Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1552
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, January 11 2003         Volume 01 : Number 1552

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 02:26:47 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] INEGRoup Whois Consensus position - Privacy concerns paramount

All former DNSO GA members,

  The following was sent to the Whois Task Foce public forum howver
that forum is again no longer updating or excpeting input  <sigh>

================================

Whois Task force members,

  In the current Whois Task force report little or no consideration
regarding privacy and security is being considered.  As such our members 
have requested of me their spokesman to convey our very serious concerns
as to privacy and the security of that privacy in WHois data listings
upon searches as our members single biggest concern.

  I have also taken notice that a number of other active participants
from various areas of endeavor in the DNS arena have also expressed
these concerns as well.
Of note are the following:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00027.html

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00025.html

Which is from Karl Auerbach ICANN member of the BoD

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00023.html

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00022.html

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00012.html

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc00/msg00006.html

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00012.html

  The second most concerning part of the report that was not adequately
addressed or even available for public debate and thereby redress online

is the idea of  15 day contact expirey period for filing complaints to
the registrant for that registrant to respond or face loosing his/her
Domain name. We found that after and exhaustive and extensive review and
research effort that very few legal jurisdictions would be able to 
uphold such as requirement and would egregiously harm a number of 
registrants for various reasons to include but not be limited to:
- - Vacations of the Registrant that exceed 15 days - Illness of a 
registrant that would exceed 15 days and that registrant
be physically unable to reply or even be aware of such a communication

  In conclusion and in short the Whois Task force has not adequately
even begun to address substantial issues in a public or reasonable
fashion that could by in large meet the needs and potential as well as
real and already extant impacts upon the vast majority of registrants.

  Therefore we recommend that a open Working Group E-Mail forum
be constituted so as such issues can be discussed.

  That each registry be able to provide for the time being an Opt-out
for personal and private information of the registrant ( Personal
physical or mailing address, personal Phone Number, and personal 
E-Mail address )

or that only law enforcement have access to this data in Whois and than
only via a court order that the registrant in aware in advance of that 
court order being executed.

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, 10 Jan 2003 00:32:19 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Where-am-I? (RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions)

On 2003-01-09 23:20:59 +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> There is and never was, as far as I know, a requirement to have a
> website for a domain name. There is, I think, for receiving email
> to postmaster@. RFC822 IIRC.

RFC 822 has been obsoleted by RFC 2822.  RFC 2822 does not even
contain the character string "postmaster" any more.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
- --
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, 10 Jan 2003 23:47:43 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:03:11 -0600, "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>As far as I know, domain names are used mostly for websites. I know they
>have other uses, but I was under the impression that the foremost concern is
>with regard to domain names used for websites.

Just because most are used for websites is no reason to implement
rules for all domain names that only apply if there is a website.

>With regard to your second paragraph, as I said before, if you own a
>business, you must tend to it.

Umm, where on earth do you get the notion that all websites are
commercial?  Many websites are personal or non commercial.  Rather
rough if you have the same surname as a trademark and you go away on
holiday to find your personal website gone when you get back.

>As for your firewall idea, well, the hole point of my idea is that proof of
>the e-mail being sent should be issued by the website for which it is used,
>by a print out of the acknowledgment of receipt that it would issue.

So you want every website in the world to be forced to have an auto
responder bot for e-mail just to cover the one in one hundred thousand
possibility that someone thinks your whois details are incorrect.

>It's just a wild thought anyway, but thanks for paying so much attention to
>it.

Very very wild.

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: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 02:15:11 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Hello,

- --- Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Nevertheless I agree with comments in the sense that a printout of an
> email
> allegedly sent to the registration contact, which may sit in his
> inbox for a
> period of time without being read, is not sufficient evidence that
> said
> contact has had knowledge of the email's content.
> 
> Here's a thought I just came up with. If you've registered a domain
> name and
> you actively use it for your website, and you have a number of pages
> in sai
> website, perhaps it wouldn't be too much trouble to include one
> wherein
> someone suing you as per the UDRP could serve the process on you and
> obtain
> proof of service thereof.

<snip>

> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de
> [email-masked]
> So you think that the UDRP should duplicate the full legal aparatus
> of
> serving process?

I think it can be streamlined a bit, but should be consistent with the
principles of serving process, i.e. that the clock begins when the
respondent actually receives notice of the action, or is DEEMED to have
received notice. For UDRP, there's less pressure on the 20 day period,
as the real time period for losing the name is 20 days + time for
WIPO/NAF to render a verdict + time for appeal, which might add up to
60 days or more before losing a domain.

For WHOIS Accuracy challenges, though, the time pressures of 15 days to
deletion/deactivation are much more worrisome, as that clock seems to
begin the moment the notice is sent (but not received or deemed to be
received), and as others have pointed out could be much less, as the
registrar needs to make the decision within 15 days and gives their
registrant client sometimes only 7 days to respond.

Many countries (all the G7 ones, for instance) adhere to the "Hague
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial
Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters". See:

http://travel.state.gov/hague_service.html
http://www.hcch.net/e/conventions/menu14e.html

for instance (which is talked about in Rule 17 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, for those in Ontario, Canada, and I'm sure other comparable
sections of people's local laws).

Our (Ontario) rule 18.01 gives folks up to 60 days to respond to a
statement of claim, if they're served outside of the US or Canada, to
give an example of real-world laws. I think these time-frames recognize
the difficulties that are involved when dealing with international
legal issues (I'd be curious to know what similar time-scales are in
force in other jurisdictions; reminder to readers -- I AM NOT A LAWYER,
and I don't play one on tv, either; just happen to be interested in
these issues, as anyone doing commerce on the internet or in the
realworld might also be). ;)

That being said, I'm sure that the process can be streamlined, but of
course when Jones Day or whoever drafted the various rules that are in
force now, they perhaps didn't think things through....having greater
input of the stakeholders (outside of only the IP constituency) would
help make the best policies.

If we can start to build a consensus on principles, such as:

1) the clock should start when notice has been received, or deemed to
be received [is this controversial?]
2) methods/guides on dealing with the "deemed to be received" in #1
3) time frames

that might lead to an improvement in the current state of affairs.

While I disagree with Rodrigo's suggestion about use of a website for
giving notice (for the same reason others gave, i.e. not everyone has a
website associated with a domain), I'm curious if he or Kent or the IP
constituency would support the "Legal Contact" in the WHOIS that I've
mentioned in the past? (also helps in relation the privacy aspects,
conceivably folks could use ONLY a Legal Contact, if they want to keep
their private details out of the WHOIS)

That Legal Contact could be the official contact point for service of
UDRP and/or other legal issues related to a domain (e.g. abuse). One
can even add a special "Registration" procedure or validation of those
special "Legal Contacts". e.g. law firms or other special agents can
pay $50/yr or something to Verisign or another company like a Dun and
Bradstreet (DUNS Numbers), and be specially registered to act as a
Legal Contact for unlimited numbers of domain names for a specific time
period, which is renewable. That Legal Contact's WHOIS details would be
*deemed* to be accurate (thus also providing the basis for a
"white-list" of domains which are immune to a WHOIS accuracy challenge;
any domain holder using the registered Legal Contact need not worry
about losing their domain after a 3 week holiday, and can sleep easier
at night).

Anyhow, I've tossed out some ideas, and would appreciate any comments
and other input. Perhaps we can start to form a consensus that others
on the task forces can use to improve on their current work.

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: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 06:21:55 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Missing GA-full archives?

Hello,

At http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaarchives.html the GA-Full archives were
closed on January 1, 2003. But, a new one for messages after January
1st wasn't created? Is this by design, or just overlooked?? (the
GA-full is useful, as messages sometimes seem to appear there first,
before making it into the "with rules" archive)

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: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:23:18 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Missing GA-full archives?

George and all FOrmer DNSO GA members,

  I noticed this a couple of days ago as well.  I just figured that now
that
the DNSO GA is not "Official" to ICANN or the DNSO/GNSO
any longer that they Full list was just arbitrarily abolished...
It would have been nice and I think proper, for GA subscribers
to the Full list to have been notified in advance, however...
So much for nice or proper I guess...  :(

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> At http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaarchives.html the GA-Full archives were
> closed on January 1, 2003. But, a new one for messages after January
> 1st wasn't created? Is this by design, or just overlooked?? (the
> GA-full is useful, as messages sometimes seem to appear there first,
> before making it into the "with rules" archive)
>
> 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

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, 10 Jan 2003 12:43:06 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN Status Report to DOC...U.S. spectrum policy - Is it accurate?

Jim and all former DNSO GA members,

  Thank you for forwarding this information on.  I am sure that the
former DNSO GA members will find it interesting as will our members.

  Some other links to this information are as follows:
 http://www.icann.org/general/status-report-08jan03.htm
and http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/10/065240&mode=thread
I thought the majority of Ted's comments were pretty close to the mark
myself...  Seems to me that there was an awful lot of self embellishment
in this report to me...  I will have some of my staff follow up on that though,
just to be sure..

I hope that someone at DOC/NTIA will read these links closely..

Techno.C@T wrote:

> http://www.icannwatch.org
> ICANN, Narcissus; Narcissus, ICANN
> posted by tbyfield on Thursday January 09, @07:59PM
> http://www.lextext.com/icann/index.html
> ICANN Status Report to DOC
> Released this afternoon: ICANN's Fifth Status Report to the United States Department of Commerce
> =====
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/gallery/fccntia_12102002.htm
> FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell and Assistant Secretary Nancy J. Victory met formally to plan and coordinate the efforts of the FCC
> and NTIA to improve U.S. spectrum policy. Ms. Victory is accompanied by NTIA Deputy Assistant Secretary Michael Gallagher (on her
> right) and Associate Administrator (Acting) Fred Wentland (on her left). (12-10-2002)
> =====
>
> ...SPECTRUM......SPECTRUM......SPECTRUM...
> http://www.caida.org/analysis/geopolitical/bgp2country/
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> =====

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, 11 Jan 2003 02:50:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Where-am-I? (RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions)

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, at 00:32 [=GMT+0100], Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2003-01-09 23:20:59 +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > There is and never was, as far as I know, a requirement to have a
> > website for a domain name. There is, I think, for receiving email
> > to postmaster@. RFC822 IIRC.
>
> RFC 822 has been obsoleted by RFC 2822.  RFC 2822 does not even
> contain the character string "postmaster" any more.

That is bad. And what it worse: RFC 822 is a few years older than the DNS
and the first domain names as we know them. So how can we tell what
"postmaster@domain" means there? Maybe ask D. Crocker?

- --
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, 10 Jan 2003 23:15:19 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions 

Has anyone even addressed the issue of spam filters that frequenty and 
erroneously bounce or simply discard legitimate email?  IMO, it is 
absolutely ridiculous to rely upon email as a certain notification tool 
for anything.  I have more than one ISP who have used spam filters (which 
I feel are a good thing) and have lost some legitimate email in the 
process.  In most cases, the ISPs attempt to "tweak" the filters 
appropriately so that the majority of legitimate mail is not rejected or 
discarded, but it is not foolproof.

Unless there is a way to ensure that all legitimate mail will be received 
by the recipient, there is no way one can enforce service via e-mail.  
There is also no guarantee that every mail server will be 100% up and that 
no email will be lost if it crashes.  We all strive to prevent 
catastrophic loss, but it still occurs.  We also cannot ensure that 
recipient's machines will always be "up" and running that they will always 
have access to the internet.  I have more than one connection and have 
occasionally had them both down at the same time.  In case of power 
outages and storms, we have been down for days a time.  Generators and 
UPS's run only so long and then they are down as well.

I think it is encumbant upon those who wish to serve notice to do so in a 
manner that is most accurate and e-mail is NOT it.

Leah

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:03:11 -0600, "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>As far as I know, domain names are used mostly for websites. I know they
>have other uses, but I was under the impression that the foremost concern 
is
>with regard to domain names used for websites.

Just because most are used for websites is no reason to implement
rules for all domain names that only apply if there is a website.

>With regard to your second paragraph, as I said before, if you own a
>business, you must tend to it.

Umm, where on earth do you get the notion that all websites are
commercial?  Many websites are personal or non commercial.  Rather
rough if you have the same surname as a trademark and you go away on
holiday to find your personal website gone when you get back.

>As for your firewall idea, well, the hole point of my idea is that proof 
of
>the e-mail being sent should be issued by the website for which it is 
used,
>by a print out of the acknowledgment of receipt that it would issue.

So you want every website in the world to be forced to have an auto
responder bot for e-mail just to cover the one in one hundred thousand
possibility that someone thinks your whois details are incorrect.

>It's just a wild thought anyway, but thanks for paying so much attention 
to
>it.

Very very wild.

DPF

- --
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, 10 Jan 2003 23:30:39 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions 

DPF said:
So you want every website in the world to be forced to have an auto
responder bot for e-mail just to cover the one in one hundred thousand
possibility that someone thinks your whois details are incorrect.

Reply:
Not only that, but should the recipient be required to forego security by 
sending an ack receipt?  I don't think so.  At least I would not.  Why 
would anyone want to validate an email address for every spammer.  In 
addition, mail list providers and list members go nuts over auto 
responders and receipts.  Sheesh!  On lists I admin, those who set auto 
responders and receipts that go to the mail lists are unsubscribed as per 
the rules of the lists.  

We cannot control how individuals set their email accounts or how they use 
them, nor can we dictate to ISPs how they use filters, etc.  They are 
privately owned entities.

Leah

- --
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, 10 Jan 2003 23:54:30 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

 Domain name contacts should timely tend to their domains and
>make sure that their details remain updated. Even if you're away on 
holiday,
>staying in touch is not that hard anymore.

Just for the sake of example:

Registrant visits parents who live in rural area and do not even have a 
computer.

Registrant takes vacation in national wildlife refuge or national park - 
camping trip, boating trip or any other non-city trip.  

Registrant is out of the country - no internet connection.

Registrant is hospitalized.

I'm sure we could come up with a hundred legitimate reasons for a contact 
persons to not be available for 15 days.  Heck, I visted my daughter for a 
week and had no internet access, no car... My purpose was to see my child, 
not get my email.  That's what vacations are all about.

Leah

- --
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, 10 Jan 2003 23:11:44 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Leah and all former DNSO GA members,

L. Gallegos wrote:

> Has anyone even addressed the issue of spam filters that frequenty and
> erroneously bounce or simply discard legitimate email?  IMO, it is
> absolutely ridiculous to rely upon email as a certain notification tool
> for anything.  I have more than one ISP who have used spam filters (which
> I feel are a good thing) and have lost some legitimate email in the
> process.  In most cases, the ISPs attempt to "tweak" the filters
> appropriately so that the majority of legitimate mail is not rejected or
> discarded, but it is not foolproof.

  You have a good and valid point here Leah.  However I think that
at least for the time being this is a rather rare if not very rare occurrence.

On the other hand SPAM is getting to be a nearly religious hatred
by many and some specialized software companies such as Spamassisn
have products out that improperly define what spam really is therefore
leading to a even larger problem long term...

>
>
> Unless there is a way to ensure that all legitimate mail will be received
> by the recipient, there is no way one can enforce service via e-mail.

  Agreed.  But still we can reasonably rely on e-mail for such notification.
Also with and Admin. contact E-Mail address for every Domain Name
registered that is different than the Registrant e-mail address.

>
> There is also no guarantee that every mail server will be 100% up and that
> no email will be lost if it crashes.  We all strive to prevent
> catastrophic loss, but it still occurs.  We also cannot ensure that
> recipient's machines will always be "up" and running that they will always
> have access to the internet.

  Also true here as well.  However this is hardly and argument that
the personal and private contact information need to be listed in a
Whois search.

>  I have more than one connection and have
> occasionally had them both down at the same time.  In case of power
> outages and storms, we have been down for days a time.  Generators and
> UPS's run only so long and then they are down as well.
>
> I think it is encumbant upon those who wish to serve notice to do so in a
> manner that is most accurate and e-mail is NOT it.

  Perhaps so.  However again such information is not necessary to have
publicly available in a whois lookup search results.  In other words
the Registry should be contacted via a legal filing if it is so necessary
to contact that individual or admin. contact them regarding a Domain
Name or DNSO problem.

>
>
> Leah
>
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:03:11 -0600, "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >As far as I know, domain names are used mostly for websites. I know they
> >have other uses, but I was under the impression that the foremost concern
> is
> >with regard to domain names used for websites.
>
> Just because most are used for websites is no reason to implement
> rules for all domain names that only apply if there is a website.
>
> >With regard to your second paragraph, as I said before, if you own a
> >business, you must tend to it.
>
> Umm, where on earth do you get the notion that all websites are
> commercial?  Many websites are personal or non commercial.  Rather
> rough if you have the same surname as a trademark and you go away on
> holiday to find your personal website gone when you get back.
>
> >As for your firewall idea, well, the hole point of my idea is that proof
> of
> >the e-mail being sent should be issued by the website for which it is
> used,
> >by a print out of the acknowledgment of receipt that it would issue.
>
> So you want every website in the world to be forced to have an auto
> responder bot for e-mail just to cover the one in one hundred thousand
> possibility that someone thinks your whois details are incorrect.
>
> >It's just a wild thought anyway, but thanks for paying so much attention
> to
> >it.
>
> Very very wild.
>
> DPF
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 00:05:19 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] UDRP "Studies" from UDRP Taskforce.  Work assingments?!!

All former DNSO GA members,

  Some of you may be very interested if viewing the following from
the UDRP Task force:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00530.html
Subject line is "Work Assignments".

  I found this subject line to be rather odd for a task force activity.
And "Studies" as being work assignments also to be a bit odd
for a Task Force activity as well...

  In any event there were some interesting "Studies" listed:
 http://www.intellecprop.mpg.de/Online-Publikationen/2002/UDRP-study-final-02.pdf

This is a big file...
 http://www.kentlaw.edu/depts/ipp/intl-courts/docs/dh.pdf
From or assigned to M. Scott Donahey
 http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistudrp.pdf
Assigned to Ethan Katsh* and Dan Steinberg
 http://www.inta.org/downloads/tap_udrp_2paper2002.pdf
Also this one seems to be assigned to Ethan Katsh* and Dan Steinberg
as well as this one:  http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistintaresp.pdf
 http://www.udrplaw.net/UDRPReview1.htm
Which I had posted to this forum on Thursday, is assigned to:
Tim Cole
 http://www.acm.org/usacm/IG/roughjustice.pdf
Are assigned to Philip Sheppard

  One might also want to take a look at closely:
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/doc00048.doc

  In any event, as registrants and now disenfranchised stakeholders
it may be a good idea for all of us here to review these "Studies"
and documents and offer our own individual critiques on them
to the UDRP Task force so that they have a representative
perspective instead of their personal opinions...

  I hope that the UDRP Task force members will seriously consider
those perspectives and opinions as we present them...

  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, 11 Jan 2003 01:57:48 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: 15 day period issue to: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Leah and all former DNSO GA members,

  First off it seems that at least one of the Whois task force members
is not interested in hearing or knowing some interested parties or
stakeholders views or ideas what so ever to some extent.
See: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00024.html

( More comments/observations and considerations below yours Leah )

L. Gallegos wrote:

>  Domain name contacts should timely tend to their domains and
> >make sure that their details remain updated. Even if you're away on
> holiday,
> >staying in touch is not that hard anymore.
>
> Just for the sake of example:
>
> Registrant visits parents who live in rural area and do not even have a
> computer.

  One can always address this problem by carrying a PDA with cell
modem to get their e-mail if need be.  However this is still a almost
good example as in some VERY remote areas outside of the US
PDA's would not be helpful here.  But those situations would be
VERY extreme ones...

>
>
> Registrant takes vacation in national wildlife refuge or national park -
> camping trip, boating trip or any other non-city trip.

  Again carrying a PDA with cell phone modem would work well for this
type situation.  Any responsible Domain Name holder could and should
do this if their  vacation in national wildlife refuge or national park -
camping trip, boating trip is going to be longer that a few days...
I have one 24/7 for instance...

>
>
> Registrant is out of the country - no internet connection.

Again any responsible registrant should have a PDA with cell
phone modem and international capability to address this situation.
However there are some countries that do not have Cellular
capability yet, but they are getting fewer and fewer...

>
>
> Registrant is hospitalized.

  This is a very legitimate one here Leah!

  Another would be a honeymoon I would think as well...

>
>
> I'm sure we could come up with a hundred legitimate reasons for a contact
> persons to not be available for 15 days.  Heck, I visted my daughter for a
> week and had no internet access, no car... My purpose was to see my child,
> not get my email.  That's what vacations are all about.

  Agreed.  And 15 days is just not reasonable amount of time anyway if
it is dealing with a potential legal matter regarding a DN registration...

  The problem here really is that the BC and the IPC want to eliminate
as many  as possible .ORG  .COM and .NET TLD's registrations especially
and than use WLS or some other similar service to scarf up these DN's
for themselves while at the same time making twice the registration fee
or more for each of these desired Domain Names held by existing
registrants.  It is a plain and simple trap that they seem to be wishing to
set, And/or these sort of folks wish to capture even more of the Name
Space than they already have filed UDRP claims or legal claims that
failed to get them what they wanted...  This is especially true
in other communication that I have had or received of the MPAA
as well as some organizational members of the ISOC.

  The MPAA's public comments on Whois can be found here:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00036.html

  For instance the MPAA's lobbying capabilities are formidable.
Jack Velenti the MPAA as FEO and president of the MPAA
has been all over the globe preaching the evils of Piracy
of Intellectual Property and extra legal protections for copyrights
and Trademark's.  Although he is quite right on the piracy
issue as to TM's and Copyrights he is dated at best and far
off the mark IOHO.  We also believe that he is over embellishing
the Piracy problems especially in the EU and Russia.  But he
is none the less very formidable and persuasive to many.
See:http://www.mpaa.org/jack/ and http://www.mpaa.org/jack/jack/index.htm
I respect Jack very much and his many good works and efforts for
his contributions to his country.  I share many like experiences with him
myself as do a number of our members, and I am sure many several on this forum

do as well..  Yet we cannot and should not expect to sacrifice personal
privacy and security for special interests for to do so threatens the very
fabric of our society and the present and future safety of our children and
future generations..  Our very democracy and open market system depends
on insuring that good folks like Jack Valenti can be brought back into
a much more reasonable and proper perspective..

Other IP positions for the comment period of interest that need addressing:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00028.html
< Note our position supported Wendy Seltzer's desenting view at the bottom
of this submittel. >
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00031.html
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00035.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00037.html
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00029.html

>
>
> Leah
>
> --
> 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 214-244-3801
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, 11 Jan 2003 03:04:41 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, at 02:15 [=GMT-0800], George Kirikos wrote:

> For UDRP, there's less pressure on the 20 day period,
> as the real time period for losing the name is 20 days + time for
> WIPO/NAF to render a verdict + time for appeal, which might add up to
> 60 days or more before losing a domain.

Wait, wait, wait. You have 20 days for the response. And to find the money
for a three member panel. Going to court is only for those who can afford
it.

- --
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, 11 Jan 2003 17:25:48 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

David, you are a great resource to help us find out more about what ccTLDs do... in this area.  Do you know what Domainz does? Is there a way to find out what some of the larger ccTLDs do? Such as .de; .uk; .au; .fr; etc.? Perhaps there is learning which the gTLDs can take from the ccTLDs. Many ccTLDs have regisrtrations from other countries so have the postal delivery issues as well. 

I'd be happy to post any relevant and factual responses we might be able to get to the WHOIS TF list. 

Regards, Marilyn Cade

- -----Original Message-----
From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:47 PM
To: Vittorio Bertola
Cc: [email-masked]; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA;
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1552
*************************