Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1568
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, January 27 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1568

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 17:44:43 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [Ecommerce] privacy bill - Japan...

All Former DNSO GA members.

  From the Ecmom list.  Also see:
http://www.asahi.com/english/national/K2003012500211.html

=========copied post and my response starts here=========

Taleshi and all,

  Thank you Takeshi, for pointing this interesting bill out in Japan's
Diet.  As  you may know, Privacy in internet affairs is becoming a
bigger and bigger issue in the US as well...

Takeshi Muramoto wrote:

> >From Yomiuri Shimbun, January 25, 2003
>
> http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/index-e.htm
>
> Privacy bill sets harsher penalties
>
> Government employees could be sentenced to up to two years in prison or
> fined up to 1 million yen for violating an envisaged law aimed at protecting
> the confidentiality of personal information held by the state, government
> sources said Thursday.
>
> The bill to be submitted by the government to the current Diet session in
> mid-February would impose even harsher penalties on officials who unlawfully
> provide lists of individuals and other personal information from government
> files to third parties.
>
> The bill also provides for sentences of up to one year imprisonment and
> fines of up to 500,000 yen for government workers who collect personal
> information for purposes unrelated to their duties. This represents an
> effort to prevent irregularities similar to the information-seeker list
> scandal that rocked the Defense Agency in May.
>
> The extraordinary Diet session convened last autumn scrapped a similar bill.
> The government is applying the finishing touches to the new bill, which it
> plans to present to the current Diet session.
>
> The bill would cover employees at administrative institutions and
> corporations commissioned by government organs to handle personal
> information.
>
> In March 2002, the government submitted to the Diet an initial bill on the
> confidentiality of personal information possessed by government offices. The
> bill did not include penalties for government employee who provided personal
> information to a third party or gathered personal data for purposes
> unrelated to their duties.
>
> At the time, the government defended the bill on the grounds that government
> workers are legally required to protect the confidentiality of information
> obtained in connection with their duties and therefore the confidentiality
> of such information was ensured under the National Civil Service Law and the
> Criminal Code.
>
> In May 2002, however, it was found that Defense Agency officials had
> produced files on a list of individuals and private organizations that had
> sought Defense Agency and Self-Defense Forces documents under the Freedom of
> Information Law. The officials involved were punished under the Self-Defense
> Forces Law.
>
> Takeshi Muramoto
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecommerce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce

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: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 05:19:41 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Why is it impossible to change .com.cn nameservers?

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, at 00:18 [=GMT-0600], Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 5:32 AM +0100 1/25/03, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >But Scotland doesn't belong to you, does it? So why should you have it?
> >It belongs to the Crown. Be careful, since the Queen already filed a WIPO
> >complaint for one of her dominions. And that was the furthest away from
> >her throne. She may fight harder this time since Scotland is so close, and
> >brings in more tax.
>
> So the Monarchy should have control of a domain in China's part of the name
> space?

Well, if She thinks She should have newzealand.com, as She did, while .com
is certainly not in Her jurisdiction, why could She not claim a very tiny
part of China in cyberspace? Since She has given up Hong-Kong to China, we
all know that She is no longer imperialistic. So don't give me that now.

> That's an interesting argument.

I was merely warning an innocent subject for a trial for lese-majesty. You
may not know that, but in the UK they take that still very seriously
indeed.

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 06:16:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Round-robin process... a Registry leader joins the debate

The reason why ICANN does nothing against small registrars that only serve
themselves, is that they get money for each accreditation, and each year.
The more registrars, the better for ICANN.

So do not blame the registrars, blame ICANN, which is the market
regulator. ICANN sets the entry price into the domain name registrar
business. It sets this price too high for you and me, at a level that only
better businessmen can afford.

ICANN collects money from the registries as well as from the registrars.
ICANN determines who can be a registry and who a registrar. ICANN can
change who runs a registry. ICANN demands that the registries only sell
through the registrars. So ICANN controls the market 100%. If ICANN lets
in a bunch of self-serving registrars, that doesn't do ICANN any harm. It
still controls 100% of the market. As soon as ICANN is going to impose
real rules on the registrars, they will see each other in court. And we
will all see sooner or later that it is run as a kartel (ab)using a public
good, vid. the root or namespace.

- -- 
[02] I will be happy to answer any questions.
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: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 06:35:11 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Why is it impossible to change .com.cn nameservers?

Let me first state that this whole discussion has become obsolete by a
discovery that I mention below. So if you expect anything in the line of
the subject, please stop reading now.

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, at 11:36 [=GMT-0000], Richard Henderson wrote:

> No Marc, Scotland is NOT on the country names list, as it is a REGION of the
> UK, not a separate country

I now see that it is fully irrelevant whether Scotland is a country, since
.CN is not under ICANN. So it does not have to follow the ICANN country
list.

> (at least, that's the political reality although
> I would personally prefer Scotland to be independent under the right
> circumstances).

Mmmm. That would mean that you might put up political content for Scottish
independence? This may then be what is causing the delay. You cannot use
.CN domains for treasonous activities of any kind.

> You ask why should I have this domain?

It is clear to me now.

- --
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: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 01:19:42 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Round-robin process... a Registry leader joins the debate

Marc and all FOrmer DNSO GA members,

  ICANN is indeed partly to blame, and certainly responsible for
oversight and policing of their accredited registrars, or at least should be.
However this is NOT an excuse for poor business practice of any sort
from that registrar or registry.  One must also remember that DOC/NTIA
is also in part responsible as well as ICANN is contracted to DOC/NTIA
and has oversight of ICANN under contract.

  That said and hopefully understood yet again, it also has been
known for sometime that ICANN shirks it's oversight responsibilities
of it's Registrars and Registries as the Accreditation agreements have
no real teeth for enforcement, and DOC/NTIA only has one course
of action if ICANN cannot perform adequately, and that is to
rebid the contracts to another entity other than ICANN..

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> The reason why ICANN does nothing against small registrars that only serve
> themselves, is that they get money for each accreditation, and each year.
> The more registrars, the better for ICANN.
>
> So do not blame the registrars, blame ICANN, which is the market
> regulator. ICANN sets the entry price into the domain name registrar
> business. It sets this price too high for you and me, at a level that only
> better businessmen can afford.
>
> ICANN collects money from the registries as well as from the registrars.
> ICANN determines who can be a registry and who a registrar. ICANN can
> change who runs a registry. ICANN demands that the registries only sell
> through the registrars. So ICANN controls the market 100%. If ICANN lets
> in a bunch of self-serving registrars, that doesn't do ICANN any harm. It
> still controls 100% of the market. As soon as ICANN is going to impose
> real rules on the registrars, they will see each other in court. And we
> will all see sooner or later that it is run as a kartel (ab)using a public
> good, vid. the root or namespace.
>
> --
> [02] I will be happy to answer any questions.
> 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

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: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 04:41:15 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Round-robin process... a Registry leader joins the debate

Why do doctors suffer from illness due to overwork?
Why are most psychiatrists crazy?
Why do lawyers have legal problems?
Why do parents need nurturing?

Why does ICANN not know how to run an internet from the bottom up?

The answer is not difficult. When one sees oneself as more important
than the
goal - then you a screwed.
Here the self is corporate and personal survival rather than the goal of
the use
of the Internet to better mankind.
e

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Marc and all FOrmer DNSO GA members,
>
>   ICANN is indeed partly to blame, and certainly responsible for
> oversight and policing of their accredited registrars, or at least should be.
> However this is NOT an excuse for poor business practice of any sort
> from that registrar or registry.  One must also remember that DOC/NTIA
> is also in part responsible as well as ICANN is contracted to DOC/NTIA
> and has oversight of ICANN under contract.
>
>   That said and hopefully understood yet again, it also has been
> known for sometime that ICANN shirks it's oversight responsibilities
> of it's Registrars and Registries as the Accreditation agreements have
> no real teeth for enforcement, and DOC/NTIA only has one course
> of action if ICANN cannot perform adequately, and that is to
> rebid the contracts to another entity other than ICANN..
>
> Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > The reason why ICANN does nothing against small registrars that only serve
> > themselves, is that they get money for each accreditation, and each year.
> > The more registrars, the better for ICANN.
> >
> > So do not blame the registrars, blame ICANN, which is the market
> > regulator. ICANN sets the entry price into the domain name registrar
> > business. It sets this price too high for you and me, at a level that only
> > better businessmen can afford.
> >
> > ICANN collects money from the registries as well as from the registrars.
> > ICANN determines who can be a registry and who a registrar. ICANN can
> > change who runs a registry. ICANN demands that the registries only sell
> > through the registrars. So ICANN controls the market 100%. If ICANN lets
> > in a bunch of self-serving registrars, that doesn't do ICANN any harm. It
> > still controls 100% of the market. As soon as ICANN is going to impose
> > real rules on the registrars, they will see each other in court. And we
> > will all see sooner or later that it is run as a kartel (ab)using a public
> > good, vid. the root or namespace.
> >
> > --
> > [02] I will be happy to answer any questions.
> > 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
>
> 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
- --
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: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 15:51:12 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Round-robin process... a Registry leader joins the debate

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

  Nice drawing of comparisons here Eric.  Well done!

  When the goal is seemingly one of egotistical self aggrandizement,
than the almost certain results is less than it could or should be...
This seems to be the essence of ICANN's collective attitude.
The problem is worsened because this sort of attitude is like
a human virus, or communicable disease, it grows to such
proportions that huge numbers of stakeholders/users are
infected affected that you end up with a catastrophic
destructive and/or disruptive pestilence....

[email-masked] wrote:

> Why do doctors suffer from illness due to overwork?
> Why are most psychiatrists crazy?
> Why do lawyers have legal problems?
> Why do parents need nurturing?
>
> Why does ICANN not know how to run an internet from the bottom up?
>
> The answer is not difficult. When one sees oneself as more important
> than the
> goal - then you a screwed.
> Here the self is corporate and personal survival rather than the goal of
> the use
> of the Internet to better mankind.
> e
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Marc and all FOrmer DNSO GA members,
> >
> >   ICANN is indeed partly to blame, and certainly responsible for
> > oversight and policing of their accredited registrars, or at least should be.
> > However this is NOT an excuse for poor business practice of any sort
> > from that registrar or registry.  One must also remember that DOC/NTIA
> > is also in part responsible as well as ICANN is contracted to DOC/NTIA
> > and has oversight of ICANN under contract.
> >
> >   That said and hopefully understood yet again, it also has been
> > known for sometime that ICANN shirks it's oversight responsibilities
> > of it's Registrars and Registries as the Accreditation agreements have
> > no real teeth for enforcement, and DOC/NTIA only has one course
> > of action if ICANN cannot perform adequately, and that is to
> > rebid the contracts to another entity other than ICANN..
> >
> > Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >
> > > The reason why ICANN does nothing against small registrars that only serve
> > > themselves, is that they get money for each accreditation, and each year.
> > > The more registrars, the better for ICANN.
> > >
> > > So do not blame the registrars, blame ICANN, which is the market
> > > regulator. ICANN sets the entry price into the domain name registrar
> > > business. It sets this price too high for you and me, at a level that only
> > > better businessmen can afford.
> > >
> > > ICANN collects money from the registries as well as from the registrars.
> > > ICANN determines who can be a registry and who a registrar. ICANN can
> > > change who runs a registry. ICANN demands that the registries only sell
> > > through the registrars. So ICANN controls the market 100%. If ICANN lets
> > > in a bunch of self-serving registrars, that doesn't do ICANN any harm. It
> > > still controls 100% of the market. As soon as ICANN is going to impose
> > > real rules on the registrars, they will see each other in court. And we
> > > will all see sooner or later that it is run as a kartel (ab)using a public
> > > good, vid. the root or namespace.
> > >
> > > --
> > > [02] I will be happy to answer any questions.
> > > 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
> >
> > 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

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: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 06:30:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ATTN Nancy Victory NTIA (fwd)

anyone have the answer to this one?

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 06:28:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: ATTN Nancy Victory NTIA

ATTN: Nancy Victory, Assistant Secretary, NTIA
      Kathy Smith, Chief Counsel, NTIA

REF: http://secure.dot-god.com/information/doc/doc-jan-21-2002.html

I need an answer to a specific question.

Who would I serve a judicial order on (NTIA? DOC? NSI? VeriSign? ICANN?)
in order to remore an top level domain from the root?

Cheers
Joe Baptista

- --
Planet Communications & Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited

- --
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 #1568
*************************