Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1550
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, January 9 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1550

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:43:09 -0000
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

We are forgetting a few things here:

Domains that have invalid data sometimes (often) Are registered with a
"faulty" credit card.
They are only used for a short period of time, usually no longer then a
few weeks.
Furthermore in the suggested method I could easily take out bunches of
domains (again with "faulty cc data") and block the domains for any
extended period.

And not in the least:

When registering a domain you enter a legal agreement, not giving the
correct data is definitely against the law, whether you like what they
do with the data or not, that is a separate case all together.

However what everyone seems to ignore:
If a domain is registered and paid for by cc (the most ?) then a valid
data set should already be available, checked and counterchecked for
security and charge-backs.

Having a check at that level means that there will be a lot less invalid
whois fields.

The remainder can easily fall under any kind of policy whereby I support
that notification should be done according to a set of agreed upon
rules, and accounting for mail delivery to anywhere on earth.

Kind regards

Abel

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Marc Schneiders
Sent: 08 January 2003 12:25
To: Srikanth Narra
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

I very much agree with the position outlined below. I would rather have
a voluntary WHOIS (meaning you can be in there with the data you want,
except perhaps some bare minimum for TECHNICAL contact, say email
address), but I guess the power of the Intellectual Property People is
too big to achieve that. So let's make it easy then for all of us. And
fair.

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, at 00:17 [=GMT-0500], Srikanth Narra wrote:

> Deleting a domain because of inaccurate WHOIS record is not right. 
> Someone paid for it. If the registrar didn't have problem accepting 
> the money - they or someone else should not invent causes to delete 
> it.
>
> I can not comprehend and am yet to hear a single legitimate reason or 
> benefit that comes from a domain being deleted because of an 
> inaccurate WHOIS record. If its current policy then its wrong policy 
> and should be changed.
>
> Even in (extreme) cases like say spamming or malicious virus attacks, 
> etc. from a domain with inaccurate WHOIS record. I don't see any 
> reason for the domain to be deleted. The domain marked be marked and 
> left disabled.
>
> Adding and displaying a few fields
>
> a. Status - [Disabled]
> b. Reason - [Spam /Court order?]
> c. Whom to contact to Enable - [Registrar contact info]
>
> along with/to WHOIS record should take care of providing concrete 
> notice and issues arising from trying to reach the registrant with no 
> irreversible harm done.
>
> If the entity behind the domain is genuine - they will contact sooner 
> or later. Else the domain allowed to die its natural death in 
> continued Disable stage AFTER its time runs out. A check can be 
> enforced at the time of renewal for the MARKED domains to ensure the 
> WHOIS record is right.
>
> Between this and existing established law, procedure and channels to 
> take things to next step - I can not think of any issues that can not 
> be handled.
>
> An organization, society or a civilization is only
>
> as robust as rights that exist within it for all parties and as 
> honorable as the fairness, the extent and the manner in which such 
> rights are enforced.
>
> I am hoping there is still some sense of honor and some resemblance of

> fairplay left.
>
> Sri
>
>
> --
> 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, 8 Jan 2003 11:42:43 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

> I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Mexico one has 9 working days to
> reply to a law suit, period after which you would find yourself in default

...if the court orders one in 9 days.... if the parties don't mutually agree
to an extension... and a court notice of default and an actual execution of
judgment are two entirely different things.

The same argument is made with the UDRP, comparing its 20 day response period
with that of US civil suits.  I have never seen a US civil suit that was
answered in 20 days, and I have never seen a judgment issued and executed on
the 21st day.

- --
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, 8 Jan 2003 11:40:33 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

> tend to it". Domain name contacts should timely tend to their domains and
> make sure that their details remain updated.

Rodrigo,

It is apparent you have not had much experience with the kinds of things that
go wrong with domain names.  What often happens is that the contact details
for a domain name are controlled through an administrative contact email
address, from which confirmation is required for updating the domain names.
Quite often, large internet service providers go out of business on little or
no notice, thus "stranding" the domain name records which are controlled
through email addresses provided by that ISP.  For example, one of the
largest broadband providers in the US, home.com, dropped a huge number of
customers overnight when they shut off their service.  One can still find
domain name registrations with home.com email addresses, and these domain
names are ripe pickings for domain hi-jackers.

You have obviously never attempted to update registration data at Verisign
(see www.nsihorrorstories.com for more details on what typically happens).

John

- --
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, 8 Jan 2003 12:06:46 -0500 
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VeriSign Global Registry Services Whois Changes

The VeriSign Global Registry Services (VGRS) WHOIS output will change on 25
January 2003 to support ICANN's Redemption Grace Period policies.  In
advance of this change we wanted to inform the Internet community of the new
information that will be provided and how it will be displayed.

Currently, VeriSign Registry publishes the following domain information:

Domain name
Registrar name
Registrar whois server
Registrar referral URL
Delegated name servers
Last updated date

An example:

Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: A.IANA-SERVERS.NET
Name Server: B.IANA-SERVERS.NET
Updated Date: 19-aug-2002
   
On 25 January VGRS will be adding the following fields to our whois output:

Status
Creation Date
Expiration Date

The new output will look like this (the values for the new fields displayed
in this example are for illustrative purposes only):

Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: A.IANA-SERVERS.NET
Name Server: B.IANA-SERVERS.NET
Status: ACTIVE
Updated Date: 19-aug-2002
Creation Date: 01-jan-1999
Expiration Date: 01-jan-2009

Status values can be one or more of the following (each will appear on its
own line if set):

ACTIVE: The registry sets this status.  The domain can be modified by the
registrar.  The domain can be renewed.  The domain will be included in the
zone if the domain has been delegated to at least one name server.

REGISTRY-LOCK: The registry sets this status. The domain can not be modified
or deleted by the registrar.  The registry must remove the REGISTRY-LOCK
status for the registrar to modify the domain.  The domain can be renewed.
The domain will be included in the zone if the domain has been delegated to
at least one name server.

REGISTRY-HOLD: The registry sets this status.  The domain can not be
modified or deleted by the registrar.  The registry must remove the
REGISTRY-HOLD status for the registrar to modify the domain.  The domain can
be renewed.  The domain will not be included in the zone.

REGISTRAR-LOCK: The sponsoring registrar sets this status.  The domain can
not be modified or deleted.  The registrar must remove REGISTRAR-LOCK status
to modify the domain.  The domain can be renewed.  The domain will be
included in the zone.

REGISTRAR-HOLD: The sponsoring registrar sets this status.  The domain can
not be modified or deleted.  The registrar must remove REGISTRAR-HOLD status
to modify the domain.  The domain can be renewed.  The domain will not be
included in the zone.

REDEMPTIONPERIOD: The registry sets this status when a registrar requests
that the domain name be deleted from the registry and the domain has been
registered for more than 5 calendar days (if the delete request is received
within 5 days of initial domain registration it will instead be deleted
immediately).  The domain will not be included in the zone.  The domain can
not be modified or purged; it can only be restored.  Any other registrar
requests to modify or otherwise update the domain will be rejected.  The
domain will be held in this status for a maximum of 30 calendar days.

PENDINGRESTORE: The registry sets this status after a registrar requests
restoration of a domain that is in REDEMPTIONPERIOD status.  The domain will
be included in the zone.  Registrar requests to modify or otherwise update
the domain will be rejected.  The domain will be held in this status while
the registry waits for the registrar to provide required restoration
documentation.  If the registrar fails to provide documentation to the
registry within 7 calendar days to confirm the restoration request, the
domain will revert to REDEMPTIONPERIOD status.  The domain status will be
set to ACTIVE only if the registrar provides documentation to the registry
within 7 calendar days to confirm the restoration request.

PENDINGDELETE: The registry sets this status after a domain has been set in
REDEMPTIONPERIOD status and the domain has not been restored by the
registrar.  The domain will not be included in the zone.  Once in this
status all registrar requests to modify or otherwise update the domain will
be rejected.  The domain will be purged from the registry database after
being in this status for 5 calendar days.

ICANN's original redemption grace period proposal can be found here:

http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm

Scott Hollenbeck
VeriSign Com Net Registry
VeriSign Global Registry Services
- --
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, 8 Jan 2003 11:51:24 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

>
> As to the initial question: Who created the 15 day period.
> That would have been incorporated in the initial contracts.
> It probably seemed reasonable at the time, and with email, should be ample.

This is obviously written by someone who does not have the pleasure of
weeding through the daily spam of an admin contact email address inbox in
order to find the one or two important emails per year.

I posted three examples, of which I have many more, of World Trade Center
occupants who have STILL not updated their registration details.  They had
their fifteen days, now let's screw 'em.

- --
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, 08 Jan 2003 19:45:15 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:24:34 +0100 (CET), you wrote:

>I very much agree with the position outlined below. I would rather have a
>voluntary WHOIS (meaning you can be in there with the data you want,
>except perhaps some bare minimum for TECHNICAL contact, say email
>address), but I guess the power of the Intellectual Property People is too
>big to achieve that. 

Well, don't forget that, at least in the EU, we have a very clear
privacy law. I guess that if any of us wanted, he could sue any EU
national registry and win. For example, at least for .it you're not
asked for the mandatory separate approval of the publication of your
data, nor you are given the option not to approve it. Of course the
situation on gTLDs is less clear (for example, if the registry is
American but the registrar is European, does EU law apply?) but still
there's ample space for winning a cause.
- -- 
vb.            [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 19:53:50 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

- --=======F1467B8=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-36D36B12; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

May I suggest a simpler way:

- - the whois is suppressed
- - it is replaced by the obligation of the registrants to maintain their 
"QuiEst" as a formated file where they document their data the way he 
wants, according to the laws he is subject to. That file is at the address 
http://domain.name/quiest.htm

- - any one can challenge the truth of the QuiEst information, get it 
recorded and engage in an UDRP like procedure. If the procedure - to be 
approved by the national jurisdiction of the registrant - show that the 
registrants wanted to be illegally deceptive, the domain name will be 
cancelled.

I note that the nslookup gives the mailname of the person to contact.
I note that the spaming results from the lack of a correct mail service 
definition by the IETF.
Let addres the problems where they are, not where some find to confuse them 
by laziness or greed.

I think this is in line with evey other international agrements cncerning 
names, business, products sending, commercial invoices, etc. etc.
jfc

On 10:19 08/01/03, DPF said:

>On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 00:17:35 -0500, "Srikanth Narra"
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >Deleting a domain because of inaccurate WHOIS record is not right. Someone
> >paid for it. If the registrar didn't have problem accepting the money - they
> >or someone else should not invent causes to delete it.
> >
> >I can not comprehend and am yet to hear a single legitimate reason or
> >benefit that comes from a domain being deleted because of an inaccurate
> >WHOIS record. If its current policy then its wrong policy and should be
> >changed.
> >
> >Even in (extreme) cases like say spamming or malicious virus attacks, etc.
> >from a domain with inaccurate WHOIS record. I don't see any reason for the
> >domain to be deleted. The domain marked be marked and left disabled.
>
>There does seem a simple solution here.  If whois details are found to
>be inaccurate the domain is removed from the zone file, but remains
>registered to the registrant for the term paid for.
>
>If the registrant is a legitimate user, then once their domain stops
>working they will eventually contact the registrar to get it fixed.
>If the registrant is bogus, a spammer etc, then they will not want to
>make contact and their domain will be unusable until they supply
>correct details.
>
>This way domains with fake whois details become unusable, but it
>doesn't allow people to "steal" domains just because someone is
>overseas or doesn't update their contact details.
>
>DPF
>--
>E-mail: [email-masked]
>ICQ:    29964527
>MSN:    [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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 06/12/02

- --=======F1467B8=======--

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

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

Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 08:46:30 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 12:15:40 +0100, Vittorio Bertola
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 22:19:59 +1300, you wrote:
>
>>If the registrant is a legitimate user, then once their domain stops
>>working they will eventually contact the registrar to get it fixed.
>
>The problem is that it might be too late - you might already be losing
>valuable e-mail messages or website traffic. So even before putting
>the domain on hold all efforts have to be made to contact the
>registrant and fix the problem (and let alone the fact that one has
>the right not to expose his/her identity to the whole world).

The issue of should you be allowed to be anonymous is a slightly
different debate.  For now the policy is you need correct data and the
issue is how to mitigate potential loss of a domain and purchase by
someone else (which is far worse).

I agree putting on hold is not without consequences and there should
be a minimum of three attempts to contact the registrant.  

DPF
- --
E-mail: [email-masked]
ICQ:    29964527
MSN:    [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: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 21:20:49 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

> Such unchecked powers must not be given to commercial registrars.

Don't you mean that such unchecked powers should be taken away from
commercial registrars?

        -rwr

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
- - Soren Kierkegaard

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

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

Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:28:29 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

At 05:28 p.m. 8/01/2003, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>Joop, you are responding in a way which indicates that you don't want to 
>have an interaction which can result in exchange between parties of good will.

Sorry, Marilyn. Good will shows in actions.  One of such actions would be 
to actually meaningfully discuss safeguards against WHOIS-accuracy 
heavyhandedness and abuse.
Not to demonize or write off a counterpart in the discussion as unwilling, 
based on the form of his writing.

The *substance* of my response to you was that the registrars TF comments 
or behaviour over such an   initial period can NOT be taken as a valid 
argument to allow them the power of summary (or 15 day) "takedowns".

It is like saying: we do not need safeguards against enforcement abuse; 
power does not corrupt.

The registrars protect themselves, not their registrants, with contracts 
that shield them as much as possible from any liability for their actions.
Some registrars may sound idealistic, but their contracts (actions) do not 
bear out the nice words that are aimed at getting more market share.

>That was what the smiley is about. I believe that the registrars who 
>commented in fact did so from the interest of protecting their 
>registrants. Your earlier comments seemed [apologize if I misunderstood 
>them] to say that commercial registrars didn't care. Point of my response 
>was: no, not borne out by their comments. :-)
>
>Not anything nefarious. Just a comment to convey information. Apologize if 
>not clear.

O.K., as information it is appreciated, as an argument it is recognized as 
vapor.
Isn't that "an interaction which can result in exchange between parties of 
good will"?

>As to the initial question: Who created the 15 day period.  That would 
>have been incorporated in the initial contracts. It probably seemed 
>reasonable at the time, and with email, should be ample.

As others have pointed out, due to massive spam deletion, email is not a 
reliable medium for life-or-death  Domain situations.

In the absence of the possibility of Postal communication,
1. email needs to be repeated over a much longer period than 15 days. (I 
think of at least 45 days)
2. judicial recourse must be left open in the registrar/registrant contracts.
3. Even when the zone file is changed, The Domain Name remains registered 
to the registrant until the registration expires.

- -joop-

- --
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, 08 Jan 2003 18:00:20 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Dave Srikanth and all former DNSO GA members,

DPF wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 00:17:35 -0500, "Srikanth Narra"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >Deleting a domain because of inaccurate WHOIS record is not right. Someone
> >paid for it. If the registrar didn't have problem accepting the money - they
> >or someone else should not invent causes to delete it.
> >
> >I can not comprehend and am yet to hear a single legitimate reason or
> >benefit that comes from a domain being deleted because of an inaccurate
> >WHOIS record. If its current policy then its wrong policy and should be
> >changed.
> >
> >Even in (extreme) cases like say spamming or malicious virus attacks, etc.
> >from a domain with inaccurate WHOIS record. I don't see any reason for the
> >domain to be deleted. The domain marked be marked and left disabled.
>
> There does seem a simple solution here.  If whois details are found to
> be inaccurate the domain is removed from the zone file, but remains
> registered to the registrant for the term paid for.

  This is one approach, sure enough...  However it doesn't seem to be
much of an improvement if getting the details corrected or updated
is one of the goals.  Rather if the registrant of said domain Name
can't do a whois on his/her own Domain Name to see what the
problem is, how than can it be adequately corrected.  For instance
if a Registrant is on a long vacation or in the hospital for a lengthy
period is such an action warranted or even wise?

  So I would say that your solution Dave is one that could be used,
but that circumstances would need to be known before it was
employed...

>
>
> If the registrant is a legitimate user, then once their domain stops
> working they will eventually contact the registrar to get it fixed.

  Not necessarily.  See my above remarks...

>
> If the registrant is bogus, a spammer etc, then they will not want to
> make contact and their domain will be unusable until they supply
> correct details.

  Or maybe the details are correct but the contact information listed
is monitored and filtered appropriately to avoid being harassed
unnecessarily.  I have had the unfortunate experience myself
from one of Afilias's Exec's in this regard for instance.. So I forwarded
my contact information automatically to my Lawyer and he recorded
the phone conversations, than sent it into a law enforcement agency.
That seemed to clear up the problem...  However many registrants
will not have this capability...

>
>
> This way domains with fake whois details become unusable, but it
> doesn't allow people to "steal" domains just because someone is
> overseas or doesn't update their contact details.

  Well yes, but first one has to legally establish that the contact
details are indeed "Fake" if such a solution should be employed
or used.  Hence I must still be in agreement with Srikanth...

>
>
> DPF
> --
> E-mail: [email-masked]
> ICQ:    29964527
> MSN:    [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

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, 08 Jan 2003 18:11:35 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Srikanth and all former DNSO GA members,

  I must entirely agree with you here Srikanth.  There are no good or
really implamentable solutions that would not impede good works
practice or otherwise compromise a registrants safety and privacy.
However as you likely know, the IPC and BC of ICANN and
other intellectual property folks are not that concerned or interested
in personal safety of others or registrants privacy...  They strongly
believe that their collective rights or desires supersede those
of registrants, the general public, or any individual on the face of the
planet, pretty much...

Srikanth Narra wrote:

> Deleting a domain because of inaccurate WHOIS record is not right. Someone
> paid for it. If the registrar didn't have problem accepting the money - they
> or someone else should not invent causes to delete it.
>
> I can not comprehend and am yet to hear a single legitimate reason or
> benefit that comes from a domain being deleted because of an inaccurate
> WHOIS record. If its current policy then its wrong policy and should be
> changed.
>
> Even in (extreme) cases like say spamming or malicious virus attacks, etc.
> from a domain with inaccurate WHOIS record. I don't see any reason for the
> domain to be deleted. The domain marked be marked and left disabled.
>
> Adding and displaying a few fields
>
> a. Status - [Disabled]
> b. Reason - [Spam /Court order?]
> c. Whom to contact to Enable - [Registrar contact info]
>
> along with/to WHOIS record should take care of providing concrete notice and
> issues arising from trying to reach the registrant with no irreversible harm
> done.
>
> If the entity behind the domain is genuine - they will contact sooner or
> later. Else the domain allowed to die its natural death in continued Disable
> stage AFTER its time runs out. A check can be enforced at the time of
> renewal for the MARKED domains to ensure the WHOIS record is right.
>
> Between this and existing established law, procedure and channels to take
> things to next step - I can not think of any issues that can not be handled.
>
> An organization, society or a civilization is only
>
> as robust as rights that exist within it for all parties and
> as honorable as the fairness, the extent and the manner in which such rights
> are enforced.
>
> I am hoping there is still some sense of honor and some resemblance of
> fairplay left.
>
> Sri
>
> --
> 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, 8 Jan 2003 16:27:37 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Hello,

- --- Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 15 days seems more than fair a period prior deletion.
> 
> I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Mexico one has 9 working
> days to
> reply to a law suit, period after which you would find yourself in
> default

The big difference, though, is that the clock begins in real court once
you are *served* the legal process. Process servers often try multiple
times to reach a defendant. An email sitting on a server somewhere that
hasn't been read doesn't constitutive being served in any jurisdiction
I know of. Can you *prove* that a standard email notification was
actually read??

15 days after being *served* notice of a WHOIS deficiency is fine by
me, but we need to properly define when that period begins. It's *not*
when the email is sent, but when it is actually received and read by
the recipient (or other methods of serving notice).

Sincerely,

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

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

Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 21:15:30 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Rodrigo and all Former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:

> 15 days seems more than fair a period prior deletion.

  Seems to whom?  How do you arrive at this conclusion?

>
>
> I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Mexico one has 9 working days to
> reply to a law suit, period after which you would find yourself in default
> should you fail to reply; in the case of suits for Amparo (sort of our
> habeas corpus, but much broader), we have the exact same 15 days, tops, in
> order to file a suit.

  Thankfully I and most other registrants do not reside in Mexico nor
hold .MX domain names. However I do like to visit different locals in
Mexico from time to time. As I understand it, Presedente Fox is in
process of realigning many of the past long held administrations of
Mexico's legal precepts to something more reasonable and globally
expectable in accordance with GATT and NAFTA conscripts.
I hope that he is broadly successful in this effort lest Mexico face
in a few years in ecommerce, a debacle of very large proportions.
It would displease me and some of our INEGroup members greatly
should he fail.  I am also pretty sure that the Bush Administration
would also find such a requirement as you suggest for the small
ecommerce businessman, to be far less that optimum as well...

>
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Joop
> Teernstra
> Enviado el: Martes, 07 de Enero de 2003 06:58 PM
> Para: Thomas Roessler; George Kirikos
> CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions
>
> At 12:57 a.m. 8/01/2003, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >On 2003-01-07 02:15:01 -0800, George Kirikos wrote:
> >
> > > Folks might not be aware of discussions going on in the WHOIS
> > > accuracy task force of the DNSO/GNSO. See:
> >
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00806.html
> >
> > > for instance.
> >
> > > Am I the only one who is concerned that a legitimately held name
> > > might be deleted due to a simple failure to respond within 15
> > > days?
> >
> >You're certainly not alone with that concern.  But the 15 day period
> >isn't new at all -- it's current policy, RAA 3.7.7.2.
>
> And that illustrates how necessary it is that Individual registrants are
> actively represented in the policy making process.
> 15 Days can easily result in oppression. There must be safeguards.
>
> If targeting "bad guys" is the justification, we are in for a lot more
> "summary takedowns".
>
> Such unchecked powers must not be given to commercial registrars.
>
> -joop-
>
> --
> 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, 08 Jan 2003 22:56:11 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NICA teleconference today - Whois privacy and security was a topic.  Note: No WHOIS TF members were in attendance

All former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  The National Infrastructure Advisory Council, Bureau of Industry and
Security
part of the US DOC had it teleconference and meeting which I
attended (Teleconference) today.  See:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2002/02-32435.htm

for announcement of.  I also posted this announcement as well on this
forum see: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg01422.html
in hopes that at least on WHOIS and UDRP Task force member
would be in attendance.  NONE from the WHOIS Task force were
in attendance, to my surprise and dismay...  This struck me as
odd and somewhat irresponsible from an ICANN point of view.

  It was strongly agreed that privacy and security go hand in hand
and that individual privacy was of specific and significant importance
with
respect to all aspects of Internet use including, and discussed
specifically briefly, WHOIS data.

  Many other topics were also discussed as well...

  Further written comments my be sent to:
Ms. Wanda Rose, Critical
Infrastructure Assurance Office, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 6095, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
    For more information contact Wanda Rose on (202) 482-7481.

  I am sure that if you call and ask Wanda nicely, she may let
you E-Mail you comments, proposals or other input to her
for the USG public record...  >;)

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 #1550
*************************