Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1597
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, February 14 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1597

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

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:30:33 -0500
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Danny,

No problem, you have clarified an number of misunderstandings that I have
had in the past. In theory that is how the GA list is suppose to work,
people sharing collective knowledge to prevent other people from having to
reinventing the wheel. However, as most list subscribers can attest it does
not always work that way :-)

Take it easy,

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 11:56 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains
>
>
> Michael,
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Re:  << I agree that the Whois output from the thick registry is very
> confusing to a normal user. >>
>
> I guess that as a typical confused user I continue to fail to
> understand the
> justification for all the extra fields that appear in the thick
> WHOIS.  Why
> should anyone, other than my own registrar, have to know my
> billing contact
> information?  Why does my expectation of privacy continue to be eroded in
> this ICANN process?
>
> As far as I recall, the RAA says nothing about making billing
> data available
> for publication.  When did the DNSO approve a change in this policy?
>

- --
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:31:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Stephane Bortzmeyer FAQ. - was innaccurate to --> - Re: Jeff Williams FAQ (was RE: [ga] BULK whois)

Stephane and all,

  Indeed you are on record in the ICANN EU forum as being very
hostile towards Joe Baptista, and myself.  I shall be sure that our
EU members contact the Register individually to keep them updated
and accurate on that particular actual FACT.  In the mean time,
we shall be considering launching an concerted effort for
specific FAQ-Type Domains across the EU countries to include
this sort of information.  Perhaps that will aid in clarifying and
accurately presenting the ongoings of various forums as to
personal attacks such as the subject line of this thread sadly
and inaccurately display...

  Indeed also the Registrer is a fine and mostly accurate
news soruce.  I read it frequently, and a numberof our members
advertise with the Register and are paying customers.  Joe Baptista's
article was spot on and many of our EU members were very glad
and happy to have had the opertunity to read it in the Regester.

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 08:08:54PM -0500,
>  Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> wrote
>  a message of 96 lines which said:
>
> > what about all the newspaper articles where he has been quoted as a
> > leading expert.  lots of those about.
>
> All written by Joe Baptista or Jim Fleming. What a record :-)
>
> > i'm afraid i just can't buy the jeff williams faq - when the press telss
> > me otherwise.
>
> I'm deeply sorry for the Register, a very fine journal otherwise. They
> made a big mistake (publishing *one* article by Joe Baptista), I'll
> write them to inform them about their mistake but I would like people
> to be reminded that it is a worthy source of information otherwise.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk
>
> Read <URL:http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/29308.html> for
> instance: "Gates holds forth on the 'pervasive Linux' threat".
> --
> 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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:43:54 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

So, assuming I followed this correctly, then only after the transition to a
thick registry, PIR will have in its own database information showing that
they are providing technical support services to an OFAC-designated foreign
organization using the domain name hizbollah.org ?

Do I have that right?

- --
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:08:08 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

I note that many spammers are using .org names at present, as the WHOIS
screw-up makes it harder for Joe Average to track them down.

- -- 
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:23:55 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Joe and all former DNSO GA members,

  Joe is essentially correct here.  However I had to go to
http://www.register.com/whois_lookup.cgi?cmp=IL9117
to get the listing for Danny's Domain Name DNSPOLICY.ORG
http://whois.register.com did not resolve for me...

  However Joe should yet again be commended for his
assistance and helpfulness in his comments and data
provided ( See below ).  Well done Joe!  And thank you!
Unfortunately the folks at Register.com or PIR do not seem
to be quite as helpful or considerate for their registrants/stakeholders...
Perhaps the ICANN staff or the ISOC staff could prevail upon
PIR/AFILIAS to do a better job of handling their responsibilities?

  It seems obvious that each registrar or registry will determine
with whom they are going to share their registrants data with
and what specific output from a Whois query will be provided
or otherwise given on specific queries.

  I also was able to use my browser based Whois tool to
do a look-up on Danny's domain Name of DNSPOLICY.ORG
without any problem after I modified it to point to
http://www.register.com/whois_lookup.cgi  .

  So it does seem obvious that PIR has created another level
of inconsistency in WHois for reason or reasons unknown.

Joe Baptista wrote:

> This has been going on for weeks.  It's part of the ICANN stability
> package of goodies they managed to sell ya all.
>
> The problem seems to be with PIR.  To get your registry details just
> lookup the whois server in the ourput - you'll see it next to the
> Registrants Street1 address - of course - where else would one be expected
> to find it.
>
> use that or the refferal url to verify your domain information.  here it
> is incidentally provided by whois.register.com
>
>    Organization:
>       registrants constituency
>       Danny Younger
>       2311 60th Street
>       Brooklyn, NY 11204
>       US
>       Phone: 718-376-5505
>       Email: [email-masked]
>
>    Registrar Name....: Register.com
>    Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
>    Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
>
>    Domain Name: DNSPOLICY.ORG
>
>       Created on..............: Thu, Jul 04, 2002
>       Expires on..............: Fri, Jul 04, 2003
>       Record last updated on..: Mon, Nov 11, 2002
>
>    Administrative Contact:
>       registrants constituency
>       Danny Younger
>       2311 60th Street
>       Brooklyn, NY 11204
>       US
>       Phone: 718-376-5505
>       Email: [email-masked]
>
>    Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
>       Register.Com
>       Domain Registrar
>       575 8th Avenue - 11th Floor
>       New York, NY 10018
>       US
>       Phone: 902-749-2701
>       Fax..: 902-749-5429
>       Email: [email-masked]
>
>    Domain servers in listed order:
>
>    DNS3.REGISTER.COM                                 216.21.234.72
>    DNS4.REGISTER.COM                                 216.21.226.72
>
> so you can see danny you still exist.
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > I just looked up the details on one of my domains, and instead of the
> > "accurate" WHOIS details that I had previously provided, PIR is returning the
> > following data... The same type of erroneous data is being provided for
> > ICANN.org as well.  My WHOIS query was initiated via the networksolutions.com
> > website.  What's going on?
> >
> > Domain ID:D88115474-LROR
> > Domain Name:DNSPOLICY.ORG
> > Created On:04-Jul-2002 04:11:45 UTC
> > Last Updated On:04-Jul-2002 04:11:45 UTC
> > Expiration Date:04-Jul-2003 04:17:15 UTC
> > Sponsoring Registrar:R71-LROR
> > Status:OK
> > Registrant ID:71-C
> > Registrant Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> > Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> > Registrant Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> > Registrant City:N/A
> > Registrant Postal Code:N/A
> > Registrant Country:CA
> > Registrant Email:[email-masked]
> > Admin ID:71-C
> > Admin Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> > Admin Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> > Admin Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> > Admin City:N/A
> > Admin Postal Code:N/A
> > Admin Country:CA
> > Admin Email:[email-masked]
> > Billing ID:71-C
> > Billing Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> > Billing Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> > Billing Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> > Billing City:N/A
> > Billing Postal Code:N/A
> > Billing Country:CA
> > Billing Email:[email-masked]
> > Tech ID:71-C
> > Tech Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> > Tech Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> > Tech Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> > Tech City:N/A
> > Tech Postal Code:N/A
> > Tech Country:CA
> > Tech Email:[email-masked]
> > Name Server:DNS3.REGISTER.COM
> > Name Server:DNS4.REGISTER.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

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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:33:06 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] BULK whois - More innaccurate "visceralness" f...

Danny and all former DNSO GA members,

  Inproper or incorrect query query there Danny.  Try again...

  Seems your having allot of problems with proper queries lately
Danny...  ????  

[email-masked] wrote:

> Re:
>
> << Check the USG Federal registry for further information. >>
>
> "inegroup does not occur in the database"
> http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=15885924792+1+
>
> 0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

- --
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:16:07 -0500
From: "Ram Mohan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

John,
Thin registry operators do not have any contact information regarding
domains in their databases (see http://www.nsiregistry.com).  This is true
today for all .COM and .NET names run by VeriSign Registry, and for all .ORG
names run by PIR.

At this point, the only information that PIR's database has regarding
<hizbollah.org> is that Network Solutions is the sponsoring registrar for
the domain, as well as domain creation/update/expiration information and
nameserver information -- similar to .COM & .NET today.

Upon transition to a thick registry, the contact information will be stored
in PIR's databases, but the "ownership" of this information remains that of
the sponsoring registrar (like today).

- -Ram
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
To: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

>
> So, assuming I followed this correctly, then only after the transition to
a
> thick registry, PIR will have in its own database information showing that
> they are providing technical support services to an OFAC-designated
foreign
> organization using the domain name hizbollah.org ?
>
> Do I have that right?
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:19:46 -0500
From: "Ram Mohan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Andy,
I wonder how you "know" that these spammers are using .org names --- since
most spammers work pretty hard to mask their real email addresses (and, in
fact, their real IP addresses also).

If you know based on the "from" address, then you should also know that this
is one of the most easily spoofed parts of any email.

- -ram
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Gardner" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

>
> I note that many spammers are using .org names at present, as the WHOIS
> screw-up makes it harder for Joe Average to track them down.
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>

- --
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:32:16 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

>Andy,
>I wonder how you "know" that these spammers are using .org names --- since
>most spammers work pretty hard to mask their real email addresses (and, in
>fact, their real IP addresses also).
>
>If you know based on the "from" address, then you should also know that this
>is one of the most easily spoofed parts of any email.

I'm talking about the WEBSITE they point to in the spam, not any spoofed
headers.

>-ram
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andy Gardner" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:08 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains
>
>
>>
>> I note that many spammers are using .org names at present, as the WHOIS
>> screw-up makes it harder for Joe Average to track them down.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>

- -- 
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:44:29 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

- --- [email-masked] wrote:
> I just looked up the details on one of my domains, and instead of the
> 
> "accurate" WHOIS details that I had previously provided, PIR is
> returning the 
> following data... The same type of erroneous data is being provided
> for 
> ICANN.org as well.  My WHOIS query was initiated via the
> networksolutions.com 
> website.  What's going on?  

As explained by others, PIR returns a set of (invalid) info, along with
the correct WHOIS server to use at the appropriate current registrar. A
"recursive" WHOIS that properly returns the WHOIS in the form you
expect is at: http://www.betterwhois.com/

For example, for my games.org domain, you can see the output at:

http://www.betterwhois.com/bwhois.cgi?domain=games.org

Verisign technology being what it is, they'll maybe catch up to the
rest of the world in a few months. 

Enjoy!

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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:01:24 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Ram,

Might you know when/if we'll get further information regarding the proposed 
ORGcloak service?  What portions of the WHOIS information are under 
consideration as protectable elements?

"4. ORGCloak --  PIR contemplates providing, at a nominal fee, a service in 
conjunction with registrars, that allows organizations to protect portions of 
their WHOIS information from the general public. This will protect 
organizations from spamming, and can be useful to organizations that require 
a level of anonymity (such as free speech or human rights organizations that 
operate in politically unfriendly countries). The WHOIS data will remain 
available, under safeguarding policies and procedures, to qualified entities 
such as law enforcement bodies and UDRP dispute resolution service providers. 
 
This service will not be offered until proper consultation with the 
Intellectual Property Community and the .ORG Advisory Council to ensure that 
the enforcement of intellectual property rights are not compromised."

http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/isoc/section5.html#top
- --
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:16:27 -0500
From: "Ram Mohan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Hi Danny,
I would refer you to PIR for this -- send them an email at [email-masked], and
their policy people will respond (afilias only does the tech and operational
end of .org for PIR)

- -ram
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

> Ram,
>
> Might you know when/if we'll get further information regarding the
proposed
> ORGcloak service?  What portions of the WHOIS information are under
> consideration as protectable elements?
>
> "4. ORGCloak --  PIR contemplates providing, at a nominal fee, a service
in
> conjunction with registrars, that allows organizations to protect portions
of
> their WHOIS information from the general public. This will protect
> organizations from spamming, and can be useful to organizations that
require
> a level of anonymity (such as free speech or human rights organizations
that
> operate in politically unfriendly countries). The WHOIS data will remain
> available, under safeguarding policies and procedures, to qualified
entities
> such as law enforcement bodies and UDRP dispute resolution service
providers.
>
> This service will not be offered until proper consultation with the
> Intellectual Property Community and the .ORG Advisory Council to ensure
that
> the enforcement of intellectual property rights are not compromised."
>
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/isoc/section5.html#top
>
>

- --
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:33:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Long Way (Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains)

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, at 16:01 [=GMT-0500], [email-masked] wrote:

> Might you know when/if we'll get further information regarding the proposed
> ORGcloak service?  What portions of the WHOIS information are under
> consideration as protectable elements? [...]

> This service will not be offered until proper consultation with the
> Intellectual Property Community and the .ORG Advisory Council

The Advisory Council will be announced on March 1
(http://www.pir.org/about/council.html). Then we know how many IntProp
people are in there. And if those in there don't shoot the idea, we are at
the mercy of the IntProp people out there. They are very succesfull in the
ICANN context so far in making their lifes easier. So my guess: It is a
long way.

> to ensure that
> the enforcement of intellectual property rights are not compromised."
>
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/isoc/section5.html#top

- -- 
[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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:51:11 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BULK whois (or: ICANN's Agreements)

From: <[email-masked]>
>
> What protection is there for consumers against bad shoe store operators,
> or bad restaurant operators, or almost any other kind of commercial
> entity?

I was unaware that, in order to run a shoe store, one had to sign a contract
with a non-profit organization in California which is the sole authority for
enabling one to run a shoe store.

Get it, "sole authority"... Oh, geez... some days...

But IF the only way to run a shoe store was to sign a contract with IFOOT,

and IF IFOOT was a public interest corporation that required, in that
contract, for each shoe store operator to do certain things,

and IF the shoe store operator did not do those things spelled out in that
contract,

THEN, yes, people would be justifiably concerned that IFOOT was merely a sham
organization which had been captured by shoe store interests to let them do
whatever they damned well pleased.

And you would sit there saying that shoe stores didn't have to follow their
IFOOT agreement, and that people who expected them to abide by their IFOOT
contracts, or for those contracts to be enforced by IFOOT, were deluded.

But you are right, Kent.  ICANN doesn't need to enforce its contracts with
anyone, and those contracts do not inure to the benefit of domain name
registrants.  It is refreshing to hear such blunt honesty from someone within
ICANN for a change.

But Jiminy Christmas, as Mike Palage also points out, we all know that the
contracts don't mean a thing to domain name registrants.  Can't we all just
stop obsessing about "protections for domain name registrants" built into the
accreditation agreements and own up to the fact that it is all pretty much
meaningless BS that has nothing to do with where the leather meets the road
in this circus?

I mean, why bother with what registrars are, or are not, required to do by
the RAA.  Nobody cares if they follow it or not.  And you are a prime example
of an ICANN supporter who becomes indignant at the suggestion that ICANN
should care if their own contracts are breached, or that it should be ICANN's
job to care if its own contracts are breached.  Bravo.

- --
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:10:43 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

From: "Ram Mohan" <[email-masked]>
>
> At this point, the only information that PIR's database has regarding
> <hizbollah.org> is that Network Solutions is the sponsoring registrar for
> the domain, as well as domain creation/update/expiration information and
> nameserver information -- similar to .COM & .NET today.
>
> Upon transition to a thick registry, the contact information will be stored
> in PIR's databases, but the "ownership" of this information remains that of
> the sponsoring registrar (like today).

I understand the point, but the "ownership" concept is not going to help PIR.

Did you notice that the Iraq Satellite Television Channel happened to lose
their domain name at iraqtv.ws this week, and that somehow the domain name
has been rendered unregistrable in the .ws TLD?  There is a reason for that.
Did you notice that the Iraqi government domain name uruklink.net is no
longer registered through Register.com.  There is a reason for that, too.

My question was about "knowledge", not "ownership".   When you are getting
paid for supplying technical support services, what matters is whether you
know to whom those services are being rendered.  Right now, PIR can deny
knowledge that it is being paid for supplying services ultimately rendered to
Hezbollah, an OFAC-designated organization.  When the "thick" transition is
made, they lose that deniability.

I'll give you an example that perhaps you can relate to.  The technical
contact for the .iq top-level domain is in jail in Texas for, among other
allegations, sending computer parts to Malta.  Is it illegal to send computer
parts to Malta?  Nope.  But the US government alleges that those parts were
trans-shipped, with his knowledge, to destinations in Syria and Libya.

What matters is what you know.  The fact that Verisign is the primary
contractor to Hezbollah in the case of hizbollah.org doesn't get the registry
off the hook once they know that it is *their* servers which are providing
the authoritative answer for queries seeking hizbollah.org, thus rendering
tangible technical support to an OFAC-designated terrorist organization in
contravention of US law.  Does US law rule the internet?  Nope.  Does it rule
where PIR is, and more importantly, where PIR's directors, management, and
employees are?  It surely does.

OFAC compliance can be automated, thanks to data files available from the US
Treasury Department and third-party vendors.  There is no "oh, gee, but we
have a lot of customers" excuse for violating OFAC regulations, and providing
technical support on a commercial basis to OFAC designated organizations is
not some kind of free speech issue.

- --
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, 14 Feb 2003 15:15:15 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

At 06:43 a.m. 14/02/2003, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

>So, assuming I followed this correctly, then only after the transition to a
>thick registry, PIR will have in its own database information showing that
>they are providing technical support services to an OFAC-designated foreign
>organization using the domain name hizbollah.org ?
>
>Do I have that right?

Naughty, John, naughty. :-)

Blacklisted foreign organizations getting domain service from US 
registrars, is a can of worms ICANN  (or even DoC, let alone PIR) is not 
yet ready to open.
Yanking such domains wholesale is going to put the mission of "providing 
stability to the DNS" into question.
It is also likely to meet resistance from those who are now monitoring 
these org's.

- -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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:09:23 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

John and all Former DNSO GA members,

  It would appear that you did follow correctly.  It would also appear
that the ISOC/PIR/Afilias partnership would indeed be aiding and
abetting such terrorists web site's as dotORG's independently
in whois data representation and technical support at least to that
level...

  As such may appear to be the case, it is becoming more and more
troubling as to the ethics of PIR, ICANN's allowance and choice
as registry for .ORG, and the future consideration as to the security
and safety of all peoples to this limited, but yet significant extent.

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> So, assuming I followed this correctly, then only after the transition to a
> thick registry, PIR will have in its own database information showing that
> they are providing technical support services to an OFAC-designated foreign
> organization using the domain name hizbollah.org ?
>
> Do I have that right?
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:33:18 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [Ecommerce] DOC E-Commerce/Telecom Polcy reorganization

James and all,

  Thank you Jamie for posting this URL.  This reorganization has
been in and under discussion for some time now with the
new Homeland Security Department which I had eluded to
over a month ago as I recall...

James Love wrote:

> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Thursday, February 13, 2003
> http://www.commerce.gov/opa/press/2003_Releases/Feb/13_TA_modernization.htm
>
> Commerce Department Announces Plan for Modernization of Technology Agencies
>
> U.S. Secretary of Commerce Don Evans announced today
> that he will propose to modernize the structure for
> the Department’s formulation of technology and
> telecommunications policy. The new structure will
> combine the Technology Administration (TA), the
> National Telecommunications and Information
> Administration (NTIA), and the e- commerce policy
> functions of the International Trade Administration
> (ITA) into one consolidated and well-coordinated
> agency.
>
> “Convergence is the business model in the digital
> economy – it should be the business model in the
> federal government,” said Secretary Evans. “This
> Administration understands that our global marketplace
> has changed and that telecom and technology operate
> together, not separately. We need to adjust our
> thinking and adjust our structure to keep pace with
> the world, our economy and innovation.”
>
> The Department of Commerce currently develops and
> implements technology and telecommunications policy in
> three bureaus: the TA, NTIA, and ITA. To complement
> the recent convergence in the private sector of
> technology and communications companies, Secretary
> Evans is proposing to reorganize Departmental
> personnel and management to facilitate coordination in
> domestic and international policy development for
> these increasingly inter-related sectors of the
> economy.
>
> “These changes make sense -- for the Department, for
> industry, and for the American people,” said Deputy
> Secretary of Commerce Sam Bodman, “and they support
> the President's focus on improving management and
> policy coordination across government.”
>
> “These organizational changes will institutionalize
> the effective and productive working relationship that
> I have developed with TA under the leadership of Under
> Secretary Phil Bond, and this also puts in place a
> workable structure that will benefit our successors in
> the years to come,” said Nancy J. Victory, Assistant
> Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA
> Administrator. “What matters most is performance and
> results, and we believe these organizational changes
> will help us accomplish our jobs and better serve the
> American people.”
>
> Under the new organizational structure being proposed,
> the Under Secretary for Technology would oversee the
> new agency that would focus on a range of issues
> including technical standards, spectrum management,
> and technology and e-commerce policy issues.
>
> “The synergy between technology and telecommunications
> is a global reality,” added Under Secretary of
> Technology Phil Bond. “Bringing TA together with the
> NTIA and a portion of ITA will enhance the
> Administration’s focus on issues critical to our
> innovation economy and America’s technological
> leadership. We look forward to working with Congress
> on this proposal.”
>
> The proposed changes will require Congressional approval.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecommerce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1597
*************************