Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1598
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, February 15 2003         Volume 01 : Number 1598

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

Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:10:13 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

From: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>

> Yanking such domains wholesale is going to put the mission of "providing
> stability to the DNS" into question.

Google iraqtv.ws .

> It is also likely to meet resistance from those who are now monitoring
> these org's.

I wouldn't know anything about that, Joop.  I can read the law, and I can
read WHOIS.  Anything else would be beyond my direct personal knowledge.

- --
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 23:35:51 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

The WhoIs is a real privacy and terrorist issue that will kill or survive whoever
runs it.
e

Jeff Williams wrote:

> 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

- --
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 23:38:22 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Use of our internet must be guarded yet not censored.
e

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

> 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

- --
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 08:56:35 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

On 2003-02-13 11:56:07 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

> Why does my expectation of privacy continue to be eroded in this
> ICANN process?

What makes this even more interesting is that PIR requires
registrars to transfer WHOIS information to the registry, which will
then be used to provide an xWHOIS service which permits searches by
registrant name.  If you look at the European Commission's and
IWGDPT's submissions to the WHOIS Task Force (they are linked from
the final report and say some things about that kind of search
service), you'll notice that the thin->thick transition is a legal
can of worms at least (!) for European registrars.

If I may dare an educated guess, their participation in the
transition is illegal as long as the xWHOIS service is on the table
and in the contracts.

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:02:05 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BULK whois

On 2003-02-13 09:49:45 -0500, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> Whois data is a prime example.  As everyone knows, all of the
> relevant contracts and access terms to whois data prevent its
> resale by third parties, right?

Well, not all of them: All the bulk access provisions really say is
that if you want to pay no more than $ 10,000, then you have to
abide by this and that agreement, with pretty much no enforcement in
place.

There's nothing in there which prevents you from convincing any
registrar to sell data to you under completely different conditions.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler				<[email-masked]>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 03:49:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Bawden <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

   Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:56:35 +0100
   From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>

   > Why does my expectation of privacy continue to be eroded in this
   > ICANN process?

   What makes this even more interesting is that PIR requires
   registrars to transfer WHOIS information to the registry, ...

If I'm not mistaken, the switch to a thick registry was one of the things
that was required of all bidders for .ORG.  So PIR isn't exactly to blame
for this.  At most you can fault them for making the transition clumsy and
confusing.

The real question is why ICANN required that .ORG go thick.
- --
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 01:18:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

A thin -> thick transition was not required though it was encouraged.
Moving from RRP to EPP was required; remember RPP works in both modes
thick and thin.

- -rick

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Alan Bawden wrote:

>    Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:56:35 +0100
>    From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
>
>    > Why does my expectation of privacy continue to be eroded in this
>    > ICANN process?
>
>    What makes this even more interesting is that PIR requires
>    registrars to transfer WHOIS information to the registry, ...
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the switch to a thick registry was one of the things
> that was required of all bidders for .ORG.  So PIR isn't exactly to blame
> for this.  At most you can fault them for making the transition clumsy and
> confusing.
>
> The real question is why ICANN required that .ORG go thick.
> --
> 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, 14 Feb 2003 03:26:42 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Thomas and all former DNSO GA members another interested parties,

  Excellent review and points of interest here Thomas.  Well done!

  Indeed all of us should understand the history or Whois as it relates
to registrants personal and private information in conjunction with
the growth of the Internet and registration activity over the past
3-4 years and the temptation or desire of some SIG's in that data
for marketing purposes.  Couple that with the RAA contracts,
and you have a circular situation that in obviously at least
hazardous if not dangerous to registrants from a number
of angles and directions.  Of course this had been discussed
at some length on this forum some time ago.  However sense
the questionable formation of the Whois Task force, mostly made
up of the very same people that have a concerted interest in
registrants personal and private information for marketing
purposes, it is pretty easy to see that continued abuses will
heaped upon the registrants with no ability of reasonable relief
except legal filings.

  Hence our members in close conjunction with our staff
had some time ago understood, and still believes that not
only is the RAA and the current Whois Task force harming
or setting up recommendation's in their final report's on Whois
to harm registrants, but are doing so knowingly and willingly.
PIR/ISOC not withstanding.  I can see now even more clear
why Don Heath, and the ISOC wanted and achieved removing
individual membership in the ISOC not long before getting the nod
for the .ORG registration contract with ICANN...

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2003-02-13 11:56:07 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Why does my expectation of privacy continue to be eroded in this
> > ICANN process?
>
> What makes this even more interesting is that PIR requires
> registrars to transfer WHOIS information to the registry, which will
> then be used to provide an xWHOIS service which permits searches by
> registrant name.  If you look at the European Commission's and
> IWGDPT's submissions to the WHOIS Task Force (they are linked from
> the final report and say some things about that kind of search
> service), you'll notice that the thin->thick transition is a legal
> can of worms at least (!) for European registrars.
>
> If I may dare an educated guess, their participation in the
> transition is illegal as long as the xWHOIS service is on the table
> and in the contracts.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler                         <[email-masked]>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:54:06 -0000
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

I assume that will be the reasoning behind arresting all
telecommunications personalle in the USA, because one can call countries
on those lists.

In all honesty, it is a bunch of baloney!

They have no right nor obligation to yank any domain and if this is the
us attitude to be, then pals let's remove all of Icann and the root
servers from the usa, because by this way of directing us law upon the
internet they are de-stabilizing the internet.

Abel

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John
Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
Sent: 14 February 2003 04:11
To: Ram Mohan; [GA]
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

- --
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 11:07:54 -0500
From: "Ram Mohan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Thomas,
xWhois is on PIR's list of possible new services.  So is OrgCloak.  Neither
have prices or plans announced - you should ask PIR for specifics.  So
before you make a claim about legality, might be worthwhile checking what is
mandatory (Whois) and what is not (xWhois, OrgCloak, and a host of other
potential, optional services).  I'm not a lawyer myself, but it seems very
clear that you're linking two entirely different things (mandatory services
vs. optional services).

The fact of life is that TODAY, you can find out all contact information
about any COM/NET/ORG domain from the sponsoring registrars' Whois service.

Finally, Whois is decreasing in relevance as the primary contact information
outpost about all Internet users for privacy, spam, etc -- it's probably the
most visible, but the reality is that more social data about more Internet
users is available through private, for-sale databases than through public
Whois.

- -ram
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

> On 2003-02-13 11:56:07 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Why does my expectation of privacy continue to be eroded in this
> > ICANN process?
>
> What makes this even more interesting is that PIR requires
> registrars to transfer WHOIS information to the registry, which will
> then be used to provide an xWHOIS service which permits searches by
> registrant name.  If you look at the European Commission's and
> IWGDPT's submissions to the WHOIS Task Force (they are linked from
> the final report and say some things about that kind of search
> service), you'll notice that the thin->thick transition is a legal
> can of worms at least (!) for European registrars.
>
> If I may dare an educated guess, their participation in the
> transition is illegal as long as the xWHOIS service is on the table
> and in the contracts.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
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 08:24:56 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Abel Wisman wrote:
> They have no right nor obligation to yank any domain and if this is the
> us attitude to be, then pals let's remove all of Icann and the root
> servers from the usa, because by this way of directing us law upon the
> internet they are de-stabilizing the internet.

Moving from the U.S. to someplace else won't change anything. Registrars,
registries and the servers they operate have to exist in real space, and
because of that, they're subject to the real world laws of the jurisdictions
in which they reside. Some of the OFAC regulations that John Berryhill has
mentioned on this list are, in fact, simply the U.S. Implementation of
treaty obligations and U.N. resolutions -- so moving to another country is
likely to get you the same thing. Most of the world has decided that it
doesn't want to lend support to a handful of nations ruled by despots and
certain terrorist organizations, and countries have adopted rules against
lending such support. The Internet isn't exempt from those rules.

        -- Bret

- --
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 12:08:35 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Transfers Final Report

The Transfers Task Force Final Report and Recommendations have been posted:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030212.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-regist

rars.html

My only objection to the document (after a quick scan) stems from the 
dilution of language subsequent to the input from the Implementation 
Committee (which I view as having been unduly dominated by the registrars).

Prior language stated:  "The Registrant must be informed of and have access 
to, the published documentation of the specific transfer process of their 
current Registrar."

The new language reads:  "Registrars should make reasonable efforts to inform 
registrants of and provide access to, the published documentation of the 
specific transfer process(es) employed by the Registrar." 

What does the registrant community gain by letting registrars off the hook on 
this matter?  There is a world of difference between "must" and "should" in 
policy language, and leaving such matters open-ended serves only to allow 
certain registrars to avoid their obligations at the expense of the 
registrant right to be properly informed.

Further, I fail to understand why this was within the purview of the 
implementation committee, as clearly every registrar has the capability to 
post documentation of the transfer process.  How could this possibly be 
construed as an implementation issue?

Finally, my thanks to Ross Rader for his diligence in bringing this transfers 
issue to some type of closure.
- --
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 12:44:58 -0500
From: "Bruce Beckwith" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Thomas,

Thanks for your comments about whois, especially as it relates to .org, now
being managed by the Public Interest Registry (PIR).

Please know that you and others have listed just some of the many issues
that we've been discussing actively within PIR - we take privacy issues very
seriously - and as a global registry, we will not implement any product or
service without considering fully all implications from a world-wide
perspective.

As has been noted by others, we must offer whois services, and yes, we will
be transitioning from a "thin" registry, using the RRP protocol, to a
"thick" registry, using EPP, and this must be done by year-end 2003.  All of
these are requirements of our ICANN contracts.  None-the-less, we debate
these issues internally and will provide the absolute best solution that we
can.

We welcome comments and suggestions, either via lists, or off-list
(one-on-one dialogue allows for more direct and frank discussion where we
can get deep into the topic which might not interest most list
participants).

Regards,

Bruce

Bruce Beckwith
Public Interest Registry
[email-masked]
+1 703.464.7005 x105

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thomas
Roessler
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

On 2003-02-13 11:56:07 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

> Why does my expectation of privacy continue to be eroded in this
> ICANN process?

What makes this even more interesting is that PIR requires
registrars to transfer WHOIS information to the registry, which will
then be used to provide an xWHOIS service which permits searches by
registrant name.  If you look at the European Commission's and
IWGDPT's submissions to the WHOIS Task Force (they are linked from
the final report and say some things about that kind of search
service), you'll notice that the thin->thick transition is a legal
can of worms at least (!) for European registrars.

If I may dare an educated guess, their participation in the
transition is illegal as long as the xWHOIS service is on the table
and in the contracts.

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

- --
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 12:54:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Ram Mohan wrote:

> Thomas,
> xWhois is on PIR's list of possible new services.  So is OrgCloak.  Neither
> have prices or plans announced - you should ask PIR for specifics.  So
> before you make a claim about legality, might be worthwhile checking what is
> mandatory (Whois) and what is not (xWhois, OrgCloak, and a host of other
> potential, optional services).  I'm not a lawyer myself, but it seems very
> clear that you're linking two entirely different things (mandatory services
> vs. optional services).
>
> The fact of life is that TODAY, you can find out all contact information
> about any COM/NET/ORG domain from the sponsoring registrars' Whois service.

Sure it is, but the large question is if it should continue to be.
Registrants have never had an effective and/or representative voice within
any decision-making on the matter, and rather than continuing to leave it
up to the small set of vested interests within ICANN, the views of
registrants should be sought after and accounted for since it is after
all their data we are talking about. (yeah I know the chances of that
happening)

Registrars/Registries intent on profiting by selling privacy back to the
consumer as a value-add would seem to suffer a fairly significant
conflict-of-interest related to these issues. I'm in no way suggesting
that the opinions and interests of such parties who shouldn't be represented,
however to date such they seem to have be  disproportionately so.

One ICANN-accredited registrar I recently dealt with is offering to
redact contact information for an annual fee of nearly two times the cost
of registration. While one can certainly argue that the value of any service is
what someone is willing to pay for it, a simple "value-add" costing twice
what the baseline service does is ridiculous.

A much more fundamental question which has been largely ignored is
why should registrants in this day and age expect to have to pay for a
modicum of privacy? Because registrars/registries can recognize revenue?
Because it's never been officially available to registrants in the past?
Because current registrant agreements are written in such a way that if
registrants don't buy such a service and continue to take their privacy into
their own hands they run an increased risk of registration revocation?

Why is at all unreasonable to expect that like countless other organizations
such as my DSL provider, my cell provider, or the place that I buy books from
online that my information not be made public? My bookstore certainly doesn't
make my information publicly available and then offer to take it down for an
annual fee. The only possible exception I can think of is my landline
phone service, in which .28 of a base $13/mo phone bill goes to maintaining an
unlisted number.

> Finally, Whois is decreasing in relevance as the primary contact information
> outpost about all Internet users for privacy, spam, etc -- it's probably the
> most visible, but the reality is that more social data about more Internet
> users is available through private, for-sale databases than through public
> Whois.

Sure it has decreased in relevancy. Registrants have been contractually
obligated to make physical addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses
publicly available. Spammers and other parties have abused access to the
point people stopped putting accurate information in the records.

The answer to this problem is simple: the inclusion of registrant data
privacy protection provisions in relevant contracts.

For-fee approaches that are inconsistently applied among TLDs, Registrars,
or Registries will by their very nature be less useful given variances in
the services and fee structures creating an environment where
adoption will be partial, exposed data could vary and where some people will
continue to elect to populate their database entries with incorrect
information rather than paying someone for the privilege of doing so.

While such a standardized policy would doubtlessly be opposed by the small
group of organization who want to profit from starring out some entries on
a display, it would serve the greatest percentage of the Internet
community,  reducing the efficacy of spammers, while offering the best
opportunity to reverse the "relevancy" erosion that has occured.

I have nothing against people making a living or profitting through honest
and equitable efforts. Attempting to charge a customer to provide privacy
that they are otherwise contractually prohibited from having strikes me as
neither.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
- --
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 17:09:10 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>

> I assume that will be the reasoning behind arresting all
> telecommunications personalle in the USA, because one can call countries
> on those lists.

No, Mr. Wisman.  If you bother to read the regulations, you will see that
there are specific exemptions for telecommunications services.  International
telecommunications services are coordinated by an international treaty
organization, and the treaty trumps Treasury Department regulations.  And,
no, under the definition therein, domain name registration services are not
what they are talking about.  Please learn what you are talking about.

There is no reason for them to use a US registrar, if they do not want to
enter into a contract that is illegal for US businesses.

> They have no right nor obligation to yank any domain and if this is the
> us attitude to be, then pals let's remove all of Icann and the root
> servers from the usa, because by this way of directing us law upon the
> internet they are de-stabilizing the internet.

Mr. Wisman, there is no requirement of the internet's architecture to vest
central control under an entity bound by US law.  That, however, is what we
have.  Perhaps a thinking person might come up with something that did not
have that destabilizing defect built in.

- --
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 17:13:36 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers Final Report

From: <[email-masked]>

> Prior language stated:  "The Registrant must be informed of [...]

> The new language reads:  "Registrars should make reasonable efforts [...]

What difference does it make, Danny?  These terms are proposed to go into a
contract between ICANN and the registrars, not between the registrars and
registrants.  It does not matter what the contract says, since registrants
are not in a position to seek redress if the registrars do not follow either
formulation.

- --
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 18:29:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

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

  Indeed ICANN should not have made such a requirement.
However PIR/ISOC/Afilias could have just said NO to that
requirement.  Doesn't seem they did, in fact it looks like
they leaped happily at the chance to "Please" the ICANN
BOD and staff instead of thinking about the ramifications
and potential harm and confusion that such a errant
requirement would create.

  That's simply irresponsible and inexceptable in the
extreme...

  Sorry but PIC/ISOC/Afilias isn't getting a pass from
our members that are .ORG registrants, and that includes
me...

Alan Bawden wrote:

>    Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:56:35 +0100
>    From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
>
>    > Why does my expectation of privacy continue to be eroded in this
>    > ICANN process?
>
>    What makes this even more interesting is that PIR requires
>    registrars to transfer WHOIS information to the registry, ...
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the switch to a thick registry was one of the things
> that was required of all bidders for .ORG.  So PIR isn't exactly to blame
> for this.  At most you can fault them for making the transition clumsy and
> confusing.
>
> The real question is why ICANN required that .ORG go thick.
> --
> 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: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:47:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [Ecommerce] draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights

James and all,

  Thank you for passing this along.  Very informative and tragically
interesting.  I fear that more legal actions will be occurring as
a result of this draft should it become an RFC...

  I hope everyone reads this IETF draft very closely...

James Love wrote:

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-01.txt
> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:44:04 -0500
> From: [email-masked]
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> To: IETF-Announce: ;
> CC: [email-masked]
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Intellectual Property Rights Working
> Group of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
>         Author(s)       : S. Bradner
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-01.txt
>         Pages           : 13
>         Date            : 2003-2-13
>
> The IETF policies about intellectual property rights (IPR), such as
> patent rights, claimed relative to technologies developed in the IETF
> are designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have
> as complete information about any IPR constraints on a technical
> proposal as possible.  The policies are also intended to benefit the
> Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the
> legitimate rights of IPR holders.  This memo details the IETF
> policies concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the
> IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed
> to meet.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-01.txt
>
> To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to
> ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
> "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
> type "cd internet-drafts" and then
>         "get draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-01.txt".
>
> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
>
> Send a message to:
>         [email-masked].
> In the body type:
>         "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-01.txt".
>
> NOTE:   The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
>         MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
>         feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
>         command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
>         a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
>         exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
>         "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
>         up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
>         how to manipulate these messages.
>
>
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.
>
> --
> James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
> tel. +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                                                  Name: draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-01.txt
>    draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-01.txt       Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
>                                              Encoding: 7bit

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 #1598
*************************