Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1535
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, December 21 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1535

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:40:35 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Fw: New.Net...is Real...?...and 3D...?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; ...
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: New.Net...is Real...?...and 3D...?

> Now everyone can clearly see that ICANN cannot control the introduction of
> new "TLDs".
>
> "RealOne Player user base grows by hundreds of thousands of new users per
> day."
> !!! "RealOne Player is installed on 90% of all US home PCs." !!!
>
> Most US e-commerce sites only sell within the US. Now, for those e-tailers
a
> New.net domain name could be a choice.
>
> Simon
> http://www.steinle.law.pro
> http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
> http://www.sex.shop
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 8:57 PM
> Subject: New.Net...is Real...?...and 3D...?
>
>
> > http://new.chat.new.net/viewtopic.php?topic=3284&forum=3&0
> > "we're happy to announce today to our customers and supporters here on
our
> message board
> > that RealNetworks is now shipping the New.net application with the
RealOne
> Player."
> > ====
> >
> > http://lindenlab.com/management.php
> > "For 3 1/2 years, Rosedale served at RealNetworks as Vice President and
> CTO, where he was responsible for the development and launch
> > of RealVideo, RealSystem 5.0, and RealSystem G2."
> > ====
> >
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> > 128-bit DNS is closer than you think...
> >
>
IPv16...AN...OZ...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PS.
> ..TV...WZ
> > 0:203     ONLINE
> > http://ipv8.dyndns.tv
> > http://ipv8.dyns.cx
> > http://ipv8.no-ip.com
> > http://ipv8.no-ip.biz
> > http://ipv8.no-ip.info
> > http://ipv8.myip.us
> > http://ipv8.dyn.ee
> >
> >
>
>

- --
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, 20 Dec 2002 12:26:39 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois: issues with uniformity

Thomas and all former GA members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> -----
>
> From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:07:07 +0100
> Subject: [nc-whois] issues with uniformity
>
> Just in case it's helpful, here's a brief list of my favorite issues
> with WHOIS data format and element uniformity.
>
> 1. Format framework
> -------------------
>
> - Technical standardization: XML or e-mail header like formats (*)
>   are obvious candidates.
>
>   (*)   registrant-name: Thomas Roessler
>         registrant-email: [email-masked]
>         ...
>
>   Anyway, what to choose is not our decision or discussion: Stick to
>   specifying requirements, do not go into technical details.
>
>   Key requirements: Easily parseable; data fields must be able to
>   take non-ASCII content. Possibly desires for alternative values in
>   different scripts (think about countries where two kinds of
>   scripts are in use; think "western names" in China)?
>
>   Consult, in particular, with ccTLD managers from countries using
>   non-Latin scripts in order to understand this.
>
> - Doesn't this enable inappropriate mass data gathering through the
>   query-based interface?
>
>   This boils down to the "keep it crappy as long as privacy isn't
>   solved" kind of argument.

  Not sure what you mean here.  However there really is no need to
"Solve" the privacy issue.  In fact Privacy in Whois data isn't or
never should have become and issue.  The IPC made it an issue
however and are the driving force behind eroding individuals
that are registrants, privacy.

>
>
> 2. Data elements
> ----------------
>
> - Clearly a policy question.  Use framework identified above to
>   implement this.
>
> - Current environment: Thin registrar whois services have the "RAA
>   data set", thick gTLD registry whois services have the slightly
>   extended data set also identified in WIPO's ccTLD best practices.
>   ccTLD whoises: zoo.

  WIPO hasn't a clue as to what is is talking about...  That has been clear
to most participants for several years now...

>
>
> - Some registries may have good reasons to have different kind of
>   data elements: .biz has provision for extensions, .name has
>   different WHOIS model; future sponsored gTLDs may wish to have
>   still other changes [additional data elements useful for their
>   communities, for instance].

  Indeed this may become the case.  However again regardless such
registry policies cannot ignore indefinitely privacy concerns in Whois
data.  Doing so will invite legal actions as we have already seen,
and will see more of if absolute privacy of personal and private
information is listed or available in Whois data to anyone except
law enforcement...

>  ccTLDs certainly have to respect
>   national law. (See, for instance, the .de compromise which in
>   particular concerns the selection of data elements.)

  Good point here...

>
>
> - Interaction with the fundamental WHOIS privacy question: "Who gets
>   access to *WHAT DATA ELEMENTS*?" vs.  "What data elements are
>   needed in order to fulfill WHOIS' function?"

  Exactly right.  The basic function of Whois does not require that
the Whois inquiry of on on any DN provide personal and private
information such as physical home address, Home Phone Number
or private E-Mail address.  All that is legitimately needed is
the admin. contact information for any particular DN.  This may
include a Admin Phone Number, and a mailing address, not necessarily
a physical one..

>
>
> - Not clear that a uniform balance can be found.

  Uniformity is a wonderful thing when properly applied.  It is not,
however necessary when dealing with human beings or personal
information regarding a human being/Registrant, in this instance..

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler (mobile)        <[email-masked]>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> --
> 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, 20 Dec 2002 12:46:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [nc-whois] re-opening for public comments?

All former GA members,

  Now that the DNSO GA "Officially" not longer exists as a part of
ICANN,
the following might be worth reviewing and inquiring about...

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00796.html

  BTW, I had noticed that Thomas was able to post to the Whois
Task force list, and if I am not mistaken, he is not a Whois task
Force member...

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: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 15:57:38 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Priorities please. let us look at the big picture

Ya Khaled,

It is a good idea to look at the big picture from time to time.
Even the War is part of a bigger picture.

Wars have often been started, because they were deemed "necessary".  At 
other times, because their were opportune.  The Gulf of Tonkin incident; 
the attack on Iran; the invasion of Kuwait.  Sometimes the casus belli is 
cleverly provoked.  Even Pearl Harbor , with memos recently unveiled, is 
now getting a much more cynical explanation.

Yet, in 1945 the landings in Normandy and Leyte meant Liberation for 
millions of people in countries under bully occupation.
The  big picture is that neither the Americans, nor the Iraqis can vote on 
whether there should be a war or not.

Would you not like to contribute to a structure where Individuals, across 
borders, *can* vote? (And a fair superstructure where that vote is being 
qualified and given its due weight?)

The legal/political structure itself  is being warped everywhere  to 
facilitate corruption and then, once bent,  remains as an open 
invitation  to abuse power.  (In Iraq as well as in the U.S. or the West, BTW)
There is little you  can do about established structures.

But there is much you can do when it comes to  new structures.

  ICANN (NewCo) is a brand-new global structure. It is not established, yet.
It is still in a state of formation where public demands for built-in 
accountability can be made.
Some people among us, such as Karl Auerbach, have made big personal 
sacrifices to keep a focused gaze on ICANN.
Do you think our energy is not well spent by remaining focused when a 
critical window of opportunity to do something good passes by?

ICANN's  formation needs a minimum of public participation and 
is  therefore minimally open to influencing by individual public participants.

As still so few are aware of ICANN, we have a duty to do what we can here, 
or in MINC or in the AINC, to  build something that works or document the 
failure or the rejection. We paint our own part of the Big Picture.

- --Joop--

www.icannatlarge.com

Sign up and spread the word.

- --
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: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 05:06:49 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, at 22:37 [=GMT-0500], John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> Aw, c'mon gang, the entire country of New Zealand was appropriating the
> rights of old Zealand when they named the country in the first place.

Exactly what I hinted at in an earlier post in this thread.

> Hey.... where in blazes is Zealand anyway?

It is a province of the Netherlands.

- -- 
[08] We appreciate positive feedback.
http://logoff.org

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 05:28:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois: issues with uniformity

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, at 12:15 [=GMT+0100], Thomas Roessler wrote:

What if a TLD decides it wants to make whois data voluntarily? A
registrant can make public how much or how little she wants to make
public, including nothing. Why not?

Of course the registrar/try should keep all the data, in case a court
order (is that what's it called?) demands them.

And is it imaginable that there is no whois at all? E.g. for .name
domains?

- --
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, 20 Dec 2002 22:45:33 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Priorities please. let us look at the big picture

Joop and all former GA members,

  Joop, your comments although well meaning, are mostly a collection
of "Glittering Generalities", which is a well known logical fallacy.  Ergo
your arguments, as you have made time and time again in the past,
fail to gain support or serious consideration...

  For instance Joop, of course people don't actually physically vote
as to whether to go to war.  In Korea for instance the population
in 1949 voted with their feet, but did not vote in any actual election
for a referendum...  The southern democratic populace than ask the
UN for assistance.  They got it..

  What attack on Iran?  That or Iraq?  Perhaps...

  But you are right in many stakeholders/users minds that they deserve
and should demand a right to have a voice and vote in ICANN's
policy making.  Now that the DNSO is "Officially" no more, no
such vote or direct voice is available.  ICANN will earn their disdain
sooner or later..

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Ya Khaled,
>
> It is a good idea to look at the big picture from time to time.
> Even the War is part of a bigger picture.
>
> Wars have often been started, because they were deemed "necessary".  At
> other times, because their were opportune.  The Gulf of Tonkin incident;
> the attack on Iran; the invasion of Kuwait.  Sometimes the casus belli is
> cleverly provoked.  Even Pearl Harbor , with memos recently unveiled, is
> now getting a much more cynical explanation.
>
> Yet, in 1945 the landings in Normandy and Leyte meant Liberation for
> millions of people in countries under bully occupation.
> The  big picture is that neither the Americans, nor the Iraqis can vote on
> whether there should be a war or not.
>
> Would you not like to contribute to a structure where Individuals, across
> borders, *can* vote? (And a fair superstructure where that vote is being
> qualified and given its due weight?)
>
> The legal/political structure itself  is being warped everywhere  to
> facilitate corruption and then, once bent,  remains as an open
> invitation  to abuse power.  (In Iraq as well as in the U.S. or the West, BTW)
> There is little you  can do about established structures.
>
> But there is much you can do when it comes to  new structures.
>
>   ICANN (NewCo) is a brand-new global structure. It is not established, yet.
> It is still in a state of formation where public demands for built-in
> accountability can be made.
> Some people among us, such as Karl Auerbach, have made big personal
> sacrifices to keep a focused gaze on ICANN.
> Do you think our energy is not well spent by remaining focused when a
> critical window of opportunity to do something good passes by?
>
> ICANN's  formation needs a minimum of public participation and
> is  therefore minimally open to influencing by individual public participants.
>
> As still so few are aware of ICANN, we have a duty to do what we can here,
> or in MINC or in the AINC, to  build something that works or document the
> failure or the rejection. We paint our own part of the Big Picture.
>
> --Joop--
>
> www.icannatlarge.com
>
> Sign up and spread the word.
>
> --
> 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, 20 Dec 2002 21:35:30 -0800 (PST)
From: "Tim Burlee, INEG Canada" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Forum Posting Rules

Hello jeff, fellow INEG members and others,

I was just wondering if the DNSO GA forum rules still
apply?  For example are we still limited to 5 posts per
day?

See 6 posts by one poster on Dec 20, 2002:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg01385.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg01384.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg01376.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg01375.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg01374.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg01373.html

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Jeff Williams wrote:

> 
> All former GA members,

Regards,
- --
Tim Burlee
INEGroup Canada member
Domain Registration and Hosting Division
INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 416-763-6363 ***NEW PHONE***
Address:1290 Central Pkwy W, Mississauga, Ontario
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.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: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:20:01 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Forum Posting Rules

On 2002-12-20 21:35:30 -0800, Tim Burlee, INEG Canada wrote:

> I was just wondering if the DNSO GA forum rules still apply?  For
> example are we still limited to 5 posts per day?

They are supposed to.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler	(mobile)	<[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: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 08:28:16 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The big picture. Democracy, transparancy legitamcy, the mandatory fundementals. 

- --part1_e5.21373b55.2b35c670_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Joop and fellow members

You are both right and joop addressed the issues I wanted to raise in getting 
people to see and start thinking about. 

Democracy, transparency and legitimacy are all fundamental requirements to 
any successful engagement whether it is adopting a technical a standard, an 
URDP, a management change, a UN resolution or even a war. if any of these 
requirements are absent the outcome will always be questionable and 
challenged with failure to deliver and a proportionate level of alienating 
peoples of the world, depending on the gravity of the matter at hand.

While we may or may not succeed in averting the imminent war  with Iraq, our 
plan should be to expect no less than proper representation from 
organisations that are supposedly speaking on our behalf and the only way to 
do that is to be active, to demand democratic, transparent and legitimate   
representation; maybe we can avert tragic things happening 5  or 10 years 
from now because we became  well structured (we are not today). in the 
meanwhile the presence of all these 3 elements are mandatory to any 
development of international standards, global organisations, etc. ...

I thank joop for making the points he did so well and further refining the 
issues specially that neither the american people nor the iraqi people will 
be voting on war, meaning they have no say.  We however do have a say in what 
happens in our name on many issue to the global internet and the IDN issue 
for example, amongst many others.   our energies are all what we have at 
times and it is efficiently and effectively spent when directed in those 
direction as you stated with your example of Karl. but we need more.

Again, Democracy, transparency and legitimacy are the mandatory fundamentals. 
let us all start demanding them. 

Warmest regards, and merry christmas and happy new year to all

Khaled Fattal

- --part1_e5.21373b55.2b35c670_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Dear Joop and fellow members<BR>
<BR>
You are both right and joop addressed the issues I wanted to raise in getting people to see and start thinking about. <BR>
<BR>
Democracy, transparency and legitimacy are all fundamental requirements to any successful engagement whether it is adopting a technical a standard, an URDP, a management change, a UN resolution or even a war. if any of these requirements are absent the outcome will always be questionable and challenged with failure to deliver and a proportionate level of alienating peoples of the world, depending on the gravity of the matter at hand.<BR>
<BR>
While we may or may not succeed in averting the imminent war&nbsp; with Iraq, our plan should be to expect no less than proper representation from organisations that are supposedly speaking on our behalf and the only way to do that is to be active, to demand democratic, transparent and legitimate&nbsp;&nbsp; representation; maybe we can avert tragic things happening 5&nbsp; or 10 years from now because we became&nbsp; well structured (we are not today). in the meanwhile the presence of all these 3 elements are mandatory to any development of international standards, global organisations, etc. ...<BR>
<BR>
I thank joop for making the points he did so well and further refining the issues specially that neither the american people nor the iraqi people will be voting on war, meaning they have no say.&nbsp; We however do have a say in what happens in our name on many issue to the global internet and the IDN issue for example, amongst many others.&nbsp;&nbsp; our energies are all what we have at times and it is efficiently and effectively spent when directed in those direction as you stated with your example of Karl. but we need more.<BR>
<BR>
Again, Democracy, transparency and legitimacy are the mandatory fundamentals. let us all start demanding them. <BR>
<BR>
Warmest regards, and merry christmas and happy new year to all<BR>
<BR>
Khaled Fattal</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_e5.21373b55.2b35c670_boundary--
- --
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: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:35:36 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Why has Verisign stolen my favourite game site?

I like playing Civilisation III on my Mac.

Every once in a while I go to the software maker's site to check for
upgrades...

http://www.wizardworks.com

That's funny - today it's got Verisign's "under construction" template running.

What's every STRANGER is the WHOIS record:

******

Registrant:
Verisign, Inc. (JKNJCFMYMD)
   21355 Ridgetop Circle, MS 205-4
   Dulles, VA 20166
   US

   Domain Name: WIZARDWORKS.COM

   Administrative Contact:
      Verisign, Inc.  (MOFGWRQFMO)		[email-masked]
      Verisign, Inc.
      21355 Ridgetop Circle, MS 205-4
      Dulles, VA 20166
      US
      1-866-734-8776 (NA) fax: 1-703-326-6225 (Intl)
   Technical Contact:
      VeriSign, Inc.  (HOST-ORG)		[email-masked]
      VeriSign, Inc.
      21355 Ridgetop Circle
      Dulles, VA 20166
      US
      1-888-642-9675

   Record expires on 12-Jan-2004.
   Record created on 12-Jan-1999.
   Database last updated on 21-Dec-2002 11:27:02 EST.

   Domain servers in listed order:

   NS11.WORLDNIC.COM            216.168.225.141
   NS12.WORLDNIC.COM            216.168.225.142

 ******

I'm pretty sure Verisign hasn't owned this name since 1999 (a visit to
http://web.archive.org/web/20011009000209/http://www.wizardworks.com/
appears to confirm this), and I can't see why the correct owner would give
the name away to Verisign, especially since Verisign doesn't appear to want
to make Civ3 updates available on their website.

So something fishy's going on here. I'd say it's most likely another
MONUMENTAL COCK-UP by Verisign. I heard a rumour going around that Verisign
deleted a whole bunch of domain names in error earlier this week. Was this
one of the victims?

How about someone from Verisign tell us what the hell is going on?

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1535
*************************