Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1556
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, January 17 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1556

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:26:55 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU-T Workshop on Member States' Experiences with ccTLDs

Dear Mr. Richard,
I searched but could not find your mission statement.
Will you please forward to list.
e

[email-masked] wrote:

> Given the interest expressed in the ITU-T Workshop on 3-4 March 2003 on
> Member States' Experiences with ccTLDs, it has been decided to offer
> interpretation during the workshop.
>
> Also, participants who have not yet made hotel reservations should do so,
> since there is a shortage of hotel rooms in Geneva on that date.
>
> Details of the above (and additional information on hotels) can be found in
> Addendum 1 of ITU-T Circular 135, available at:
>
>   http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/cctld/135add1e.doc
>
> And on the Workshop site at:
>
>   http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/cctld/index.html
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Richard Hill
> Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
> International Telecommunication Union
> Place des Nations
> CH-1211 Geneva 20
> Switzerland
> tel: +41 22 730 5887
> FAX: +41 22 730 5853
> Email: [email-masked]
> Study Group 2 email: [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
- --
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, 15 Jan 2003 16:23:45 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] ITU-T Workshop on Member States' Experiences with ccTLDs

I'm not sure what you mean by "mission statement".  All the info is on the
page:

  http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/cctld/index.html

Best,
Richard

- -----------------------------------------
Richard Hill
Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
International Telecommunication Union
Place des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
tel: +41 22 730 5887
FAX: +41 22 730 5853
Email: [email-masked]
Study Group 2 email: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 January 2003 16:27
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] ITU-T Workshop on Member States' Experiences with
> ccTLDs
> 
> 
> Dear Mr. Richard,
> I searched but could not find your mission statement.
> Will you please forward to list.
> e
> 
> 
- --
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, 15 Jan 2003 18:16:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ecdiscuss] KIDS.EU perhaps?  A potential proposal?

Oliver and all,

  Thank you Oliver for chiming in on my suggestion for such a proposal.
Child.EU at least would seem to be a good idea as a proposal as a 2ndlvl
DN for Children in the EU.  ENFANT.EU, seems to be a little too
french centric, but may indeed have possibilities in France or other
predominantly french speaking countries.  Perhaps
ENFANT.FR would be a more viable consideration?
I know that many of our EU members would be interested in such
a dedicated or special registry for children in the EU as well
as France.

  I personally would be interested in seeing the ITU and .INT get
behind or consider a KIDS.INT or CHILD.INT as a non-profit
registry for children.

Olivier Guillard / AFNIC wrote:

> Here in France we say "enfant".
>
> If child.eu is a legitimate european demand and effectively
> delegated with the benediction of the .eu registry, I would
> be quite surprised to not also see delegated enfant.eu.
>
> Regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> le mardi 14 janvier à 20 H 39 , InvictaNet Customer Support a écrit :
> > A kid is the young of the goat.
> > The young of a human is a child.
> >
> > Unless of course, you are saying that young goats need their own sld.
> >
> >
> > Martyn Routley
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: 14 January 2003 21:32
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ecdiscuss] KIDS.EU perhaps? A potential proposal?
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> >   Given that the US has KIDS.US perhaps the EU would be interested
> > or motivated to have a KIDS.EU for European Children?  Just a thought..
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > ================================================================
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail [email-masked]
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by the http://www.anti84787.com MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Olivier

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 15 Jan 2003 18:53:20 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: FC: Supreme Court upholds copyright extension law in 7-2 ruling

Declan and all,

  Thanks Declan for forwarding this monumental decision along.

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Photos from Supreme Court arguments in October 2002:
> http://www.politechbot.com/p-04058.html
>
> Politech archive on the case:
> http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=eldred
>
> AP article:
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=&e=4&u=/ap/20030115/ap_on_bi_ge/scotus_copyrights
>
> ---
>
> Subject: Eldred
> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:20:34 -0500
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> From: "Gossett, David M." <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
>
> Declan:  Larry just lost Eldred, 7-2.  The opinion isn't yet publicly
> available on the net, but will be momentarily.
>
> ___________________________________________
> David M. Gossett ++ Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw
> 1909 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006
> T: 202.263.3384     F: 202.263.5384
> [email-masked]
> www.appellate.net/gossett
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 15 Jan 2003 20:43:00 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Barcelona.com Appeals hearing pending...

All former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  Barcelona.com case back in the news.  Seems yet again another
city name claming precedent for a DN containing that cities
name is again facing legal challenges.  UDRP does not address
such situations adequately as we [INEGroup] predicted and
argued with WIPO and ICANN.  The chicken has yet
again come home to roost!
See: http://www.udrplaw.net/ExclusiveNews18.htm

  Other cases regarding City Names and Domain Names
can be found at: http://www.udrplaw.net/CityNamesresources.htm

  I have noticed that Dallas, a city which I live very close to,
does not seem to find this to be a problem.  See below
the Whois Listing for Dallas.com..

  Another list of cities in the US that also don't seem to have
a problem with other stakeholders holding the DN's associated
with their cities can be found here:
http://www.boulevards.com/

Registrant:
                 Boulevards New Media, Inc. (DALLAS5-DOM)
                    550 South First Street
                    San Jose, CA 95113
                    US

                    Domain Name: DALLAS.COM

                    Administrative Contact:
                       Domain Name Manager  (DN93-ORG)
[email-masked]
                       Boulevards New Media Inc.
                       PO Box 28
                       San Jose, CA 95103-0028
                       US
                       408 271-3500 x257
                       Fax- ÿÿÿÿ
                    Technical Contact:
                       Manager, Domain Technical  (UQPOEHONRI)
[email-masked]
                       Boulevards New Media, Inc.
                       550 South First Street
                       San Jose, CA  95113
                       US
                       408-271-3500

                    Record expires on 25-Jul-2003.
                    Record created on 26-Jul-1996.
                    Database last updated on 15-Jan-2003 21:23:04 EST.

                    Domain servers in listed order:

                    NS1.BOULEVARDS.COM           66.220.23.114
                    NS2.BOULEVARDS.COM           66.220.23.115
============================================

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 16 Jan 2003 00:00:34 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WHOIS and Spam - NC WHOIS task force says survey shows no connection?

All former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  I just returned from a teleconference on a continuing meeting on
SPAM this evening by the OECD  in Hawaii.  I took a little time
to see how things with the Whois TF are progressing in respect to the
OECD meetings thus far.  I noticed a couple of posts from Bruce Tonkin
and Marilyn Cade regarding "Whois and Spam".
See:http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00830.html
and  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00829.html

These posts seem to indicate that there is not connection with SPAM
and WHois data.  However one of the specific concerns at the
OECD meeting regarding SPAM was indeed that Whois data
is a primary source for SPAM purveyors which was outlined
specifically by one of the speakers that is a self admitted
SPAMMER.  Hence I am curious as I also filled out the
survey for myself as well as for our [INEGroup] Members
how such a false and unreasonable conclusion could be arrived
at?

  Could the WHOIS TF provide some actual results of the
survey that shows some correlation to such a conclusion?

 Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 16 Jan 2003 08:10:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Delete Microsoft.COM in 15 days from NOW!

I just got an enormous shock. I noticed that the whois data for
microsoft.com are incomplete or false or ficticious or all three.

They say (no I am not making this up, they do):

Registrant:
Microsoft Corporation (MICROSOFT-DOM)
   1 microsoft way
    null
   US

So, a misleading, incorrect, false city! And no state at all, though they
are in the US and must have a state.

And I think, given that they hide the place and state where they are, that
the street name is made up. "1 microsoft way" for a company called
"microsoft"? Can't they come up with something less obvious?

So: Herewith notified. Correct within 15 days. If not delete it.

Oh, and stop resolving it now. Throw it out of the com zone immediately.

Weren't these the recommendations of the whois tf?

Let us set an example to get the message into the hard heads of all those
cybersquatters and outlaws and terrorists and pirates and so-called
freedom fighters and privacy advocates!

Will somebody at Microsoft actually read email send to
[email-masked] before the domain stops working? Will a snail mail
letter arrive at the address above? Should I call 425 882 8080?

- -- 
[13] Certified virus free.
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: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 02:56:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delete Microsoft.COM in 15 days from NOW!

Marc and all former DNSO GA members,

  I believe that Verisgn is the registry in perpetuity of .COM.
Hence it would seem to me that Verisign is responsible in part for
this gross oversight.  Hence whatever policies that they have
for WHois, which follows currently ICANN's "Current"
Whois policy, is their own affair.

  BTW ICANN.ORG Whois Data is incorrectly listed as well...
(See below)  No registrant contact listed.  Just a generic E-Mail
address of [email-masked]...
Is a 15 day notice in order for ICANN as well?

  So do we have a goose-gander situation here?  >;)

rganization:
                       Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN)
                       (ICANN) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers
                       4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
                       Marina del Rey, CA 92092
                       US
                       Phone: 310-823-9358
                       Fax..: 310-823-8649
                       Email: [email-masked]

                    Registrar Name....: Register.com
                    Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
                    Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com

                    Domain Name: ICANN.ORG

                       Created on..............: Mon, Sep 14, 1998
                       Expires on..............: Wed, Dec 07, 2011
                       Record last updated on..: Mon, Oct 21, 2002

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> I just got an enormous shock. I noticed that the whois data for
> microsoft.com are incomplete or false or ficticious or all three.
>
> They say (no I am not making this up, they do):
>
> Registrant:
> Microsoft Corporation (MICROSOFT-DOM)
>    1 microsoft way
>     null
>    US
>
> So, a misleading, incorrect, false city! And no state at all, though they
> are in the US and must have a state.
>
> And I think, given that they hide the place and state where they are, that
> the street name is made up. "1 microsoft way" for a company called
> "microsoft"? Can't they come up with something less obvious?
>
> So: Herewith notified. Correct within 15 days. If not delete it.
>
> Oh, and stop resolving it now. Throw it out of the com zone immediately.
>
> Weren't these the recommendations of the whois tf?
>
> Let us set an example to get the message into the hard heads of all those
> cybersquatters and outlaws and terrorists and pirates and so-called
> freedom fighters and privacy advocates!
>
> Will somebody at Microsoft actually read email send to
> [email-masked] before the domain stops working? Will a snail mail
> letter arrive at the address above? Should I call 425 882 8080?
>
> --
> [13] Certified virus free.
> 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

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 16 Jan 2003 09:35:07 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delete Microsoft.COM in 15 days from NOW!

1 Microsoft way is the actuall address of the corporation.  The state is 
missing, but that is easily corrected.  In any case, is there anyone who 
doesn't know that M$ is located in Redmond, Washington? :)  It's on 
millions of documents.

In any case, why does one need to have the street address in the whois?  
The only thing the database needs to publish is the tech contact email or 
phone.

Leah

On 16 Jan 2003 at 2:56, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Marc and all former DNSO GA members,
> 
>   I believe that Verisgn is the registry in perpetuity of .COM.
> Hence it would seem to me that Verisign is responsible in part for
> this gross oversight.  Hence whatever policies that they have
> for WHois, which follows currently ICANN's "Current"
> Whois policy, is their own affair.
> 
>   BTW ICANN.ORG Whois Data is incorrectly listed as well...
> (See below)  No registrant contact listed.  Just a generic E-Mail
> address of [email-masked]...
> Is a 15 day notice in order for ICANN as well?
> 
>   So do we have a goose-gander situation here?  >;)
> 
> rganization:
>                        Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN)
>                        (ICANN) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers
>                        4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
>                        Marina del Rey, CA 92092
>                        US
>                        Phone: 310-823-9358
>                        Fax..: 310-823-8649
>                        Email: [email-masked]
> 
>                     Registrar Name....: Register.com
>                     Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
>                     Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
> 
>                     Domain Name: ICANN.ORG
> 
>                        Created on..............: Mon, Sep 14, 1998
>                        Expires on..............: Wed, Dec 07, 2011
>                        Record last updated on..: Mon, Oct 21, 2002
> 
> Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> > I just got an enormous shock. I noticed that the whois data for
> > microsoft.com are incomplete or false or ficticious or all three.
> >
> > They say (no I am not making this up, they do):
> >
> > Registrant:
> > Microsoft Corporation (MICROSOFT-DOM)
> >    1 microsoft way
> >     null
> >    US
> >
> > So, a misleading, incorrect, false city! And no state at all, though they
> > are in the US and must have a state.
> >
> > And I think, given that they hide the place and state where they are, that
> > the street name is made up. "1 microsoft way" for a company called
> > "microsoft"? Can't they come up with something less obvious?
> >
> > So: Herewith notified. Correct within 15 days. If not delete it.
> >
> > Oh, and stop resolving it now. Throw it out of the com zone immediately.
> >
> > Weren't these the recommendations of the whois tf?
> >
> > Let us set an example to get the message into the hard heads of all those
> > cybersquatters and outlaws and terrorists and pirates and so-called
> > freedom fighters and privacy advocates!
> >
> > Will somebody at Microsoft actually read email send to
> > [email-masked] before the domain stops working? Will a snail mail
> > letter arrive at the address above? Should I call 425 882 8080?
> >
> > --
> > [13] Certified virus free.
> > 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
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
> ================================================================
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:35:07 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delete Microsoft.COM in 15 days from NOW!

1 Microsoft way is the actuall address of the corporation.  The state is 
missing, but that is easily corrected.  In any case, is there anyone who 
doesn't know that M$ is located in Redmond, Washington? :)  It's on 
millions of documents.

In any case, why does one need to have the street address in the whois?  
The only thing the database needs to publish is the tech contact email or 
phone.

Leah

On 16 Jan 2003 at 2:56, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Marc and all former DNSO GA members,
> 
>   I believe that Verisgn is the registry in perpetuity of .COM.
> Hence it would seem to me that Verisign is responsible in part for
> this gross oversight.  Hence whatever policies that they have
> for WHois, which follows currently ICANN's "Current"
> Whois policy, is their own affair.
> 
>   BTW ICANN.ORG Whois Data is incorrectly listed as well...
> (See below)  No registrant contact listed.  Just a generic E-Mail
> address of [email-masked]...
> Is a 15 day notice in order for ICANN as well?
> 
>   So do we have a goose-gander situation here?  >;)
> 
> rganization:
>                        Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN)
>                        (ICANN) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers
>                        4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
>                        Marina del Rey, CA 92092
>                        US
>                        Phone: 310-823-9358
>                        Fax..: 310-823-8649
>                        Email: [email-masked]
> 
>                     Registrar Name....: Register.com
>                     Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
>                     Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
> 
>                     Domain Name: ICANN.ORG
> 
>                        Created on..............: Mon, Sep 14, 1998
>                        Expires on..............: Wed, Dec 07, 2011
>                        Record last updated on..: Mon, Oct 21, 2002
> 
> Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> > I just got an enormous shock. I noticed that the whois data for
> > microsoft.com are incomplete or false or ficticious or all three.
> >
> > They say (no I am not making this up, they do):
> >
> > Registrant:
> > Microsoft Corporation (MICROSOFT-DOM)
> >    1 microsoft way
> >     null
> >    US
> >
> > So, a misleading, incorrect, false city! And no state at all, though they
> > are in the US and must have a state.
> >
> > And I think, given that they hide the place and state where they are, that
> > the street name is made up. "1 microsoft way" for a company called
> > "microsoft"? Can't they come up with something less obvious?
> >
> > So: Herewith notified. Correct within 15 days. If not delete it.
> >
> > Oh, and stop resolving it now. Throw it out of the com zone immediately.
> >
> > Weren't these the recommendations of the whois tf?
> >
> > Let us set an example to get the message into the hard heads of all those
> > cybersquatters and outlaws and terrorists and pirates and so-called
> > freedom fighters and privacy advocates!
> >
> > Will somebody at Microsoft actually read email send to
> > [email-masked] before the domain stops working? Will a snail mail
> > letter arrive at the address above? Should I call 425 882 8080?
> >
> > --
> > [13] Certified virus free.
> > 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
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
> ================================================================
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 04:06:44 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delete Microsoft.COM in 15 days from NOW!

On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, at 09:35 [=GMT-0500], L. Gallegos wrote:

> 1 Microsoft way is the actuall address of the corporation.  The state is
> missing, but that is easily corrected.  In any case, is there anyone who
> doesn't know that M$ is located in Redmond, Washington? :)  It's on
> millions of documents.

I am sure. But where does this end? Am I also famous enough to get away
with incorrect or missing data, because they are easy to find elsewhere?

> In any case, why does one need to have the street address in the whois?
> The only thing the database needs to publish is the tech contact email or
> phone.

That would be nice, but it won't happen. So it is important that we now
see to what the ideas of enforcement of whois accuracy may lead.

- --
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 #1556
*************************