Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1588
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, February 10 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1588

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

Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 12:23:33 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The list - atlarge vote of trust/distrust: result

At 09:16 a.m. 9/02/2003, Joe Baptista wrote:

>andy - come on - relax - this is another icann red herring.  my only
>objection is whereis jeff williams on this list.  how unrepresentative can
>you be without including my friend jeff.

With his permission he  will be there the next time. My apologies for the 
omission.  </shudder>
There is value for most people to see how they are perceived. It may help 
them to wake up and see realities.

- -joop-

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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 12:00:45 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icann At Large Poll rejects RALOs and ICANN's new At Large structure

At 07:01 a.m. 9/02/2003, you wrote:
>  And my name is on their.  Why?

Because you have posted to public mailing lists.
This is mainly how the list has been put together.
Posting here or being publicly active elsewhere gives others the right to 
mention your name, IMHO.

Anyone who wishes can be removed.
Just email [email-masked]

>When i have never offered to place myself in a trust position with
>any icann organization.

Neither have many others who also appear on the list.
Do you want to be removed the next time?

- -joop-

- --
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 20:24:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icann At Large Poll rejects RALOs and ICANN's new At  Large structure

get my name off of al these lists.  ive never asked any one for trust.  i
don't need your trust - i've got the protocols on my side.  and to put me
on a list with dyson is reprehensible.  dyson needs you trust = i don't
play that game.  i have facts on my side.  if your too lazy too look them
up thats your problem.  i'm not into the dyson spoon feeding trip.

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

     Dot CAM
             http://www.dot.cam/

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 07:01 a.m. 9/02/2003, you wrote:
> >  And my name is on their.  Why?
>
> Because you have posted to public mailing lists.
> This is mainly how the list has been put together.
> Posting here or being publicly active elsewhere gives others the right to
> mention your name, IMHO.
>
> Anyone who wishes can be removed.
> Just email [email-masked]
>
> >When i have never offered to place myself in a trust position with
> >any icann organization.
>
>
> Neither have many others who also appear on the list.
> Do you want to be removed the next time?
>
>
>
> -joop-
>
>

- --
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 20:22:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The list - atlarge vote of trust/distrust: result

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 09:16 a.m. 9/02/2003, Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> >andy - come on - relax - this is another icann red herring.  my only
> >objection is whereis jeff williams on this list.  how unrepresentative can
> >you be without including my friend jeff.
>
> With his permission he  will be there the next time. My apologies for the
> omission.  </shudder>
> There is value for most people to see how they are perceived. It may help
> them to wake up and see realities.

i didn't give permission and my name ended up there.  andy didn't give
permission and i think he said his name ended up there.

i have never asked for the trust of anyone.  i don't need your trust.  i
don't know by what presumption you people are going on to associate me
with a trust list.  and i think you have the right idea but your fools in
trying to support icann.  that nonsense has ended.  what about supporting
the inclusive namespace.

your going to have the same failure here as with the dnso - your appealing
to the wrong people.

regards
joe

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

 have you seen where the Cable News Network has been
                                                      http://cnn.news/

- --
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, 08 Feb 2003 20:58:49 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Esther Dyson..... - a modest clarification

Joe, Ether and all former DNSO GA members,

  I did not read anything in Esthers comments/remarks that would
indicate "Modesty".  Quite the contrary IMO.  I did read some
part of her comments that were very similar to attempting to
"Save Face" as well as less that in keeping with the already known
public record.

  For instance, Esther claims that ICANN has very little power.
As a contracted agent to the DOC/NTIA that doesn't seem to
be very accurate.

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Esther Dyson wrote:
>
> > Andy -
> >
> > three suggestions:
> >
> > One: Ask yourself: If I am really as power-hungry/money-grubbing as they
> > say, why am I wasting my time on ICANN?  Because I believe in what it
> > *should* be, not because I can benefit from it.
>
> the koreans call your actions "saving face".  unfortunately you can't be
> trusted.  you betrayed the internet community.  but thats ok you were only
> doing your job.  what i find repulsive is that you betrayed your own and
> now are desparately distancing yourself so as to avoid the nuclear
> fallout.
>
> your a bit slow ester but i do think you now see the big picture.  i know
> it's still murky for you and difficult to see, maybe scary - but i do
> think you are doing your best to give penance.  you know icann has
> destroyed your reputation and now your repenting.  how quaint.
>
> there's just that little problem of being a traitor to your own.  icann
> insiders elevated you to a position you could not possible comprehend.  as
> queen of the internet - and chairman to icann you profited expertly from
> you elevation to the status of internet guru.  so you owe these people
> much more then stabing them in the back.
>
> i suggest if you want to reach sainthood that you confess.  tell all the
> inside information to us.  tell everything.  and then go away.  or just go
> away.  the worst position to be in is to betray your own.
>
> > Meanwhile,  I do have
> > another life.  You can check on my site: My own conference is at the same
> > time as ICANN's March meeting; I couldn't be chairman of the ALAC even if I
> > wanted to.  Furthermore, take a look at the conference speakers and agenda
> > and you'll see I have a rich intellectual and commercial life apart from
> > ICANN.  ICANN is not my power base.
>
> i'm sure in your heart of hearts that you regret having been fooled into
> it.  ester i'm will to admit that your induction into icann was due to the
> vint cerf mind melt.  ester they fooled you.  then they dumped you.  i
> still remember that meeting when vint cerf kept interrupting you the chair
> to correct you on various technical details.  the sharks made a mistake
> when they crowned you internet queen.  they assumed you could swim.  they
> fell for you guru status.
>
> i just can't believe your betrayal.  you were invited to have a burger
> with the Bilderbergers.
>
> http://www.nexusmagazine.com/Bilderbergers.html
>
> they supported the world domnimation of root based on your crap.  your
> were after all presented as the internet guru.
>
> and now look what has happened!  egg on your face.
>
> and your not alone ester.  other rats are abondoning ship.  saint vixie f
> f.root has been making some noise which leads me to suspect he's about to
> abond ship too.
>
> the saint has been rushing to setup new root infrastracture in the pacific
> rim.  does saint saint vixie of f.root know something we don't?
>
> an expansion of the root servers into asia pacific announced nov 17 2002
>
> http://www.isc.org/ISC/news/pr-11172002.html
>
> then jun murai joins the isc board on nov 18 2002
>
> http://www.isc.org/ISC/news/pr-11182002.html
>
> and now another root server in spain .... oley
>
> http://www.isc.org/ISC/news/pr-01072003.html
>
> now lets not forget that f.root server provided the data for caida
>
> http://www.caida.org/outreach/presentations/2002/nanog0210/
>
> as mentioned in my recent article
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29185.html
>
> now something is going on.  more egg in the face.  so rest assured i
> suspect your not alone.  i just can't accept a traitor - at least paul
> isn't being vocal about his departure.
>
> now i don't think your a money grubber.  you've had money all your life
> as a dyson your life has been privilaged.  and power hungry.  i once
> considered this a possibility - but no more.  no ester - your just like
> every other little person.  you just want to be loved and accepted as a
> star - and got tarnished.  you trusted these twits and now you betray
> them.  i can't understand that.
>
> and the sad thing is you had an opportunity to be loved by the only power
> in charge on the internet - the users.  and they don't trust you.
>
> > Two:  Don't believe everything you read. What I actually said was quite
> > different, and not that new.  Please do read Oxford's precis of the
> > conference when it is posted.  Or you can read what I wrote for the Wall
>
> well make sure you post the url if your still around.
>
> > Street Journal last June.  It's fairly short and simplified, but it's the
> > best statement of my position I can make, and it's on the record.
> > You can agree with it or not, believe it or not, but I got it published in
> > the most influential medium I have access
> > to.  http://www.edventure.com/conversation/article.cfm?Counter=9153289
>
> ester enough with the propaganda - confess.  tell all.
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> p.s. ester you can consider this my formal socratica appologia regarding
> my recent tits comment.  i enjoy abusing your insecurities but in your
> downfall I can afford to be kind.
>
> > Whose Domain Is It Anyway?
> > by Esther Dyson
> > originally published in The Wall Street Journal - June 17, 2002
> > Last week, the Senate held hearings on the putative governing authority of
> > the whorls of cyberspace, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> > Numbers. On Monday, Sen. Conrad Burns, (R., Mont.) announced plans for a
> > bill to give the U.S. government greater sway in ICANN's operations. At
> > stake is just who should oversee the non-government policy-setter of the
> > domain name business -- the U.S. government, many governments or the
> > Internet community itself.
> >
> > At the moment, this international body fills an important vacuum. It is, in
> > a way, the center of the Internet, dictating policies and picking managers
> > for who gets to call themselves wsj.com or fbi.gov. But ICANN doesn't
> > directly provide domain names or other Internet services. It simply sets
> > the standards by which independent parties provide these services.
> >
> > ICANN is weak and powerless. But while it needs to be fixed, it should
> > remain weak and powerless. Its role should be to set only the least
> > controlling of policies, fostering the orderly allocation of domain names
> > to anyone, regardless of the meaning of the name or the content of the
> > site. ICANN's proper role is not to oversee whatever a bureaucracy wants to
> > control, but to resolve issues most people agree are problems.
> >
> > Since ICANN is not a government body, it has no statutory authority and
> > imposes its policies through contracts with its members. But many of those
> > domain managers have taken a pass on joining, creating a stalemate in which
> > the Web's technical infrastructure can't evolve and is subject to continual
> > attempts at government control around the world -- including our Congress's.
> >
> > ICANN was supposed to keep control of the Internet's infrastructure out of
> > the hands of government, and in the hands of users worldwide. The
> > distinction matters because governments potentially restrict freedom of
> > speech; ICANN can control not so much freedom of speech as freedom of
> > presence on the Internet.
> >
> > The trouble is that despite some early successes, ICANN suffers from a
> > flawed decision-making structure and lacks adequate staffing and funding.
> >
> > If ICANN is not fixed, control over its functions will revert to the
> > Department of Commerce, which gave the agency its original contract in
> > 1998. But when Commerce privatized naming policy, it took it out of the
> > domestic realm. There is no way that Commerce could now reassert U.S.
> > authority without causing an international battle and perhaps ceding ICANN
> > to an organization like the U.N.
> >
> > How can ICANN fix itself when its board meets next week in Bucharest? The
> > staff needs to develop contracts that will lure non-U.S. managers to the
> > table by inviting their input on policy. It also needs a management and
> > board structure that would make it accountable not just to corporations and
> > engineers but to individual users. The departing president and senior staff
> > need to be replaced with fresh blood that will welcome constructive criticism.
> >
> > ICANN's creation reflected a remarkable leap of faith -- relinquishing de
> > facto U.S. power to a global community, through an organization that has to
> > win adherence from a diverse range of participants without the power to
> > raise taxes or enforce laws. We should give it time -- but also hold to the
> > original vision. It needs to ratify global consensus onlywhere it should
> > exist, and leave the rest of the issues -- serving the poor, policing
> > fraud, setting prices -- up to local societies, governments or markets.
> >
> > If ICANN can learn to live with diversity, allow new competitors to enter
> > the fray, and remain open even to critics, it will prove the virtues of
> > voluntary cooperation and open systems that gave us the Net itself.
> > Copyright (c) 2002, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
> >
> >
> >
> > Three:  Meanwhile, please *do* get active in the ALAC and the At-large
> > membership and try to change things to your satisfaction.  Your duty does
> > not end with criticism.
> >
> > Esther Dyson
> >
> >
> > At 07:46 PM 2/7/2003, 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!
> > >
> > >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
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
>
>  Atlantic Ocean http://atlantic.ocean/
>  ISP and domain hosting.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 00:50:51 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The list - atlarge vote of trust/distrust: result

At 12:23 PM +1300 2/9/03, Joop Teernstra wrote:

>There is value for most people to see how they are perceived. It may help
>them to wake up and see realities.

How did the voting handle the case where the voter had no inkling of who
the person listed was?

Did Joop send personal mails to people asking them to vote for certain
candidates, or do any politicising?

- -- 
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: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 09:37:30 -0500
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: wait a minute - icannatlarge = Joop Teernstra

In my case, I have resigned from the icannatlarge board, but wish the 
best to the remaining panel members.   I assume I was listed as a 
technical context because I served for a brief couple of weeks as the 
chair of a committee on the web page, before the acting chair decided to 
take it over.  Jamie

Michael D. Palage wrote:
> Contact Type Technical
> Organization Name ICANNatlarge.org
> First Name Jamie
> Last Name Love
> Address 1 Consumer Project on Technology

- -- 
James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
tel. +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040

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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 10:13:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: wait a minute - icannatlarge = Joop Teernstra

ok - so you've jumped ship - noted.

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

      Smurf the inclusive namespace web http://www.smurf.parody

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, James Love wrote:

> In my case, I have resigned from the icannatlarge board, but wish the
> best to the remaining panel members.   I assume I was listed as a
> technical context because I served for a brief couple of weeks as the
> chair of a committee on the web page, before the acting chair decided to
> take it over.  Jamie
>
> Michael D. Palage wrote:
> > Contact Type Technical
> > Organization Name ICANNatlarge.org
> > First Name Jamie
> > Last Name Love
> > Address 1 Consumer Project on Technology
>
>
> --
> James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
> tel. +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
>

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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 21:30:26 +0100
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO Council Whois TF Final report- modified version -open for public comment

[To:[email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

The WHOIS Task Force has provided a replacement version of the Final report
on Whois Accuracy and Bulk Access.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030206.WhoisTF-accuracy-and-bulkaccess.html
with
There is one change based on input received from one of the contributors of
comments regarding the name of the contributor; their request for correction
was accepted.
The final version remains otherwise unchanged.

The report contains consensus policy recommendations as well as advice and
comment from the Task Force.

The report will be considered by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 20
February 2003. If the GNSO Council adopts recommendations, they are likely
to be addressed at the ICANN Public Forum on 26 March 2003 in Rio De
Janeiro, Brazil, and to be considered by the ICANN Board for adoption on 27
March 2003.

Comments should be submitted by e-mail to <[email-masked]> no later
than 17 February 2003.

Comments will be archived at:
http://dnso.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc03/

GNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 14:45:18 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Potential UDRP filing?  Monsterhooters.com vs Hooters.com and Monster.com?

All former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  Recently I received a Letter from a concerned party which for now
will remain unnamed concerned about cease and desist letters concerning
the Domain Name Monsterhooters.com see: http://www.monsterhooters.com/
for further information or entertainment. >;)  Seems that some of the
ladies featured on this Web site are concerned about their future
employment as models and so forth on this certainly reveling 
an interesting Domain

Name's site.  These Cease and Desist letters seem to be sent from
competent legal folks stating that they are offended by this web sites
similar nature to Monster.com and Hooters.com.

  As I understand it, Hooters.com is launching a Airline business and
may therefore be concerned about their image regarding
Monsterhooters.com as not exactly being the image they would 
like to project ( Pardon the Pun ).

  I was struck dumbfounded to a degree given Hooters.com supposed
contention in those letters.  I also found it rather humorous as well,
as one might imagine!  >;)

  Monster.com on the other hand may indeed have a legitimate concern
regarding their image with respect to Monsterhooters.com as being
confusingly similar, though I don't personally see how.  Yet the
domain Names are indeed similar to a degree.

  However I sympathize with the ladies the ply their wares or depend
in part as to their livelihood on http://www.monsterhooters.com/ as
several of these ladies are INEGroup members, which I was not aware of
until very recently much to my surprise and obvious interest.

  So I thought I would share this potential UDRP filing situation
with the the members of this forum as well as to seek advice
from one of the UDRP Task force members, John Berryhill.
Perhaps John, you might share with me your advice in this
potential matter should it come to pass, and perhaps you
may be able to Help out legally if called upon should some
of these ladies loose their livelyhood as a result of near
future UDRP action.  As I understand it two or three of them
live in your home state, John.  And I am sure that you would
be able to "Work something out" with them on legal fees and
so forth...  >;)

  I am sure we don't want to leave these Damsels in distress do we?  >:)

Concerned Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 16:17:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Potential UDRP filing?  Monsterhooters.com vs Hooters.com and Monster.com?

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Jeff Williams wrote:

> All former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,
>
>   Recently I received a Letter from a concerned party which for now
> will remain unnamed concerned about cease and desist letters concerning
> the Domain Name Monsterhooters.com see: http://www.monsterhooters.com/

those hooters are monsters.  an appropriate name for the site,

>   As I understand it, Hooters.com is launching a Airline business and
> may therefore be concerned about their image regarding
> Monsterhooters.com as not exactly being the image they would
> like to project ( Pardon the Pun ).

i wouldn't mind projecting a few of those hooters myself.

regards
joe

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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 17:33:32 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GNSO Council Whois TF Final report- modified version -open for public comment

Dear secretariat and all former DNSO GA members,

  Dam!  This seems like and awfully short time span for submitting
comments/alternitive proposals!  :(  It would almost seem as though
there is a desire on the part of the Whois Task Force that no
comments or few would be welcome or considered????

DNSO SECRETARIAT wrote:

> [To:[email-masked]; [email-masked]]
> [To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
>
> The WHOIS Task Force has provided a replacement version of the Final report
> on Whois Accuracy and Bulk Access.
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030206.WhoisTF-accuracy-and-bulkaccess.html
> with
> There is one change based on input received from one of the contributors of
> comments regarding the name of the contributor; their request for correction
> was accepted.
> The final version remains otherwise unchanged.
>
> The report contains consensus policy recommendations as well as advice and
> comment from the Task Force.
>
> The report will be considered by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 20
> February 2003. If the GNSO Council adopts recommendations, they are likely
> to be addressed at the ICANN Public Forum on 26 March 2003 in Rio De
> Janeiro, Brazil, and to be considered by the ICANN Board for adoption on 27
> March 2003.
>
> Comments should be submitted by e-mail to <[email-masked]> no later
> than 17 February 2003.
>
> Comments will be archived at:
> http://dnso.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc03/
>
> GNSO Secretariat
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 18:01:14 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

Marilyn and all former DNSO GA members,

  I meant to reply to this the other day but I got a bit distracted...
( See More below your comments Marilyn )

Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP wrote:

> Putting up a web site is not the same thing as contacting an ISP and subscribing and getting an email account. Some may wish the assumptions regarding those actions and what the expectation of privacy is are the same, but I don't see how they are.

  With regards to privacy and security they are exactly the same Marilyn.
Not all Domain Names have web sites.  I would argue most don't as
a matter of fact.  Listing a registrants personal and private information,
including Personal address, Phone # and E-Mail address exposes the
registrant to spam, stalking, and potential duping/indetity theft.  Ergo
the same or even better protections for registrants must be afforded
the registrant.  Of course we have already seen most of these
egregious negative perpetration's occur to registrants already
as has been frequently demonstrated by reports, court filings,
and the like discussed on this very forum.  Why You Marilyn
cannot or will not seem to grasp the problem reasonably is
beyond common reason...  :(

>
>
> The difference between those acts is pretty profound. In one case, one subscribes to a domain name for the purpose of         holding one's self out to communicate with the public.

  Not true in many cases here Marily.  As has been demonstrated many times
before on this very forum, many registrants do not use their registered
Domain Name for web site public purposes, and other still, have login
password just to access their Web site when they have one for their
Domain Name.

> ISPs provide a reasonable expectation of privacy to the subscriber, and their service agreements specify what that is. The agreements which registrars should provide information about the publication of data in the WHOIS.

  Agreed here.  However that is not what is happening, and all ICANN
registrars are bound by the same Registrar contract to be accredited.
Hence leaving the registrant no good or actual choices.  So that
argument is bunkum, and has sense Joe Sims botched those
Registrar contracts.

>
>
> When you put up a web site, you are inviting the public at large to visit your site and to use the content on it; perhaps with subscription, perhaps for free.

  ALso complete nonsense.  Many websites are not accessible unless
you have a Login and Password.  So therefore that content is restricted
accordingly and not public or for general public consumption.

>
>
> Yes, I understand that some people think that domain names are substituable for email addresses. That's an interesting, and unproven model for the "average" user.

  Define average Marilyn.  I doubt that you can accurately.

> Not the techie oriented crowd who hangs around ICANN, but those everyday users of the Internet and other communications services who are focused on their daily lives, and their businesses, not on technology and its fascinations. :-) THAT was not meant as in any way critical, just a note that well, there are are millions of email users out there and they are quite happily served by ISPs. AND the ISPs are quite happy serving them.

  Many non technical types or registrants/users also do not have a web site
for their Domain Names that I know personally.  Some only use IP
addresses for instance.  Others still just want a Domain Name for
E-Mail purposes only, and still others have a number of other
non-web site business uses for their Domain names..  You are
showing your ignorance here Marilyn...  :(

>
>
> As to policy questions, versus personal opinions, the question of whether all data that is presently in the WHOIS should be there is a topic yet to be discussed as policy; the question of whether there is a need for differentiated access to data elements is yet to be discussed as policy.

  Than why is in the Whois Task Forces final report Marilyn?

>  The WHOIS TF will be recommending further policy examination. The final report on some of its work is published for final comment. When we say "final report", we mean final report about this particular set  of work. The Council will determine further work, but I expect that there will be support for next steps.

  The registrants and interested parties should be determining what further
work is needed...

>
>
> Secondly, Karl, you are both right and wrong regarding WHAT WHOIS. I've had conversations with both system administrators adn enforcement teams from various companies -- they tell me that in fact both kinds of WHOIS are used and that both are higly inaccurate, filled with "aged" data, and with purposeful errors, ... that is, unless there is overcrowding at various residential locations at the North Pole and non-resident citizens of the US are invited to bunk in, in apparently the numbers of dozens to hundreds at the U.S. White House. Oh, yes, one more, and unless "XXX" has now become a working area code in the US.  Accuracy remains a problem in both "kinds" of WHOIS -- IP and DNS. :-)

  Area codes should not need to be displayed at all in WHois data, and
really no phone numbers are needed except for Admin. contact
phone Numbers.  Hence your argument here, although cleverly
delivered is not reasonable on that score.  As to addresses, those
too for the registrant, should not be displayed in Whois queries
either, as that it the crux of the security and Privacy problem
presently.  However for Admin. contact address, that should be
listed in a Whois query.

>
>
> Marilyn Cade
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 1:25 AM
> To: Karl Auerbach; Ram Mohan
> Cc: 'George Kirikos'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?
>
> Its the right track Karl, but the right answer is:
>
> > Assuming for the moment that ISP's and such obtained value out of DNS
> > whois information - That still doesn't justify them mucking around unless
> > certain conditions are met:
>
> 1. The registrant has given the accessor (ISP in your example) specific
> permission to access and use their data.
>
>                      -rwr
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org
>
> "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
> thought which they seldom use."
>  - Soren Kierkegaard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Ram Mohan" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; "'George Kirikos'" <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?
>
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Ram Mohan wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting thoughts and an interesting premise.  The problem is, that
> the
> > > groups you mention here (marketers, IP folks, etc) are not the only
> people
> > > who utilize Whois information.
> > >
> > > System operators (including technicians, systems administrators
> responding
> > > to abuse, etc) often depend solely on information found in Whois to
> > > determine next courses of action for serious network and other related
> > > issues.
> >
> > I disagree - Folks in NOCs *do* use something called "whois", but it most
> > often it is a distinct set of databases pertaining to IP address
> > allocations.
> >
> > Why do NOC folks use the IP "whois"?  Simply because the key that one has
> > for the lookup is less easily forged.  Domain names on purported spam
> > e-mail are only ocassionally accurate.  But the IP address on a TCP
> > connection has intrinsic value because a TCP connection can not be formed
> > unless both the source and destination address are actually reachable.
> >
> > Assuming for the moment that ISP's and such obtained value out of DNS
> > whois information - That still doesn't justify them mucking around unless
> > certain conditions are met:
> >
> >   1. That a person who acquires a domain name is informed from the outset
> > that such access will be performed by ISP people.  (I.e. actual or implied
> > consent by the data subject.)
> >
> >   2. The person who is doing the looking is actually a real ISP person
> > following up on a specific legitimate problem.
> >
> > It would not be all that hard for anyone claiming to be an "ISP" to jump
> > through some qualification hoops in order to gain a whois access
> > credential.  For instance, once a year.
> >
> > The burden of proving that access to personally identifiable information
> > is a valid access ought to fall on the person requesting access, not on
> > the data subject.
> >
> > > Your premise is also that all individuals provide accurate information.
> We
> > > know (you definitely do, as a registrar) that some of the most egregious
> > > violators make sure that they provide _false_ information.
> >
> > Why are people who feel they need to protect their privacy "egregious
> > violators".  Suppose you had young children, would you feel comfortable
> > publishing your (and thus their) addresses and phone numbers onto an open
> > directory?
> >
> > > Giving individuals the sole right to provide information about them
> > > seems to swing the pendulum too far one way.
> >
> > It's their information; they have the right to control it.
> >
> > > ....  However, your suggested solution provides a
> > > wonderful shelter for every spammer, DDoS violator and domain-slammer to
> > > hide behind.
> >
> > Nonesense.  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.
> >
> > Absent such a showing, there is no reason to violate privacy.  That is,
> > unless one accepts as a working premise that those who are accused are
> > considered guilty until they prove otherwise.
> >
> > > The Whois Task Force is working on providing meaningful recommendations
> > > that, among other things, addresses the issue of Bulk Whois.
> >
> > Until they establish that there is a reason for public publication of DNS
> > registration information in the first place, such recommendations are
> > fundamentally useless.
> >
> > > The IETF Provreg group is debating adding a <privacy> element as a
> > > standard part of the de-facto standard domain protocol (EPP).
> >
> > If you follow what is going on there, they are debating whether even to
> > include some very weak, and potentially useless, mechanisms, and only
> > because the IESG is holding the working group's feet to the fire.
> >
> > > Let's be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > --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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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

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 #1588
*************************