Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1582
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, February 7 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1582

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 07:45:28 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:13:11AM -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> I'm sorry but I do think this is quite an incorrect depiction of reality.
> 
> One gets a domain name to have a permanent address under one's own
> control.

"One" gets a domain name for many other reasons, as well -- to sell, to
cybersquat, to use as a short term source for spam, etc. 

> As for expectations of privacy, I really don't see why those are or should
> be any different from getting a telephone number

In fact, of course, there really isn't much difference: You can pay
extra for an unlisted number; you can pay extra for an unlisted domain
name.  Last I looked, in fact, telephone charges were on the order of a
few dollars a month, and domain name charges are on the order of a few
dollars a year, so you pay *less* for basically equivalent privacy.

The privacy issue is basically a red herring at this point; the battle
was won by privacy advocates many moons ago, and they simply haven't
capitalized on the victory.

[...]

> None of this is news, and one gets tired of having to repeat it.

Then you shouldn't bother, since it is utterly irrelevant to current
reality.
- --
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, 07 Feb 2003 11:39:47 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

On 7 Feb 2003 at 2:29, Ram Mohan wrote:

> + You misread what I said.  I said that providing *only* individuals the
> right to provide access to data works as long as the premise is that the
> individual supplies accurate/valid data.  However, some of the most
> egregious violators (such as domain slammers) wantonly provide false
> information - and those trying to get "their" domain name restored to them
> have a problem.

There are many who provide false information simply because of the 
publication of the information and the bulk access provided to third 
parties.  As long as these conditions exist, it is not practical to expect 
that folks will willingly provide personal information.  Yes, slammers are 
guilty, but so are many individuals who are simply not willing to have 
their personal information published in such an easily accessible 
database.

> 
> > If there are reasonable grounds to believe that someone has
> > violated a civil or criminal law, there are well established legal
> > procedures (many of which involve going before a neutral magistrate and
> > making a showing of those reasonable grounds) to obtain access to things
> > like domain name registration databases.
> 
> + Indeed.  As long as you can find someone/someplace to serve.  Or if the
> domain name database has accurate information to go after that
> individual/group.  The OECD case showed some interesting practical
> challenges to this approach.

Well, if the information were kept private, but held by the registrar or 
registry and made available via court order, finding someone / someplace 
to serve would not be the problem, would it.  The issue is how the 
personal information is handled in the first place.  It's the publication 
that is the issue, not the availability to law enforcement in criminal 
matters.  Civilian litigation legal service is another matter, however.  
Attorney's and complainants should not be simply given personal 
information without a court order.  Why should any individual aid those 
who wish to persecute them?

> 
> > And let's be careful not to turn whois into Megan's law in reverse: in
> > which internet users are forced to publish their (and their children's)
> > names, addresses, and phone numbers for the benefit of any and all
> > predators.
> 
> + I don't disagree with you on this.  I certainly get my share of spam,
> unsolicited calls, etc thanks to having accurate information available via
> Whois.

It's a lot more insideous than just spam and telemarketing.  There is a 
real danger to lives when stalkers and pedophiles can so easily obtain 
personal information.  There are, of course, the typical naysayers who 
don't believe this is a problem.  I can personally tell you that it is.  I 
have two pitt bulls because of it.

> 
> In reality, domain name Whois information represents a shrinking
> percentage
> of the total Internet (and world) population -- its relevance reduces
> every
> passing year.  You can pick up far more detailed, segmented demographic
> information about me (or you) through product registration databases that
> get updated when people send in registration cards for everything they buy
> - and which they don't realize is often distributed without their
> permission.

This is true and consumers should be educated about the use of these 
databases as well.  I know that I check with each company before 
registering anything I purchase and include in writing that the 
information provided may not be shared, period.  I also do not provide my 
home address or telephone number in most cases.  If registration is on the 
internet and a required field is my phone and address, I will not 
register.  If it is a company that is "trusted" and the form is insecure, 
I will not use it at all.  Note that congressional email is insecure.

> 
> There needs to be a place where accurate domain contact information
> resides.
> Access to this information ought to be restricted and differentiated.
> Permission needs to be sought.  Current practice is often a mess, and
> abused. 

You bet.

 Does this mean we should "completely disengage from the current
> system", as Ross suggests ?  Maybe Ross' suggestion is just about marketer
> use/abuse of Whois data, in which case I have nothing more to say on the
> topic.

I sincerely believe that the entire current system needs to be revamped.

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, 7 Feb 2003 11:47:37 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] the gTLD selection process

Bruce,

Having listened to the recent Names Council session, I have to wonder whether 
the Council is being diverted from more important considerations:

1.  At some point in the immediate future ICANN will be putting forth 
requests for proposals for sponsored TLDs.  While I applaud any effort that 
furthers the goal of expanding the utility of the namespace, I remain 
concerned that (as the DoC has previously stated), "ICANN has not yet defined 
the processes, procedures, and standards for ensuring predictability and 
transparency in the gTLD selection process long-term (including the timeframe 
within which new gTLDs would be made available)."  

2.  I understand that taxonomic considerations are part of the overall 
debate, and that the Council is responding to the Board's request "to provide 
a recommendation... on whether to structure the evolution of the generic top 
level namespace and, if so, how to do so", however, if the Council fails to 
also act to provide policy guidance on these other matters attendant to the 
gTLD selection process then we will soon find ourselves in the quagmire of 
charges and countercharges with respect to the fairness of the overall 
process as the upcoming new TLD selections are pulled out of the basket.

3.  As specified in the DoC Statement that accompanied the extension of the 
MOU, "ICANN needs to proceed with adopting a standardized mechanism for 
implementing new gTLDs that includes a public articulation of the process, 
selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions (ICANN Task 
8)."  I would ask:  what is the Council doing to ensure that policy guidance 
is being provided to the Board on such matters?

4.  We are also told in the DoC Statement that "In developing this mechanism 
and implementing new TLDs, ICANN has agreed to consider recommendations from 
expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations regarding relevant 
economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues." Can you 
comment on what steps the Council is taking to ensure that such expert 
commentary will be forthcoming and therafter utilized in your deliberations?

Best regards,
Danny
- --
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, 7 Feb 2003 08:54:30 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

Hi Dan,

- --- Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> George,
> 
> With respect,
> I think you have it backwards.

Well, it all depends on one's perspective. I don't believe there's an
*entitlement* to WHOIS privacy. It's a policy decision. Part of that
good policy is to consider the pros and cons, the costs and benefits.

> Society is an aggregation of people and other entities...who decide
> by 
> majority or force of someones bigger guns, or whatever...to agree to 
> certain limitations on the basic right to do whatever you want.

And if the majority is in favour of greater WHOIS privacy, after an
informed debate, I can cope. I'm a populist and democratic. :) But,
there are winners and losers, no matter how the question is decided. I
believe the status quo is a fair compromise, and allows a
privacy-seeker very low cost mechanisms to increase their privacy,
without allowing abusers to become more rampant and emboldened,
shifting the costs of their abuse to others.
 
> Now if you frame it that way...
> what economic value do you place on the right to take away my
> privacy? 
> Name the annual dollar benefit and identify who else would benefit
> and 
> how it would over alll ...benefit our society?
> Can you do it this way?

Sure, for the sake of argument, I can. I trust you, Karl, Ross, Michael
or others will do the same? :)

The benefit to me personally in having the WHOIS be public and accurate
is approximately equal to the cost savings in having to initiate a
lawsuit in order to acquire that information, if it was deemed that
WHOIS privacy should rule. It's also the cost saving from having less
abuse on the internet in general. As someone who uses the internet
quite a bit, I think these costs are on the order of thousands of
dollars per year, or at a minimum a few hundred dollars a year (i.e.
averaged out). I use WHOIS a lot. :) Even if I didn't use WHOIS a lot,
the fact that it's out there means less abuse, as it's a deterrent.

Some others who benefit from having public WHOIS:

1) folks who cannot afford high legal costs (it costs thousands of
dollars to initiate a legal case, compared to a couple of dollars for
individual Domains by Proxies subscriptions)
2) law enforcement
3) courts, through lower number of cases in front of them (encouraging
responsible internet usage reduces crimes overall; having free access
to WHOIS means fewer subpoena requests, challenges to the subpoenas,
etc., esp. since they can be international in scope)
4) emergency professionals

For #4, consider the recent case at:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/56497p-52905c.html
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0205webfolo.html
http://www.stepzero.org/temp/ripper.html

where a teen overdosed on drugs which in a chatroom and on cam. The
victim even mentions WHOIS in the chat logs, as a way to reach his
family or for 911. Tragically, the WHOIS appears to have been
inaccurate (phone number was a phone 555-1234), and the teen died. I've
personally talked a few folks out of suicide online, and in one case
had to rely upon WHOIS to help reach one of their relatives. Others
have done the same, reaching their ISP, etc....when time is of the
essence, every piece of data helps.

So, the question for society and policy-makers: who should bear the
costs? Should it be legitimate Privacy-seekers who can spend a couple
of dollars per year? Or society at large, where legitimate individuals
and companies might need to spend thousands of dollars to get the
privacy through increased legal costs, time delays, and the suffering
of greater abuse?

Having private WHOIS is really "security by obscurity", ultimately,
which those in the security business will tell you is the *worst* kind
of security to rely upon. A determined person can kill you, no matter
what you do! Scary isn't it? I don't lose much sleep at night, though,
over that truth. What kind of message does it give vulnerable people
that to be safe, they need to hide? Folks should publish their contact
details proudly and show they're not afraid. If the other person has to
reveal themselves to take their shot at you, that might be your chance
to protect the rest of society, by catching them.

Better protection involves stronger laws, promotion of responsible
behaviour, and harsh punishments for those who break the law. WHOIS
privacy does none of this, and indeed hinders the promotion of
responsible behaviour.

I'm really looking forward to your measurements of the economic
*benefits* of increased privacy.

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, 07 Feb 2003 12:01:27 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

George,

Once again I think you have failed to catch my meaning :-)

This is not a debate about greater WHOIS prvacy no matter how you word it.
It is a debate about decreasing existing privacy rights.
If from the get-go...there had been an inalienable right for anyone in 
the world to have such info...it would have been built into the STAR 
WARS defense (defence) system and enshrined in law long ago. It simply 
is not true.
Thats why....nobody bothered for a while. it was just a personal 
decision people took....what to insert in their whois date *if* they got 
a domain...or if they decided to let someone else they trusted get one 
from someone else...etc etc. There never was such a right.
You are trying to create one.
So....if after informed debate...you can convince the majority...that 
there is a need for this *new* right  to whois data...as a populist and 
democratic...I will accept it.

But please, start from the beginning. Find a way to prove to the 
populace...that the new need exists...and if so...get it enshrined into 
law....cause...exceptions to the rule...thats where they belong. In a 
law...where it is visible. and where you have some recourse if you think 
the law is not fair.

George Kirikos wrote:

>Hi Dan,
>
>--- Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
>  
>
>>George,
>>
>>With respect,
>>I think you have it backwards.
>>    
>>
>
>Well, it all depends on one's perspective. I don't believe there's an
>*entitlement* to WHOIS privacy. It's a policy decision. Part of that
>good policy is to consider the pros and cons, the costs and benefits.
>
>  
>
>>Society is an aggregation of people and other entities...who decide
>>by 
>>majority or force of someones bigger guns, or whatever...to agree to 
>>certain limitations on the basic right to do whatever you want.
>>    
>>
>
>And if the majority is in favour of greater WHOIS privacy, after an
>informed debate, I can cope. I'm a populist and democratic. :) But,
>there are winners and losers, no matter how the question is decided. I
>believe the status quo is a fair compromise, and allows a
>privacy-seeker very low cost mechanisms to increase their privacy,
>without allowing abusers to become more rampant and emboldened,
>shifting the costs of their abuse to others.
> 
>  
>
>>Now if you frame it that way...
>>what economic value do you place on the right to take away my
>>privacy? 
>>Name the annual dollar benefit and identify who else would benefit
>>and 
>>how it would over alll ...benefit our society?
>>Can you do it this way?
>>    
>>
>
>Sure, for the sake of argument, I can. I trust you, Karl, Ross, Michael
>or others will do the same? :)
>
>The benefit to me personally in having the WHOIS be public and accurate
>is approximately equal to the cost savings in having to initiate a
>lawsuit in order to acquire that information, if it was deemed that
>WHOIS privacy should rule. It's also the cost saving from having less
>abuse on the internet in general. As someone who uses the internet
>quite a bit, I think these costs are on the order of thousands of
>dollars per year, or at a minimum a few hundred dollars a year (i.e.
>averaged out). I use WHOIS a lot. :) Even if I didn't use WHOIS a lot,
>the fact that it's out there means less abuse, as it's a deterrent.
>
>Some others who benefit from having public WHOIS:
>
>1) folks who cannot afford high legal costs (it costs thousands of
>dollars to initiate a legal case, compared to a couple of dollars for
>individual Domains by Proxies subscriptions)
>2) law enforcement
>3) courts, through lower number of cases in front of them (encouraging
>responsible internet usage reduces crimes overall; having free access
>to WHOIS means fewer subpoena requests, challenges to the subpoenas,
>etc., esp. since they can be international in scope)
>4) emergency professionals
>
>For #4, consider the recent case at:
>
>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/56497p-52905c.html
>http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0205webfolo.html
>http://www.stepzero.org/temp/ripper.html
>
>where a teen overdosed on drugs which in a chatroom and on cam. The
>victim even mentions WHOIS in the chat logs, as a way to reach his
>family or for 911. Tragically, the WHOIS appears to have been
>inaccurate (phone number was a phone 555-1234), and the teen died. I've
>personally talked a few folks out of suicide online, and in one case
>had to rely upon WHOIS to help reach one of their relatives. Others
>have done the same, reaching their ISP, etc....when time is of the
>essence, every piece of data helps.
>
>So, the question for society and policy-makers: who should bear the
>costs? Should it be legitimate Privacy-seekers who can spend a couple
>of dollars per year? Or society at large, where legitimate individuals
>and companies might need to spend thousands of dollars to get the
>privacy through increased legal costs, time delays, and the suffering
>of greater abuse?
>
>Having private WHOIS is really "security by obscurity", ultimately,
>which those in the security business will tell you is the *worst* kind
>of security to rely upon. A determined person can kill you, no matter
>what you do! Scary isn't it? I don't lose much sleep at night, though,
>over that truth. What kind of message does it give vulnerable people
>that to be safe, they need to hide? Folks should publish their contact
>details proudly and show they're not afraid. If the other person has to
>reveal themselves to take their shot at you, that might be your chance
>to protect the rest of society, by catching them.
>
>Better protection involves stronger laws, promotion of responsible
>behaviour, and harsh punishments for those who break the law. WHOIS
>privacy does none of this, and indeed hinders the promotion of
>responsible behaviour.
>
>I'm really looking forward to your measurements of the economic
>*benefits* of increased privacy.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>  
>

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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, 7 Feb 2003 09:11:47 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

Hi Ross,

- --- "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> George, your assumption is that privacy is an option that people
> desire
> in the same manner that they lust after consumer goods.

Hmmm, I don't think I really assumed that. I just assumed that one
could *measure* the benefits in some way. Even though it's something
that is intangible and subjective, folks make such valuations everyday
(we're not all living with $500,000 security systems and personal
bodyguards, because we value our lives as "priceless").
 
> me. Continuing to adhere to policy (not just ICANN) that prevents me
> from commercially exploiting (or otherwise exploiting) the value of
> my
> data is just fundamentally wrong. Why should a registrar benefit from
> the sale of *my* information - why shouldn't *I* benefit from the
> sale
> of my information? You don't have a right to spam me, you don't have

I agree with you 100%. I'm against spam as much as anyone else (owning
as many domain names as you know I do, as my registrar, you can imagine
how much spam I get per day, ugh!). I'm for very strong anti-spam
legislation that would punish the spammers, and make that activity
uneconomic. Drive them out of business. I don't think making WHOIS data
more private would be an effective solution to the problem. Strong
opt-out legislation, like there are in some US states (and proposed
federally) for telephone numbers, with clear punishments, would help a
lot. When the professional spammers start losing their homes, and going
to jail next to someone named "Bubba", and having to be careful when
bending over to pick up that bar of soap in the jail showers, I'll be
as happy as others!

> Again, I ask if this level of control holds true for corporate
> interests, why does it prove false for me?

Corporations publish their contact details in various public places as
a matter of law, in most jurisdictions. They can be reached, when
necessary, without having to go through legal hoops at great expense.
This helps keep their behaviour somewhat responsible, compared to the
theoretical case where corporations were all anonymous.
 
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, 7 Feb 2003 12:23:59 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

> Hmmm, I don't think I really assumed that. I just assumed 
> that one could *measure* the benefits in some way. Even 
> though it's something that is intangible and subjective, 
> folks make such valuations everyday (we're not all living 
> with $500,000 security systems and personal bodyguards, 
> because we value our lives as "priceless").

Sorry George - I mean to say something to the effect of "...your
presumption seems to rely on an assumption that..." That's not exactly
what came out ;)

> Corporations publish their contact details in various public 
> places as a matter of law, in most jurisdictions. They can be 
> reached, when necessary, without having to go through legal 
> hoops at great expense. This helps keep their behaviour 
> somewhat responsible, compared to the theoretical case where 
> corporations were all anonymous.
>  

I'm referring to the corporate tendency to package up my contact
information and trade it back and forth as intellectual property in
transactions to which they are the sole beneficiary.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 12:12 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?
> 
> 
> Hi Ross,
> 
> --- "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > George, your assumption is that privacy is an option that people 
> > desire in the same manner that they lust after consumer goods.
> 
> Hmmm, I don't think I really assumed that. I just assumed 
> that one could *measure* the benefits in some way. Even 
> though it's something that is intangible and subjective, 
> folks make such valuations everyday (we're not all living 
> with $500,000 security systems and personal bodyguards, 
> because we value our lives as "priceless").
>  
> > me. Continuing to adhere to policy (not just ICANN) that 
> prevents me 
> > from commercially exploiting (or otherwise exploiting) the 
> value of my
> > data is just fundamentally wrong. Why should a registrar 
> benefit from
> > the sale of *my* information - why shouldn't *I* benefit from the
> > sale
> > of my information? You don't have a right to spam me, you don't have
> 
> I agree with you 100%. I'm against spam as much as anyone 
> else (owning as many domain names as you know I do, as my 
> registrar, you can imagine how much spam I get per day, 
> ugh!). I'm for very strong anti-spam legislation that would 
> punish the spammers, and make that activity uneconomic. Drive 
> them out of business. I don't think making WHOIS data more 
> private would be an effective solution to the problem. Strong 
> opt-out legislation, like there are in some US states (and proposed
> federally) for telephone numbers, with clear punishments, 
> would help a lot. When the professional spammers start losing 
> their homes, and going to jail next to someone named "Bubba", 
> and having to be careful when bending over to pick up that 
> bar of soap in the jail showers, I'll be as happy as others!
> 
> > Again, I ask if this level of control holds true for corporate 
> > interests, why does it prove false for me?
> 
> Corporations publish their contact details in various public 
> places as a matter of law, in most jurisdictions. They can be 
> reached, when necessary, without having to go through legal 
> hoops at great expense. This helps keep their behaviour 
> somewhat responsible, compared to the theoretical case where 
> corporations were all anonymous.
>  
> 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, 7 Feb 2003 09:48:00 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

Hi Dan,

Only 1 more message allowed today for me, as this is my 4th....

- --- Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Once again I think you have failed to catch my meaning :-)

Oh, I understood you very well. :) This is all about how to "frame" the
debate, i.e. do we start debating as saying the status quo is "absolute
privacy", and others need to show the need to pry open some of that
privacy? Or, do we start from a status quo that has open, accurate, and
transparent WHOIS data? :)

I'm reminded of an episode of the Britcom "Yes, Prime Minister", where
the PM and his aides are discussing the accuracy of polling (and this
whole "framing" issue) to show that a majority is in support of
mandatory National Service (i.e. a draft). See: 

http://www.wfsoftware.co.uk/mr/badsurvey.htm

In this debate, the privacy advocates might ask:

1) Are you worried about increased crime and violence? (yes)
2) Are you unhappy about spam and cyberhacking on the internet? (yes)
3) Have you ever been concerned about being cyberstalked by strangers
on ther internet? (yes)
4) Are you concerned about big corporations misusing your personal
information? (yes)
4) Would you support greater protection of your WHOIS data on the
internet? (of course, yes, yes, yes!)

Whereas those seeking accurate and transparent WHOIS might frame things
as:

1) Are you concerned about international terrorism? (yes)
2) Are you worried about high legal costs and overworked police? (yes)
3) Are you in favour of making the internet a safer place, and
promoting responsible usage? (yes)
4) Do you support making it harder for spammers, criminals and
terrorists to cover their tracks on the internet? (yes)
5) Are you in favour of keeping public access to WHOIS data (yes, yes,
yes!!)

hehe Of course, I'm pragmatic, and don't go for either of the above
debating tactics (most of the time....I'm human). It's harder to do the
above, when one sticks to economics, costs and benefits. My side has it
easier, since the contracts in place already enforce WHOIS accuracy
(both in the gTLDs and in .ca too; not sure about the other ccTLDs) --
it's the other side that has to change things.

So, since you didn't take up my challenge to enumerate some of the
benefits of increased privacy, economically, am I to assume that they
were negligible? :) Please describe for the court (of public opinion!)
what dollar value you'd place on not having to publish WHOIS data for
your domains, i.e. the benefits of that increased privacy?

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, 7 Feb 2003 13:13:05 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The Price for Redemption

as noted on the registrar's list:

"Fees for the redemption grace period service will be charged upon successful
restoration of domain name registrations. To provide for recovery of one-time
development costs while allowing a reduced price in the longer term, the fee
will initially be $85, but will later be reduced to $40. Specifically, through
the end of the second calendar month after the calendar month in which the
cumulative total of registered domain names restored pursuant to the 
Redemption
Grace Period policy reaches 2000, the price per successful restore command 
will
be $85; thereafter the fee will be $40.00."

Registrars remain entitled to add their markup to this fee.  

Comments?
- --
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, 7 Feb 2003 18:27:03 -0000
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

Hello gents,

I will go deeper into some of the earlier send emails to, but let's make
the discussion clear first;

A. what is whois meant for
B. what is it used for
C. what do you use it for.

Let's make that a starter and leave out the entire privacy discussion
for a few steps, privacy rights are in a lot of more developed parts of
this world very well described.

Abel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of George Kirikos
> Sent: 07 February 2003 17:48
> To: Dan Steinberg
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?
> 
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Only 1 more message allowed today for me, as this is my 4th....
> 
> --- Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Once again I think you have failed to catch my meaning :-)
> 
> Oh, I understood you very well. :) This is all about how to 
> "frame" the debate, i.e. do we start debating as saying the 
> status quo is "absolute privacy", and others need to show the 
> need to pry open some of that privacy? Or, do we start from a 
> status quo that has open, accurate, and transparent WHOIS data? :)
> 
> I'm reminded of an episode of the Britcom "Yes, Prime 
> Minister", where the PM and his aides are discussing the 
> accuracy of polling (and this whole "framing" issue) to show 
> that a majority is in support of mandatory National Service 
> (i.e. a draft). See: 
> 
> http://www.wfsoftware.co.uk/mr/badsurvey.htm
> 
> In this debate, the privacy advocates might ask:
> 
> 1) Are you worried about increased crime and violence? (yes)
> 2) Are you unhappy about spam and cyberhacking on the internet? (yes)
> 3) Have you ever been concerned about being cyberstalked by 
> strangers on ther internet? (yes)
> 4) Are you concerned about big corporations misusing your 
> personal information? (yes)
> 4) Would you support greater protection of your WHOIS data on 
> the internet? (of course, yes, yes, yes!)
> 
> Whereas those seeking accurate and transparent WHOIS might 
> frame things
> as:
> 
> 1) Are you concerned about international terrorism? (yes)
> 2) Are you worried about high legal costs and overworked police? (yes)
> 3) Are you in favour of making the internet a safer place, 
> and promoting responsible usage? (yes)
> 4) Do you support making it harder for spammers, criminals 
> and terrorists to cover their tracks on the internet? (yes)
> 5) Are you in favour of keeping public access to WHOIS data (yes, yes,
> yes!!)
> 
> hehe Of course, I'm pragmatic, and don't go for either of the 
> above debating tactics (most of the time....I'm human). It's 
> harder to do the above, when one sticks to economics, costs 
> and benefits. My side has it easier, since the contracts in 
> place already enforce WHOIS accuracy (both in the gTLDs and 
> in .ca too; not sure about the other ccTLDs) -- it's the 
> other side that has to change things.
> 
> So, since you didn't take up my challenge to enumerate some 
> of the benefits of increased privacy, economically, am I to 
> assume that they were negligible? :) Please describe for the 
> court (of public opinion!) what dollar value you'd place on 
> not having to publish WHOIS data for your domains, i.e. the 
> benefits of that increased privacy?
> 
> 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
> 

- --
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, 7 Feb 2003 13:28:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ester Dyson - the great fall from heaven

thats not the point ester.  the point is your a traitor to your own kind.
you were at the pinacle of icann and now your betraying the very people
who supported you in that position.  what you should be doing is sticking
by their side and riding the wave.

i have comptempt for you and this betrayal of your peers.

cheers
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

     VRx Network Services - http://lighting.faq/ - The Lighting FAQ
     >>>>>>>> one of the first inclusive namespace domains <<<<<<<<

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Esther Dyson wrote:

> Not only that; it is already determined that I will *not* chair it.... but
> who will is still not clear.
>
> Esther
>
> At 04:25 AM 2/7/2003, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >On 2003-02-07 02:07:08 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote:
> >
> > >    Dyson cleans out her closet
> > >    By Bill Thompson
> > >    Posted: 06/02/2003 at 21:24 GMT
> >
> >Where's that article from?
> >
> >...
> >
> > >    The unexpected confessional may have been prompted by her
> > >    current need to re-establish credibility with the net
> > >    community as she works to develop proposals for getting
> > >    ordinary users involved in the formulation of ICANN policy
> > >    through the At Large advisory committee which she chairs.
> >
> >Just a brief correction: The ALAC has not yet determined who will
> >chair it.
> >
> >--
> >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
>
>
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> [email-masked]
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> The conversation continues..... at
> http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
>
> PC Forum 2003 - March 23 to 25, Phoenix
> Who? what? where? Data comes alive!
>
>
>

- --
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, 7 Feb 2003 13:33:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

If you want an economic explanation of why consumers might systematically
undervalue data privacy pertaining to their economic transactions please
see section II.A of 
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/privacy-deathof.pdf
(alternate, messy, html version at
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/privacy-deathof.htm)

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hi Dan,
> 
> Only 1 more message allowed today for me, as this is my 4th....
> 
> --- Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Once again I think you have failed to catch my meaning :-)
> 
> Oh, I understood you very well. :) This is all about how to "frame" the
> debate, i.e. do we start debating as saying the status quo is "absolute
> privacy", and others need to show the need to pry open some of that
> privacy? Or, do we start from a status quo that has open, accurate, and
> transparent WHOIS data? :)
> 
> I'm reminded of an episode of the Britcom "Yes, Prime Minister", where
> the PM and his aides are discussing the accuracy of polling (and this
> whole "framing" issue) to show that a majority is in support of
> mandatory National Service (i.e. a draft). See: 
> 
> http://www.wfsoftware.co.uk/mr/badsurvey.htm
> 
> In this debate, the privacy advocates might ask:
> 
> 1) Are you worried about increased crime and violence? (yes)
> 2) Are you unhappy about spam and cyberhacking on the internet? (yes)
> 3) Have you ever been concerned about being cyberstalked by strangers
> on ther internet? (yes)
> 4) Are you concerned about big corporations misusing your personal
> information? (yes)
> 4) Would you support greater protection of your WHOIS data on the
> internet? (of course, yes, yes, yes!)
> 
> Whereas those seeking accurate and transparent WHOIS might frame things
> as:
> 
> 1) Are you concerned about international terrorism? (yes)
> 2) Are you worried about high legal costs and overworked police? (yes)
> 3) Are you in favour of making the internet a safer place, and
> promoting responsible usage? (yes)
> 4) Do you support making it harder for spammers, criminals and
> terrorists to cover their tracks on the internet? (yes)
> 5) Are you in favour of keeping public access to WHOIS data (yes, yes,
> yes!!)
> 
> hehe Of course, I'm pragmatic, and don't go for either of the above
> debating tactics (most of the time....I'm human). It's harder to do the
> above, when one sticks to economics, costs and benefits. My side has it
> easier, since the contracts in place already enforce WHOIS accuracy
> (both in the gTLDs and in .ca too; not sure about the other ccTLDs) --
> it's the other side that has to change things.
> 
> So, since you didn't take up my challenge to enumerate some of the
> benefits of increased privacy, economically, am I to assume that they
> were negligible? :) Please describe for the court (of public opinion!)
> what dollar value you'd place on not having to publish WHOIS data for
> your domains, i.e. the benefits of that increased privacy?
> 
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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 #1582
*************************