Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1583
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, February 8 2003         Volume 01 : Number 1583

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:14:40 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, at 08:54 [=GMT-0800], George Kirikos wrote:

[...]

> 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?

The same story you could try on cars. I should be able to get the phone
number of the car driving in front of me. This may be very useful if the
car is about to lose one wheel. It might also help law enforcement, if we
could trace the owner of each car over a whois. It would be peanuts for
those who can afford a car to pay a bit extra to remain anonymous.

[...]

- -- 
[19] E@.
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: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:36:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Whois for "old" US domains

I just received a very boring spam for a merchant account, which was
relayed by:

proxy2.ci.detroit.mi.us [12.2.196.14]

I forwarded it to [email-masked]. I got my message back. There is
no user abuse in the City of Detroit. Should I try Postmaster@ ?

I thought of whois...

Domain Name:                                 CI.DETROIT.MI.US
Domain ID:                                   D3600270-US
Sponsoring Registrar:                        US LOCALITY
Domain Status:                               inactive
Registrant ID:                               UNKNOWN-CONTACT
Registrant Name:                             unknown-name
Registrant Organization:                     unknown-organization
Registrant Address1:                         unknown-street
Registrant City:                             unknown-city
Registrant Country:                          United States
Registrant Country Code:                     US
Registrant Phone Number:                     +1.9999999999
Registrant Email:                            [email-masked]
Registrant Application Purpose:              P5
Registrant Nexus Category:                   C21

I guess the Application Purpose and the Nexus Category are correct.

Are the subsequent operators of .US violating any rule by not keeping
an accurate whois? Or may we assume a whois is not required by law in the
US? Then who requires it?

- -- 
[16] Do it today.
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: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:55:15 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the gTLD selection process

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, at 11:47 [=GMT-0500], [email-masked] wrote:

> as the upcoming new TLD selections are pulled out of the basket.

Did not the selected TLDs remain _in_ the basket? And were those pulled
out not the ones that lost?

I think it doesn't matter that much, if the choice is between

.aqua (for ferries)
.elvis (easy language virtual identification string)
.god (recognized religions)
.libris (libraries)
.roadpatrol (car help services)
.scout (youth groups with outdoor activities and uniforms)
.space (anything not covered by aero)
.tobacco (legal drug manufacturers)

- -- 
[14] I am not a lawyer.
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: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:45:34 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Price for Redemption

Aside from the obvious highway robbery, why should a registrant have to 
pay any fee at all if the problem with the domain was caused by a 
registrar's system, registry's system or sudden demise of email provider 
such as in the @home fiasco or 9/11 disaster?  I see nothing built in to 
protect a regstrant from being milked in a situation where he could do 
nothing about it.

As for the price, I can't imagine where cost of administration would be 
anywhere near the lower price, never mind the absolutely ridiculous $85.  
With registrars' markup, it so far out of line as to be ludicrous.

Leah

On 7 Feb 2003 at 13:13, [email-masked] wrote:

> 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, 07 Feb 2003 18:06:36 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Price for Redemption

This reminds me of the Catholic Church's practice of selling indulgences.

Sigh.

.Sotiris

[email-masked] wrote:

> 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

- --
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 18:13:44 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

On 7 Feb 2003 at 12:01, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> 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.

This would be a case for law enforcement and data would then be available 
in Karl's scenario.  Law enforcement would have access credentials to 
obtain registration information and the information under those 
circumstances would more likely be accurate since people would not be so 
reluctant to provide it.

> >
> >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?

Sorry, but if it costs money to pursue a legal case, then it costs money.  
There is no "right" of litigators to have personal identifiying 
information without having to ask for it.

> >
> >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.

Excuse me.  If you have been stalked because of a public database, then 
tell me about it.  If not, please don't tell me to publish my or my 
family's personal information to aid the stalker.  I now covet my privacy 
and beware if you just show up at my door or call me on my unlisted 
telephone number.  My address is not published in any phone directory that 
I am aware of either.  

I'm sure that if someone really wants to find me, they can do so by 
conducting searches.  However, I have no intention of making it easy for 
them by having the information published for world-wide access by anyone 
at any time.

 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.
> >

Where did you come up with that?  Have you heard of snipers?  Stalkers?  
They don't reveal themselves.  They hide.  They stalk.  They use whatever 
means they can to disguise themselves so you can't shoot back.  They 
harrass, intimidate, threaten and cause fear, panic and misery.

Just for giggles, have you ever tried to get the name of a collection 
agent?  They use pseudonyms so that you can't get to them.  I was not 
allowed to give my real name when I worked in collections.  Why?  Death 
threats, threats of harm to my family, etc.  Many times you can't even 
find out the address of the offices because they get threats of violence 
to the offices.  They have to hide to do their jobs.

Now just imagine if someone didn't like your personal website and decided 
to come after you (think anti-choice since I don't like the other word).  
Think doctors who perform procedures.  WHOIS was never meant to be used 
the way it is now and individuals have ever more need to keep that 
information away from the public eye.

You want to sue me?  Do your due diligence the way it has always been 
done.  I'm not going to help you.  It is especially true today with our 
frivilously litigeous mindset.  Peopel are dragged into court for the most 
ridiculous things, costing them their homes, savings and emotional health. 
 Why should they provide their information to those who would harrass them 
in this manner?

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, 07 Feb 2003 18:23:14 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

On 7 Feb 2003 at 11:02, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> P.S. The whois.txt stuff was unrelated to privacy, as it was entirely
> >optional, just another way to help others who want to be "found" build
> >connections with others.

And this is all that is necessary, except for law enforcement and 
technical issues (in which case .txt would be sufficient along with IP 
WHOIS).

BTW, the cost is not necessarily in dollars.  It is in lives and personal 
security.  That outweighs the dollar consideration by far.

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 15:43:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

> On 7 Feb 2003 at 12:01, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> This would be a case for law enforcement and data would then be available
> in Karl's scenario.  Law enforcement would have access credentials to
> obtain registration information and the information under those
> circumstances would more likely be accurate since people would not be so
> reluctant to provide it.

who are law enforcement and how do you determine they aren't a stalker?
Any time you want to restrict information, allowing only certified
entities access, one must elaborate what the AAA (access, authorization
and authentication) framework is.

how do I (as a registrar) identify a mexican police, or a Malaysian police
officer? What if the issue with the domain is completely legal in the home
country (selling Nazi memorabilia in the usa) and the registrant lives in
Berlin, how do I identify the German police as a "law enforcement"
official? furthermore why should I give up the information for a situation
when no local law is broken?

These and many simular topics will be discussed at a meeting in DC on the
20-21st of this month. with the FTC.

see: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/12/crossborder.htm

- -rick

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

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

Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 00:10:05 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

I fully agree with Leah. Unless you've been stalked you've no idea the
effect it has on you and on your family. The WHOIS exposes families to
wholly unwarranted dangers. If people want to disclose their private and
personal details, then those details are theirs to disclose. If people want
to exercise a reasonable right to guard their privacy, and in some cases
this may be a matter of life and death, then their details are theirs to
protect.

I'm arguing for *processes* to be set up, so that contact and verification
details can be securely secured... *not* broadcast all over the world.

Leah is right to suggest that the need for WHOIS may also threaten and
intimidate people acting (for example) as dissidents in violent regimes.
Admittedly at a national level, it's unlikely they wouldn't be tracked down
anyway - but the unstable individual stalker is less well equipped - it is
simply a sane and proper safeguard to allow people to withhold their private
details from immediate public scrutiny.

Richard Henderson

PS: I also agree with another point of yours, Leah, in a separate mail...
the ridiculous price of the redemption fee... what a total rip-off... I
think it verges on extortion money. Has ICANN got any idea what that kind of
money means in some parts of the world? How do they reach that figure and
justify it? Or is it simply greed?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: L. Gallegos <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

>
>
> On 7 Feb 2003 at 12:01, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> This would be a case for law enforcement and data would then be available
> in Karl's scenario.  Law enforcement would have access credentials to
> obtain registration information and the information under those
> circumstances would more likely be accurate since people would not be so
> reluctant to provide it.
>
> > >
> > >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?
>
> Sorry, but if it costs money to pursue a legal case, then it costs money.
> There is no "right" of litigators to have personal identifiying
> information without having to ask for it.
>
> > >
> > >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.
>
> Excuse me.  If you have been stalked because of a public database, then
> tell me about it.  If not, please don't tell me to publish my or my
> family's personal information to aid the stalker.  I now covet my privacy
> and beware if you just show up at my door or call me on my unlisted
> telephone number.  My address is not published in any phone directory that
> I am aware of either.
>
> I'm sure that if someone really wants to find me, they can do so by
> conducting searches.  However, I have no intention of making it easy for
> them by having the information published for world-wide access by anyone
> at any time.
>
>  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.
> > >
>
> Where did you come up with that?  Have you heard of snipers?  Stalkers?
> They don't reveal themselves.  They hide.  They stalk.  They use whatever
> means they can to disguise themselves so you can't shoot back.  They
> harrass, intimidate, threaten and cause fear, panic and misery.
>
> Just for giggles, have you ever tried to get the name of a collection
> agent?  They use pseudonyms so that you can't get to them.  I was not
> allowed to give my real name when I worked in collections.  Why?  Death
> threats, threats of harm to my family, etc.  Many times you can't even
> find out the address of the offices because they get threats of violence
> to the offices.  They have to hide to do their jobs.
>
> Now just imagine if someone didn't like your personal website and decided
> to come after you (think anti-choice since I don't like the other word).
> Think doctors who perform procedures.  WHOIS was never meant to be used
> the way it is now and individuals have ever more need to keep that
> information away from the public eye.
>
> You want to sue me?  Do your due diligence the way it has always been
> done.  I'm not going to help you.  It is especially true today with our
> frivilously litigeous mindset.  Peopel are dragged into court for the most
> ridiculous things, costing them their homes, savings and emotional health.
>  Why should they provide their information to those who would harrass them
> in this manner?
>
> 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
>

- --
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 18:46:05 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ester Dyson - the great fall from heaven

At 7:00 AM -0500 2/7/03, Esther Dyson wrote:
>Not only that; it is already determined that I will *not* chair it.... but
>who will is still not clear.

Good job!

You appear to be absolving yourself of responsibility of anything that
happened while you chaired ICANN (what the hell were you there for then?)
so I'd prefer you stayed away from positions of responsibility of ANY
entity that attempts to speak for the little guy - whom you ensured was
COMPLETELY SCREWED OVER.

What really amazes me is to see people who got the royal shafting from you,
now working along side you as if nothing ever happened. Surely they don't
think you're lining them up for anything but another buggering?

IMHO, etc.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 02:33:55 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Price for Redemption

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, at 18:06 [=GMT-0500], Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> This reminds me of the Catholic Church's practice of selling indulgences.

But those had (and have) the advantage that you can also get them without
money, through prayer, good works or going on a crusade.

- --
[15] We are in need.
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: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 20:55:33 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ester Dyson - the great fall from heaven

Andy Gardner wrote:

> You appear to be absolving yourself of responsibility of anything that
> happened while you chaired ICANN (what the hell were you there for then?)

A fair question.  I would like to see Esther's response.

biz.Sotiris

- --
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 21:06:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ester Dyson - the great fall from heaven

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 7:00 AM -0500 2/7/03, Esther Dyson wrote:
> >Not only that; it is already determined that I will *not* chair it.... but
> >who will is still not clear.
>
> Good job!

don't trust her.  like any cobra she strickes without warning.  i think
the icann insiders have given us a very good lesson - like all politician
and bureacracys what they has has no relation to what them mean or do.

the rats are leaving the ship and ester knows the curtain calls are
coming.  the big issue is the damage.  shes running scared her entire
career can go poof.  but betrayal is betrayal and these attempt to dstance
herself from the dogs breakfast icann has become is - i have no words for
it.  but i find it discusting.

> You appear to be absolving yourself of responsibility of anything that
> happened while you chaired ICANN (what the hell were you there for then?)
> so I'd prefer you stayed away from positions of responsibility of ANY
> entity that attempts to speak for the little guy - whom you ensured was
> COMPLETELY SCREWED OVER.

no they screwed themselves.  i think ester is beginning to wake up to that
fact - so is every government world wide.  icann is not going to get any
government support - thats my specualtion - and if they do - it will only
mean the end much sooner then expected.

now why was she there.  i've meeb saying it since the beggining andy.  she
was the mc to the icann dog and pony show.  performance artist and smooze
queen was her function.  don;t you remember the board meeting where her
technical understand was exposed.  she knew nothing about what she was
doing - vint cerf had to keep correcting her.  but everyone feel for the
dog and pony show.

> What really amazes me is to see people who got the royal shafting from you,
> now working along side you as if nothing ever happened. Surely they don't
> think you're lining them up for anything but another buggering?

;)

exactly - cheers

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

                                                www.zoneedit.com
                            Official DNS provider to www.nic.god
                 The Network Information Centre for .GOD domains
                                                 www.dot-god.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 18:16:10 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

Hello,

Combining multiple responses, to save on posts (last of the day!)

Abel: a survey had already been conducted by the WHOIS taskforce. See:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011221.Whois-survey-result.doc

Also good reading for those who want to see a wide variety of views. To
take one learned comment:

"There is no logical privacy interest in a domain registration. They
should be considered equivalent to business names. If someone wants to
have a domain name, they should expect to be a part of the Internet
community when it comes to dealing with problems, and that means they
need to be reachable. Otherwise, they should contract for someone else
to manage their domain, and put their info in the WHOIS."

Couldn't have said it better myself (and, that wasn't my submission!). 

Michael: I didn't read all 83 pages (!), but note that you (and others)
still haven't presented a dollar value for the value of having your
WHOIS private. You argued in one section that folks tend to
"undervalue" (are myopic) their privacy, but that still doesn't remove
the burden to come up with a number (it need not have to be the same as
the value that marketer's place on the info, just their personal
valuation). I'm glad that you *did* mention that greater disclosure of
contact details *would* help prevent the evils associated with
anonymity. Buried in footnote 25(I do read footnotes!):

"Of course, disclosure also helps prevent evils that can hide behind
the veil of anonymity. See A. Michael Froomkin, Flood Control on the
Information Ocean: Living with Anonymity, Digital Cash, and Distributed
Databases, 15 J.L. & COM. 395, 404-07, 410-11 (1996)."

I'd argue that those evils are non-trivial, and outweigh the minor
privacy gains by not having accurate and public WHOIS.

Leah: why not answer my question about what the dollar value of having
your WHOIS data not being published? Is it a million dollars? More than
the cost of dogs? If so, why not spend the couple of dollars per year
and use Domains By Proxy or something, instead of shifting the costs to
someone else? 

Especially in an international context, as Rick Wesson alludes to,
suppose access is restricted to legal authorities, and that those
authorities are in China or Iraq or North Korea, and not in the US,
where legal standards are different. Will you then suggest that their
legitimate (in their own eyes) requests for the data be rejected, or
that they have to jump through more hoops? Or, vice-versa, suppose it's
an American authority who wants the info, but that person *claims* to
be from Vanuatu (e.g. as in the Kazaa case). What should be done there?
With transparent WHOIS, one knows immediately who is responsible
legally for a domain, unless folks want to build a new set of access
procedures (agreed upon internationally, good luck) to deal with the
aforementioned issues.

- --- Richard Henderson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I fully agree with Leah. Unless you've been stalked you've no idea
> the
> effect it has on you and on your family. The WHOIS exposes families
> to
> wholly unwarranted dangers. If people want to disclose their private

While one sympathizes with those who've been stalked, there are more
than adequate procedures to deal with the problem under the status quo.
One could opt not to buy a domain name (one can publish on the web
using Geocities, and a Yahoo email address, for example). Or, one can
use Domains by Proxy, or similar services. If that privacy is so
important and highly valued, it's a no brainer, and cheaper than a home
security system. As Michael wrote, "disclosure also helps prevent evils
that can hide behind the veil of anonymity". Why should others have to
suffer those evils? 

And Richard, without the public WHOIS, how would you have detected the
major abuse that happened in the Sunrise/landrushes for the new gTLDs?
:) It would have been harder, and cost you more, and there would have
been even *more* abuse as a result, had folks known going in that their
WHOIS would have been completely private.

Before I have to resort to issuing another "Cookie Challenge", can
someone please tell me what their dollar value is on that privacy? :)
It's evading the question to say as Leah did that:

"BTW, the cost is not necessarily in dollars.  It is in lives and 
personal security.  That outweighs the dollar consideration by far."

That's very naive, otherwise by that logic every car would cost
$200,000 and come with 50 airbags. Folks make decisions and compromises
every day, to balance the costs and benefits, just as policy makers
will. If one's personal security is "priceless", it's certainly worth
more than $18, or whatever the minimal cost of Domains by Proxy is. Why
aren't folks using that solution? It also ignores completely the lives
and personal security of those put at risk due to the "evils of
anonymity".

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 19:23:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Rick Wesson wrote:

> >  Law enforcement would have access credentials...
 
> who are law enforcement and how do you determine they aren't a 
> stalker?...

Ah, we are finally getting somewhere.

Privacy is a balance, not an absolute.  And to make that balance we 
certainly need to know who is asking for what information, and why.

And as you point out those can be hard questions to answer (and mechanisms 
to answer them could cost money.)

Certainly if somebody knocks on my electronic door and claims to be the
Sheriff of La Puta[*].  My idea of a resonable recourse is very similar to
that used in PGP - build a linkage of trusted introducers.  And how does
one do this in reality?  I call up my local police (who I trust that they
are actually who they claim to be) and ask them to give a thumbs up or
down.  Presumably they will work the way up the authority food chain of my
country, and then down the food chain of La Puta.

The point is that there are established mechanisms to do this kind of
thing - they just need to be optimized, greatly optimized, for our 
context.

		--karl--

[*] La Puta is from Gulliver's Travels - La Puta is an island that bears
some interesting simularities to ICANN. La Puta, like ICANN, has no
grounded territory to call its own.  Instead La Puta floats in the air.  
Servants flap inflated bags on the ears and mouths of their principals
whenever those principals get too deeply engaged in conversation.  La Puta
enforces its will by floating over those it wishes to coerce and drops
stones onto the inhabitants below, or in extreme cases by lowering the
island to squish whatever is below.

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

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

Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 04:46:09 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, at 18:16 [=GMT-0800], George Kirikos wrote:

> Michael: I didn't read all 83 pages (!), but note that you (and others)
> still haven't presented a dollar value for the value of having your
> WHOIS private. You argued in one section that folks tend to
> "undervalue" (are myopic) their privacy, but that still doesn't remove
> the burden to come up with a number ...

From the article:

"Worse still, once you enter, the store will be able to determine which
merchandise to show you and how much to charge."

If I receive an email of someone asking to buy a domain I happen to have,
I look around for information. The email address might betray something. I
may look if she has a website, or works for a company that does. I can use
Google in addition. If I think it is a sizeable company that wants my
domain I would ask a higher price than when I had the idea it was for
personal use.

So in this case you benefit from having kept your information to yourself.
Thousands of Dollars.

- -- 
[01] All ideas are vintage not new or perfect.
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: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 00:15:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] anyone have a copy of icanns organization chart anywhere?

http://www.icann.org/general/icann-org-chart.htm

or anyone know the name of the archived site which harvest this tuff.  the
wayback machine url.

thanks

joe

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

    iRADIO.nomad          http://iradio.nomad/

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

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

Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 02:41:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] a sermon - enjoy (fwd)

I posted this to my favourte group run by by a ver nice fellow.  a human.

let us pray ... and enjoy.  let us bury icann with dignity.  i have
decided to appologise to ester.  of couse my appologias are socratian in
form and substance so one can expect an execution shortly after.

 will be composing the socratian appologia this evening - cheers.

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 01:52:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
To: johnmac's living room <[email-masked]>
Cc: Inwood2001 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [johnmacsgroup] Books -- "Web of Deception"

it's my position that in the cyberspace universe privacy is but a light
hearted fiction.  i laugh - ha - ha.  the best one can achive through
misinformation is the means of cloaking - thereby hoping thats ones
privacy or lack thereof is more fiction then reality.

but privacy is a minor issue - there are more dangers much more sever.

the internet is redefining reality.  it's a very big space.  how many
electrons can you fit on the head of a pin - and would god be there
smiling back at you?  i'm serious by the way.  bear with me.

the only way to over come the many horrors - and it is a horror - is to
trust each other.  i certainly would trust my neighbours more then i
would a national leader or some local politician bimbo

people have very little time to save themselves.  the existing protocols
which define the intranetworks end to end controls points allows very
angry people extraordinary powers.  data is salvation as it is damnation.
the only reason i became a demented computer scientist is because i hated
these things.  first time i saw a computer i knew we were all in trouble.

the only way to offset the danger is to provide all people with the tools
to have such powers directly under their control.  the networks were built
on a false assumption.  the protocls assume were nice well behavied
people.  well thats not so is it.

and if we don't start trusting each other soon - this planet is going to
die and the communication infrastructure can either save or destroy.
there is a vortex on the internet.  an electronic war of interesting
perportions.  i frightened - but have faith we will all wake up in time.
if not i'll just continue saying - well - i told you so.

which see - reference:

05 April 1995 discovery.ca

www.dot-god.com/bod/jb/discovery-ca-05-Apr-1995.ra

and i've already delt with the dangers of interception through root
authorities.   which see - privacy commission - canada et all

www.dot-god.com/bod/jb/Root_Server_Privacy_Complaint.pdf

the magnitued of this is incredible.  the u.s. has just worked out a deal
with verisign root server provider A for the transferrence of data on dns
traffic patterns.  i assume their main concern is .com.  i've been waring
about this for years.  as you can all see.

the only way to stop the propagation of error on the internet is to drop
everything and take over.  the internet is controlled at the edges - which
is you the users.  government attempts at control result in collapse.
this is what we have seen at the root level.  Government is an entity
whose time has long gone.  electrons can overwhelm governments and cause
collapse.  I've proven this in the area of FOIR laws.  I was responsible
for overloading a system and the only way they could save freedom of
information was by shutting it down.  the commissioner now spends a great
deal of her time trying to be relevant.  the former commissioner who ruled
on order m-618 disappeared for a few years and resurfaced at the vehicle
licensing department - a serious demotion for this civil servant.

http://www.ipc.on.ca/scripts/index_.asp?action=31&P_ID=9047&N_ID=1&PT_ID=1055&U_ID=0&DT_ID=OC

order m-618 is a classic example of an attempt by the
information and privacy commissioner to deal with information overload.
this can be achived by many means at various levels of government.  i was
one person who guranteed thousand of civil servants a job and many man
years.  people wer hired through out the civil service to serve me and in
some cases i was thanks by many departments which were about to be
downsized.  my electronic information campaign allowed for no downsizing.

the net result of m-618 was to shut down information retreval now freedom
of information in canada is an abstract fiction.  of course i provided a
solution - but my familiarity with government did not give me reason for
much hope they would take the life jacket i threw them - and they proved
me right.

the trick in foi is the proper valuation of information retreval and
storage.  in our 18th century government infrastructure information
retrieval is treated as an expense - not a value added asset.  and there
is no effective means of storing and indexing.  all retrevals are expenses
and as such it was elimentary to collapse the system.

i won the war - and no one noticed.  what a planet.  but now journalists
across this country curse me for it and the poor fools spin their wheels
and get nowhere.  serves them right.  when i was putting the government in
check mate they watched from the sidelines as their rights to information
access were eroded by my operations.  one man folks with a few buttons can
cause a catastrophy.  the internet redistributes power in a most
entertaining way.  basically every computer is a weapon.

i've always said i'd feel alot safer if everyone carried a gun.  and now
you all do.  cheers.

and we better start taking over before the e.goo comes to life and
attains some precision in understanding and interpreting human data.  the
internet mirrors humanity and this may be difficult for evolving elife.

then again who knows how our little creations will turn out.  worms,
viruses, code, protocols - life.

the tools are there for takeover - no need to reinvent the puzzel.
protocol is law.  and it's time for the human race to recognize that it is
subservient to protocols. and protocol can only be subservient when all
users control.  this already is the case but users have no comprehension
of the power at their finger tips.  the manchurian printer raises it's
ugly face once too often.

right now the existing infrastructure of the net has been converted into
a Multi Level Marketing empire of fried out net techno wizards who are
trying to take over.

evidence ???

in the begging was jon postel and he created the spaces of cyber heaven -
andit was good and so the universe called the internet (whatever) was so
created.

behold gods tomestone.

http://www.postel.org/

behold gods legacy:

http://www.iana.org/

behold god

http://www.postel.org/jonpostel.html

and so it came to be that god was dying - and he did say onto the people -
behold for this gift must serve man - but god died his work undone and
like thieves in the night this great resource was parcelled to the
peddlers and brokers of ill law.

and so they said let us squeeze the live out of gods legacy - lets
pretend we control - and so it was it came to pass that the civil
servants did take over heaven and they created a dogs breakfast.

remember the face of god and then look apone the face of satan

http://www.icannwatch.org/archive/orgchart.gif

this is what replced the god postel.  on his death the vultures gathered
round and devoured the e.pickings.

now all these people do is manage a namebase of 300 domains.  jon postel
did it in a note book - but these bimbos can't manage to do anything.
it's a true disaster.

and so it was that through bureacracy the internet was fractured and the
god postels children turned away.  and the end was near.  they will wander
the net looking for stability.

http://www.caida.org/outreach/presentations/2002/nanog0210/duane.pdf

but will find non.  and so it came to pass that the dark days begin.

hope you all made sense of that - the view from mars is getting dim
folks ;)

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

 The dot.GOD Registry, Limited @ http://www.dot-god.com/
 Registry for .GOD and .SATAN domains. Pioneers in inclusive namespace.

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, John F. McMullen wrote:

> The book "Web of Deception: Misinformation on the Internet" edited by Anne
> P. Mintz (CyberAge Books, 2002; ISBN: 0-910965-60-9; $24.95) deals with
> the large mass of misleading information and out and out lies present on
> the Internet (it specifically mentions the anti-Martin Luther King site
> quoted on the Inwood 2001 list by Larry Lief).
>
> Being able to discriminate between legitimate and scam sites is often a
> difficult task and Ms. Mintz's book provides a big help in helping us to
> make judgements on the quality of sites.
>
>
>    "When you come to the fork in the road, take it" - L.P. Berra
>    "Always make new mistakes" -- Esther Dyson
>    "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
>     Pierre Abelard
>    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
>     -- Arthur C. Clarke
>                           John F. McMullen
>                  [email-masked] [email-masked]
>               ICQ: 4368412 AIM & Yahoo Messenger: johnmac13
>                   http://www.westnet.com/~observer
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

- --
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 #1583
*************************