Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1576
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, February 6 2003         Volume 01 : Number 1576

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

Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 01:11:13 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

On 20:57 04/02/03, George Kirikos said:
>Hi Steven,
>--- Steven Heath <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > and a thought came to mind. Just as there is a "robots.txt"
> > standard
> > > for webcrawlers like Google, how about having a whois.txt standard
> > > that folks can optionally use on their websites?
> >
> > Interesting yet flawed idea.
>
>I'm glad you found it interesting. :) Just to be clear, I didn't want
>it to be a *replacement* of the existing WHOIS -- just perhaps an
>add-on, to those who want to provide more details that can't fit in
>existing WHOIS, etc. i.e. an enhanced contact system....

This is the old http://quiest.net concept we promoted for a long
and will implement soon in an application. There is more in this
that what you say.

1. we support the idea that domain names must be free and
    life long because they link (through IP addresses) mnemonics
    which are free to life long applications which may be free.

    In that economy there is no money left for the whois and there
    is noway for anyone to know what is anymore true.

2. the whois is actually accessed through HTTP by the users.
     so it is fallacious to use that "domain names are more
     than http related": they are at least whois/http related today.

     The QuiEst approach only makes the users to bear the cost
     and the responsibility of managing their own "WHOIS" page
     on an at least one page site (the address being
     http://quiest.domain.name it can be at a different site. So there
     is NO difference with the WHOIS, except that it is managed
     by the user, free format, legal, cheap to everyone, useful)

3. The WHOIS system creates a lot of legal issues because
     it is maintained by a third party. In the case of the QuiEst
     the http://quiest... file is maintained by the owner as a public
     file known to be looked by others to get informations. This
     makes it subject to the existing laws in every countries.

4. The QuiEst advantage is that you build your own page and
     can put many more information if you so wish. Also you
     can format it the way you want and put in here infos for
     the search engines, etc. and you can put your mail name
     as a gif or a jpeg file the spiders will not read. But that
     any tech-support will read.

You do not necessarily have to improve a mistake because
you use to do it, you can also change to a right thing. This
is something diffcult to accept, but after you feel better.

JFC

PS in case you do not grasp the French: "QuiEst" stands
for "Who Is" in Latin: a universal language for an universal
right; the right to introduce oneself by oneself.

- --
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, 5 Feb 2003 14:33:32 +1300 
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

> 
> 2. the whois is actually accessed through HTTP by the users.
>      so it is fallacious to use that "domain names are more
>      than http related": they are at least whois/http related today.

Just because one can access something via one means (in this case whois data
via http) does not mean that it IS http based.

This is like saying that as I use a 4 wheel drive vehicle on a motorway that
no other type of vehicle can be used.

My comment of whois should be 'application neutral' is in fact supported by
your comment about http access.

Finally your comment '...so it is fallacious to use that "domain names are
more
than http related"...' is in fact disingenuous as whois is NOT dependant or
solely used by http. They are only related in the fact one (http) CAN be
used to access other (whois).

I cant see much value in a http based applications having 'enhanced'
whois/domain name related information, but that's me. However, if others do
see the value then by all means do it.

Steven Heath
www.nznews.org.nz

- --
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, 04 Feb 2003 20:13:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

Steven and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  I think it is obvious that the Whois TF is constituted by relative
amateurs in IT technology as this final report obviously shows.

  Indeed you are quite right Whois has been, and should remain
Application neutral as you rightly indicate Steven..

Steven Heath wrote:

> >
> > 2. the whois is actually accessed through HTTP by the users.
> >      so it is fallacious to use that "domain names are more
> >      than http related": they are at least whois/http related today.
>
> Just because one can access something via one means (in this case whois data
> via http) does not mean that it IS http based.
>
> This is like saying that as I use a 4 wheel drive vehicle on a motorway that
> no other type of vehicle can be used.
>
> My comment of whois should be 'application neutral' is in fact supported by
> your comment about http access.
>
> Finally your comment '...so it is fallacious to use that "domain names are
> more
> than http related"...' is in fact disingenuous as whois is NOT dependant or
> solely used by http. They are only related in the fact one (http) CAN be
> used to access other (whois).
>
> I cant see much value in a http based applications having 'enhanced'
> whois/domain name related information, but that's me. However, if others do
> see the value then by all means do it.
>
> Steven Heath
> www.nznews.org.nz
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 01:38:13 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

Dear Leah,
who in their right mind would want to rule anything about others without a 
proper mandate? If George wants to permit people to understand each others 
when they publish GPS data, OK with me. But when ICANN wants to oblige them 
not too or to publish their tel. nr. I disagree because I never voted for 
that and no one I voted for/against never directly or indirectly (by 
agreement, contract or mandate) granted them that right. jfc

On 22:50 04/02/03, L. Gallegos said:

>Good heavens, George.  Who in their right mind would want to publish GPS
>data, offices, banking data, or most of the other things you suggest for
>the world to mine?  In this day and age when security is a real issue and
>spam is the scourge of the internet, I would think that most people would
>refuse to provide this data for any world wide listing on the net.  Of
>course, attorneys and IP interests would love it as it would certainly
>save them money in harrassing people to death.  Spam professionals and
>even telemarketers would love it, too.  No thanks.
>
>Leah
>
>On 4 Feb 2003 at 11:57, George Kirikos wrote:
>
> >
> > 1. Other languages?
> > 2. Local offices?
> > 3. Legal contacts?
> > 4. Maps? (funky MapQuest links!)
> > 5. Associated companies?
> > 6. GPS data? (kind of like http://www.geourl.org/ which uses tags)
> > 7. Banking/payment data, e.g. where to wire $$$$
> > 8. Corporation numbers?
> > 9. DUNS numbers?
> > 10. Telex? (does anyone use this anymore?)
> > 11. CUSIP number?
> > 12. Stock symbol?
> > 13. Logo?
> > 14. Birthday? :) (for personal websites, remember, these are all
> > optional attributes!)
> >
>
>
>
>--
>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: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/03

- --
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, 04 Feb 2003 23:16:20 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

Karl and all former DNSO GA members,

  Perhaps Karl, you might want to take a look at http://www.xml.com
for some insights on XML based apps for Whois.

  I also understand that recently, Jan. 23? that RFC2068 has some
security holes in it that would be particularly impacting upon
strictly web based Whois apps form a security point of view,
not to mention many other areas...
See: http://www.whitehatsec.com/press_releases/WH-PR-20030120.txt
and http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0%2C3973%2C841144%2C00.asp

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> There is a rough convention about putting a zone's contact information
> into the zone records itself.  This convention is not much used and the
> formats are not universally applied, and credit for the idea has been
> attributed to several different people.
>
> For example, in my cavebear.com zone, I have a set of TXT records that may
> be retrieved by doing a TXT record query to "whois.cavebear.com".
>
> The result you will get is
>
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> whois.cavebear.com.     172800  IN      TXT     "fax-number: +1.831.423.8357"
> whois.cavebear.com.     172800  IN      TXT     "phone-number: +1.831.423.8585"
> whois.cavebear.com.     172800  IN      TXT     "address-1: 218 Carbonera Drive"
> whois.cavebear.com.     172800  IN      TXT     "address-2: Santa Cruz, CA 95060-1500"
> whois.cavebear.com.     172800  IN      TXT     "other-stuff: This site is operated by Karl Auerbach"
> whois.cavebear.com.     172800  IN      TXT     "address-3: USA"
> whois.cavebear.com.     172800  IN      TXT     "company-name: CaveBear"
>
> Some folks have adopted a more XML-like representation in the TXT records.
>
> The amount of text per name is limited, but with enough names and TXT
> records even large documents can be expressed.  For those who want to give
> it a whirl, run the following query and see what you get (expect about
> 525 lines of output).
>
>         dig @npax.cavebear.com mc.cavebear.com axfr
>
> The mechanism of putting the information into the zone itself lets the
> zone owner control exactly what is, or is not, published.
>
> The point of all of this is that there is no need of a public "whois" at
> all.  Sure, the registration businesses can keep their internal business
> records about who signed up for what and when they need to be rebilled to
> prevent the domain name remover from removing their domain names.  But
> those records need not be made available to the public, to those who mine
> data, or those who make claims they have special privleges to look.  And
> Trademark people can be, as they ought to be, required to demonstrate to a
> neutral magistrate that there is enough evidence of harm to the trademark
> owner's interests for them to have a peek at the registration data.
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:21:08 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, at 11:57 [=GMT-0800], George Kirikos wrote:

> 4. Maps? (funky MapQuest links!)
> 6. GPS data? (kind of like http://www.geourl.org/ which uses tags)

DNS already has the LOC record to do approximately something like this.

; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> fuchsia.bijt.net. loc

;; ANSWER SECTION:
fuchsia.bijt.net.       4h1s IN LOC     52 06 09.000 N 5 13 49.000 E 0.00m
1.00m 10000.00m 10.00m

So now you know where to srop the bomb :-) More about the LOC record
through a link at the bottom of http://bijt.net/.

For other type of contact data, new records have been introduced in
connection with Enum, mainly NAPTR. Through this you can indicate how you
want to be contacted. That is not necessarily the same as giving away all
your data to everyone.

- -- 
[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: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 05:03:43 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] BULK whois

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C2CC0A.CA768760
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Is there a BULK whois file for .info, .biz and .us like there is one for =
cno domains?=20
And how could one opt-out of this?

Thanks!
Simon

- ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C2CC0A.CA768760
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Is there a BULK whois file for .info, =
.biz and .us=20
like there is one for cno domains? <BR>And how could one opt-out of=20
this?<BR><BR>Thanks!<BR>Simon</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C2CC0A.CA768760--

- --
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, 5 Feb 2003 11:51:25 -0000
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI

Interesting viewpoints from Nominet

http://www.nominetnews.org.uk/jan03/government_international.htm

abel

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

Information in this electronic mail message is confidential and may be
privileged.

It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by
anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient any
use, disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is prohibited
and may be unlawful.

Any attachment has been checked for viruses, but please rely on your own
virus checker and procedures.

If you contact us by email we will store your name and address to
facilitate communications. 

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

Able Towers and Able Consultancy are tradenames of Moordata Ltd.

2 Brickett Close 
Ruislip
Middlesex
HA4 7YE 
UK
+44 1895 635413
+44 77 55255598

www.able-towers.com
www.url.org

best co-lo rates in the UK

- --
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, 05 Feb 2003 14:07:01 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

On this we agree.  If you "choose" to publish information, that's one 
thing.  However, you should not be forced to do so.  To go even a bit 
further, I think it should be prohibited to publish any banking 
information at all, period.

Leah

On 5 Feb 2003 at 1:38, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:

> Dear Leah,
> who in their right mind would want to rule anything about others without a
> proper mandate? If George wants to permit people to understand each others
> when they publish GPS data, OK with me. But when ICANN wants to oblige them
> not too or to publish their tel. nr. I disagree because I never voted for
> that and no one I voted for/against never directly or indirectly (by
> agreement, contract or mandate) granted them that right. jfc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 22:50 04/02/03, L. Gallegos said:
> 
> >Good heavens, George.  Who in their right mind would want to publish GPS
> >data, offices, banking data, or most of the other things you suggest for
> >the world to mine?  In this day and age when security is a real issue and
> >spam is the scourge of the internet, I would think that most people would
> >refuse to provide this data for any world wide listing on the net.  Of
> >course, attorneys and IP interests would love it as it would certainly
> >save them money in harrassing people to death.  Spam professionals and
> >even telemarketers would love it, too.  No thanks.
> >
> >Leah
> >
> >On 4 Feb 2003 at 11:57, George Kirikos wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 1. Other languages?
> > > 2. Local offices?
> > > 3. Legal contacts?
> > > 4. Maps? (funky MapQuest links!)
> > > 5. Associated companies?
> > > 6. GPS data? (kind of like http://www.geourl.org/ which uses tags) 7.
> > > Banking/payment data, e.g. where to wire $$$$ 8. Corporation numbers?
> > > 9. DUNS numbers? 10. Telex? (does anyone use this anymore?) 11. CUSIP
> > > number? 12. Stock symbol? 13. Logo? 14. Birthday? :) (for personal
> > > websites, remember, these are all optional attributes!)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/03
> 
> --
> 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, 05 Feb 2003 18:49:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [Ecommerce] OECD Reports on Online Privacy Compliance, Guidance

Phillippa and all,

  Thank you for these pointers/URL?

  Indeed as I attended the OECD meeting on spam recently, which is
in effect also related to the privacy issue as well, I found these reports
interesting and helpful.  I had posted to the ICANN DNSO GA and
some of the ICANN GNSO/DNSO task forces regarding Whois
and UDRP as to how relative these meetings are to of privacy and
security in Whois data displayed.  None of the Whois Task force
or OECD task force members attended unfortunately even after
being  advised in advance.  Therefore I got the distinct impression
that the ICANN Task forces were less than adequately keeping
themselves adequately informed on such important issues.

Philippa Lawson wrote:

> See
> http://www.oecd.org/EN/home/0,,EN-home-13-nodirectorate-no-no--13,00.html
> for another couple of recently published reports, focused on privacy online.
>
> Apologies for cross-postings.
>
> Pippa
>
> Philippa Lawson
> Senior Counsel
> Public Interest Advocacy Centre
> (613) 562-4002 x.24
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1576
*************************