is working, namely
> the email address in Step 2.
>
> Step 5: Initiate a transfer request, and accept using the email in step
> 4.
>
> Step 6: Enjoy
>
> Given the NAACP's inability to fix the problem (I emailed them about
> this months ago), I acquired a SnapBack, in case someone tried to take
> the name. I imagine now that the process is unveiled, someone at
> Verisign (Chuck?) or at ICANN will do something.....(maybe someone in
> Washington, DC can give the NAACP a call, or something....
>
> Since we're now potentially at Step 5, the time to act is now, guys and
> gals...
>
> Your kind Samaritan,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
> http://hotjobs.yahoo.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, 5 Nov 2002 15:25:59 -0300
From: "Antonio Harris" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations

Jeff,

If the term "noise" bothers you, the solution is simple:

Send your comments to:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021015.NCWhoisTF-interim-report.html

Attacking people who do volunteer work (a lot of it, by the way),
would not appear to serve any useful purpose. If you have better
ideas, then submit them ! What more would we want as a task
force than to receive them ? As far as what, as co-chair, I "want to
hear or read about" thats simply hilarious ! Just try this for an
exercise: read the 3300 responses to the Whois survey and
see what you can come up with...

Tony Harris

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Antonio Harris
(E-mail)" <[email-masked]>; "Don Evans" <[email-masked]>; "Nancy J.
Victory" <[email-masked]>; "cathy Handley" <[email-masked]>;
"Robin Layton" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations

> Michael and all assembly members,
>
>   Michael, you again bring up yet another good point of concern
> that has and continues to plague and discredit the "ICANN Process".
>
>   As you likely know, I amongst a number other GA participants
> have long worried and been frankly quite aware that the "TF method"
> of determining policy is a poor one for a number of reasons of which
> you again have brought up one.
>
>   As you also likely also know anything I as spokesman for INEGroup
> have put forward to the Whois, and Transfer Task Force has by
> Marilyn been, as she herself has stated only considered "Noise"
> in her opinion, which is questionable at best.  Hence any public input
> through these skewed Task Force Methods or processes is
> only what the members or chair's of those task forces WANT to
> hear or read about, nothing else.  Hence no good or reasonable
> policy can be derived adequately.
>
>   So unless as you indicate in your comments and observations below,
> Michael, a transparent and open discussion and debate for specific
> issues such as Whois can be entertained or "Allowed" we as
> stakeholders/users will continue to see inadequate or inappropriate
> policy for these issues to continue.  For the life of me, I cannot
> understand such utter nonsensical approaches of dealing with
> issues to policy.
>
>   I guess this is why just last friday AT&T announced a 5 for 1 Reverse
> stock split, Worldcom is in deeper trouble than first even imagined,
> and ICANN seeks to choose its BoD members now by and election
> committee.
>
> Michael D. Palage wrote:
>
> > Dear Marilyn:
> >
> > After three years I think we have moved beyond the formality of
addressing
> > each other on a last name basis :-)
> >
> > As you can see from my email header below, I did submit these comments
on
> > the "record" to the Whois Task Force on Friday, November 1st. The fact
that
> > they were not received raises the question of what other submissions may
> > have also been lost in the mail.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:18 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Michael Palage's Proposed Recommendations
> >
> > Attached please find my proposed recommendations for the Whois Task
Force
> > based upon my earlier comments to the Task Force,
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00012.html
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Michael D. Palage
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 12:08 AM
> > To: Michael D. Palage; [email-masked]
> > Cc: Antonio Harris (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force
> > Recommendations
> >
> > Dear Mr. Palage,
> >
> > May we have your permission to post this particular email to the WHOIS
TF?
> >
> > Also, as you are aware there is an open comment site. We urge you, IF
you
> > are interested in having your comments included in the TF documentation,
to
> > post to that site. It can be found at dnso.org, or icann.org, click on
> > announcements.  While we post to the WHOIS TR site, WHEN requested, we
make
> > it pretty clear that individuals should take responsibility for their
own
> > postings, to open sites.  We urge you to follow the procedures to ensure
> > that your comments are included and available to others.  The TF is
> > committed to reading the open comments site.  We have and will continue
to
> > advise that we cannot guarantee reading of other lists. We know that you
> > understand the need to ensure a centralized posting site.
> >
> > We also wish to thank you for attending the public meeting with the
> > Registrars/Registries, Sunday in Shanghai. As committed in that meeting,
the
> > TF is working toward follow up with the registrars, especially, shortly.
> >
> > We hope that you will join that call, as well.
> >
> > Your thoughtful insights should be part of the "record". We hope you
will
> > chose to submit your comments [below]  through the formal comment
process.
> > And, we look forward to your further participation.
> > Best Regards, Marilyn Cade                      Antonio Harris=
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:25 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations
> >
> > On October 23rd I submitted my personal comments to the Whois Task
Force,
> > see
> >
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00012.html.
> > Listed below are my personal recommendations for the Whois Task Force
based
> > upon my earlier comments.
> >
> > Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Michael D. Palage
> >
> > Recommendations Preamble
> >
> > The current Whois system fails to adequately meet the needs and concerns
of
> > governments, intellectual property owners, domain name registration
> > authorities, as well as consumer and privacy advocacy groups. Although
one
> > can attempt to solve certain aspects of the current problems in a
piecemeal
> > fashion, only a comprehensive bottoms-up review and overhaul is likely
to
> > succeed.
> >
> > ICANN's role in this and other potential global policy issues should be
to
> > identify and bring to the table those individuals and parties
potentially
> > impacted by its processes, particularly those in developing countries
that
> > may not have their voices and concerns heard in the current structure,
as
> > well as registration authorities that are signatories to bi-lateral
> > contracts with ICANN. ICANN's role is not, nor should it be, to
artificially
> > manufacture consensus under the auspices of Task Forces.
> >
> > The ICANN Names Council Whois Task Force (Task Force) should be
commended
> > for its pioneering efforts in starting a constructive dialogue on some
of
> > the complex issues surrounding Whois.  However, the Task Force's failure
to
> > address certain fundamental issues directly bears upon the validity of
the
> > Task Force's ultimate recommendations. In light of these shortcomings,
the
> > following recommendations are submitted.
> >
> > Recommendation 1
> >
> > Whereas, the Task Force has endeavored over the last twenty (20) months
to
> > undertake an analysis of various Whois issues;
> >
> > Whereas, the Task Force has published an interim report dated October
14,
> > 2002 in which four (4) interim recommendations were put forth for public
> > comment;
> >
> > Whereas, despite the best efforts undertaken by the Task Force volunteer
> > members, there are certain fundamental aspects that were not properly
> > addressed and which directly bear upon the validity of the Task Force's
> > recommendations, including but not limited to, applicability of natural
and
> > local law and their impact on registration authorities that are
signatories
> > to bi-lateral contracts with ICANN; new market conditions (.NAME);
evolving
> > technical standards (CRISP); international domain name considerations;
and
> > ICANN's Evolution and Reform  Committee calling for more input from the
> > public sector (governments).
> >
> > Therefore, it is resolved that the Names Council:
> >
> > Extend it heartfelt appreciation to the members of the Task Force for
their
> > diligent and tireless efforts to date;
> >
> > Immediately dissolve the Task Force;
> >
> > Reject implementing the proposed recommendation at this time until
further
> > review can be conducted incorporating those data points not properly
> > considered by the Task Force;
> >
> > Respectfully submit to the ICANN Board that it create a Blue Ribbon
Global
> > Whois Panel (Panel) to ensure that the viewpoints and concerns of all
> > Internet stakeholders are addressed, with such Panel ideally being
composed
> > of the following representatives:
> >
> > GAC Representative: This representative shall provide the Panel with the
> > various viewpoints (consensus if possible) regarding governmental
positions
> > regarding access and accuracy of Whois data (i.e. data privacy, law
> > enforcement, consumer protection, etc.)
> >
> > ITU Representative: Although the ITU is currently a participating member
in
> > the GAC, their experience in two areas would be of particular value to
the
> > Panel: (i) in the area of soliciting and representing the viewpoints of
> > emerging countries and economies that may not have a representative
voice in
> > the current process and (ii) in the area of promoting the role of ITU
Member
> > States in the internationalization of domain names and addresses of
their
> > respective languages.
> >
> > ICANN Registry Representative: This representative would be tasked with
> > soliciting input from all ICANN accredited registry operators to provide
the
> > Panel with firsthand operational considerations.
> >
> > ICANN Registrar Representative: This representative would be tasked with
> > soliciting input from all ICANN accredited registrars to provide the
Panel
> > with a better understanding of the legal and technical dynamics of the
> > domain name registration marketplace.
> >
> > ccTLD Registry Operator/Administrator: This representative would be
tasked
> > with soliciting input from the ccTLD registry operator/administrator
> > regarding Whois policies and national laws.
> >
> > Civil Libertarian: This representative would be tasked with representing
the
> > interests of individual domain name registrants, specifically with
regard to
> > a wide range of privacy issues.
> >
> > IETF/IAB Technical Representative: This representative would be able to
> > provide the Panel with insight regarding standards efforts currently
> > underway in connection with Whois (CRISP) and international domain
names.
> >
> > Multi-National Business Representative: This individual would be tasked
with
> > soliciting input from large multi-national businesses regarding concerns
> > about diverse and divergent Whois practices and the importance of Whois
in
> > law enforcement and intellectual property rights.
> >
> > SME Business Representative: This representative would be required to
> > solicit and provide the viewpoint of small and medium enterprises
regarding
> > Whois considerations.
> >
> > Respectfully submit to the ICANN Board that ICANN extend invitations to
> > potential Panel participants to prevent any partisan politics that may
exist
> > within the various ICANN constituencies. In the alternative, ICANN
should
> > also consider outsourcing the coordination of this Panel to a neutral
third
> > party organization with expertise in this subject matter similar to the
work
> > undertaken by the World Intellectual Property Organization in connection
> > with the initial draft of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
One
> > potential neutral third party with expertise in this area would be the
> > Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
> >
> > Recommendation 2
> >
> > Whereas, the Task Force has endeavored over the last twenty (20) months
to
> > undertake an analysis of various Whois issues;
> >
> > Whereas, the Task Force has published an interim report dated October
14,
> > 2002 in which four (4) interim recommendation were put forth for public
> > comment;
> >
> > Whereas, despite the best efforts undertaken by the Task Force volunteer
> > members, there are certain fundamental aspects that were not properly
> > addressed and which directly bear upon the validity of the Task Force's
> > recommendations, including but not limited to, applicability of natural
and
> > local law and their impact on registration authorities that are
signatories
> > to bi-lateral contracts with ICANN; new market conditions (.NAME);
evolving
> > technical standards (CRISP); international domain name considerations;
and
> > ICANN Evolution and Reform  Committee calling for more input from the
public
> > sector.
> > Whereas, notwithstanding the aforementioned shortcoming of the Task
Force's
> > efforts, there were several concepts would could be implemented in the
short
> > term that would increase the accuracy of the Whois data.
> >
> > Therefore, it is resolved that the Names Council respectfully request
that
> > the ICANN Board take the following actions:
> >
> > ICANN approve a standardize Whois Accuracy Inquiry Notice (WAIN)
prepared by
> > ICANN accredited registrars in consultation with domain name
representatives
> > regarding inquires about false or inaccurate Whois data;
> >
> > ICANN assist in translating the WAIN into as many languages as possible;
> >
> > ICANN require that registrars shall send the standardized WAIN to their
> > domain name registrant after receiving a notification of potentially
false
> > or inaccurate Whois data from ICANN's Internic.net whois portal (or
> > equivalent);
> >
> > ICANN accredited registrars shall be required to send any WAIN in the
> > language(s) of the registration agreement, along with links to
translations
> > of the WAIN in other languages;
> >
> > The current 15 day time frame for registrants to respond to inquiries
> > regarding the accuracy of the Whois data shall be extended to 30 days to
> > provide the registrant and registrar adequate time to investigate and
> > respond to inquiries;
> >
> > Registrars shall be required to comply with ICANN instructions regarding
the
> > docketing software maintained in connection with the Internic.net whois
> > portal (or equivalent);
> >
> > Registrars that are unable to verify the accuracy of the Whois data or
fail
> > to receive instructions from the registrant within thirty (30) days
shall
> > place the domain name of hold (i.e. the name is removed from the zone
file
> > and it will not resolve) indefinitely;
> >
> > Registrar shall not remove the domain name from hold status or renew the
> > domain name until registrant has provided documented proof which the
> > registrar shall be required to retain;
> >
> > In the situation where the registrar receives a secondary inquiry
regarding
> > the accuracy of Whois data for a specific domain name, the Registrar
shall
> > require documented proof from the domain name registrant within the 30
day
> > time frame or have the domain name places on indefinite hold in
accordance
> > with the process described above;
> >
> > ICANN shall immediately modify the Internic.net Whois portal to require
> > third parties submitting Whois accuracy inquiries to acknowledge that
the
> > submission is not intended to interfere with the lawful operations of
the
> > domain name registrant or registrar;
> >
> > ICANN shall immediately modify the Internic.net Whois portal to require
that
> > third parties provide additional contact information to allow the domain
> > name registrant or registrar to initiate legal action against the third
> > party if such submission was designed to tortuously interfere with their
> > legal activity.
> >
> > ICANN's General Counsel and Staff are instructed to move forward with
> > implementation of the above referenced recommendations as follows:
> >
> > Option 1:
> >
> > A bi-lateral amendment to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement
(RAA)
> > executed by ICANN and every accredited registrar. However, if one or
more
> > registrars fail to execute this bi-lateral amendment proceed to Option 2
> > below.
> >
> > Option 2:
> >
> > Establish a dialog with the registrar community to see if consensus
exists
> > among the accredited registrars about adopting the above referenced
> > recommendations within the context of a Code of Conduct. If there is
> > consensus among the registrars about adopting this proposal as a Code of
> > Conduct, this Code of Conduct would then be unilaterally enforced
against
> > all ICANN accredited registrars in accordance with the terms of the RAA.
If
> > the registrars refuse or are unable to adopt a Code of Conduct, then
proceed
> > to Option 3 below.
> >
> > Option 3:
> >
> > If ICANN is unable to implement the above referenced recommendations
under
> > either Option 1 or 2, ICANN General Counsel and Staff are instructed to
> > enter into individual bi-lateral amendments to the RAA with registrars
> > incorporating these procedures.
> >
> > For those registrars that execute the bi-lateral amendment to the RAA,
ICANN
> > will provide that domain name registrar and its registrants with an
extend
> > time window (30 days total) to investigate and respond to Whois data
> > accuracy inquires. ICANN also agrees to not publicly disclose any
> > statistical information on that registrar's compliance with Internic,net
> > Whois portal inquiries.
> >
> > For those registrars that refuse not to enter into a bi-lateral
amendment to
> > the RAA, ICANN will continue to enforce the shorter 15 notice and
deletion
> > policy instead of the more flexible 30 day notice and hold policy.
> > Additionally, ICANN will publicly disclose statistical information on
that
> > registrars' compliance with Internic.net Whois portal inquiries.
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1497
*************************