Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1701
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, May 18 2003            Volume 01 : Number 1701

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 02:10:01 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Montreal on a Shoestring

Forgot to add that if you are a student and can produce some Student ID 
the price is $35 CAD per night.

- --SS

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> All,
>
> For those who would like to see Montreal and make the ICANN meeting in 
> June, but do not have the luxury of corporate sponsorship, or are 
> students, or simply downright cheap... don't despair, there's an option.
>
> Stay in downtown Montreal, a mere fifteen minute walk from the 
> Sheraton, for $39 CAD per night!
>
> McGill University (Downtown Campus) has residences on University 
> Street which they offer as accomodations.  See the following link for 
> the location of Bishop Mountain Hall (building with red dot in upper 
> right ) http://www.mcgill.ca/maps/?Building=134
>
> The rooms are clean, have a bed, a desk and a chair.  Showers are 
> common, but for $39 a night it's a roof over your head and a bed to 
> sleep in, along with some privacy.
>
> Call the Residence Business Desk for more info at: 514.398.5200
>
> Looking forward to seeing you all in Montreal!
>
> --Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 01:53:27 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Montreal on a Shoestring

All,

For those who would like to see Montreal and make the ICANN meeting in 
June, but do not have the luxury of corporate sponsorship, or are 
students, or simply downright cheap... don't despair, there's an option.

Stay in downtown Montreal, a mere fifteen minute walk from the Sheraton, 
for $39 CAD per night!

McGill University (Downtown Campus) has residences on University Street 
which they offer as accomodations.  See the following link for the 
location of Bishop Mountain Hall (building with red dot in upper right ) 
http://www.mcgill.ca/maps/?Building=134

The rooms are clean, have a bed, a desk and a chair.  Showers are 
common, but for $39 a night it's a roof over your head and a bed to 
sleep in, along with some privacy.

Call the Residence Business Desk for more info at: 514.398.5200

Looking forward to seeing you all in Montreal!

- --Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 18 May 2003 12:17:04 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] A story about Whois and privacy

A few days ago, I was watching one of my favourite TV shows here in
Italy, and they were showing the following story.

Some people had told the journalists of the show about a very peculiar
online cheat: they had found a .com site advertising sex nights with
very beautiful women (photos included) at the cost of several hundred
Euros (even thousands in some cases). By calling the telephone numbers
found on the site, they were told that they would have to pay in
advance half of the money to get the "date". Money had to be paid to a
given person and postal address through the payment system of the
Post. But of course, when the people paid they never got anything back
- - the postal address on the payment bill was fake and by calling back
the website owners they were only getting mocked. (And you can imagine
that these "customers" weren't eager to go to the police to tell the
whole story.)

However, the journalist tried a WHOIS search on the domain, and he
found the same name as on the payment bills - but this time with the
real address! Thanks to WHOIS, he was able to get back to the owner of
the domain. But to his surprise, he discovered that the owner was a
mentally handicapped person living on minimal State subsidies. In the
end, it came out that the true inventors of the fraud had exploited
this person, convinced him to let them have his personal documents,
and used these documents to register the domain and to collect the
money at the Post office. The police was finally called and these
people were caught.

Now, apart from any judgement on suppliers and customers of this
peculiar form of e-commerce, and giving for granted that everything
was true and reported precisely, you may take different conclusions
from this story.

It is true that the people were found thanks to WHOIS, and that for
the "customers" it could have been the only way to get back to the
people behind the service. But it is also true that the police would
have been able to do the same in a minute even without public WHOIS
(either by a private access to WHOIS data, or by tracking down
telephone numbers, or by looking for the name of the person). And what
if, rather than by a journalist, the WHOIS search had been made by an
angry customer? He could have ended chasing up or menacing the wrong
person. 

So, personally, I take it as an indication that cases of "identity
theft" are getting more and more common, and that some action should
be taken; and that there should be a quick way to get back to domain
owners in case of crimes, but it should not be accessible to everyone
without control.
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.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: Sun, 18 May 2003 10:33:40 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A story about Whois and privacy

As Leah and I have pointed out (separately) several times on this list, the
public disclosure of personal details in the WHOIS can endanger life and
intimidate people.

Anyone who has, for example, been seriously stalked will know the fear and
heart-wrenching pressure you can be exposed to, and I think it is wholly
unacceptable to have any policy which insists on publication of personal
details.

As a result of a determined female stalker with a psychiatric history and
obsessive personality, my family and I moved home and have had an
ex-directory telephone number for 9 years. The one chink in this armour is
the existence of our details on WHOIS files, which leaves me feeling exposed
(though I have formed a judgement that the person in question is unlikely to
be computer literate).

Other people may be less lucky.

I know there are some registrars who will mask your details for you, and I
think that is absolutely necessary. I believe that WHOIS details (perhaps
apart from e-mail address) should be kept private, retained only on a secure
list, where people can obtain the details only on the basis of a court
order. If people wish to disclose their personal details on the WHOIS files,
fine. But what is not acceptable is that people's right to privacy (and
right to safety) should be jeopardised.

If someone abuses their domain name rights (eg by perpetrating fraud or
misrepresentation to the financial harm of others) of course the injured
parties should have legal recourse and police should be allowed legal access
to details if a judge agrees.

But most domain name registrants are just going about their daily lives
legally and decently. Their details should not be published on the WHOIS
files unless they want them to be.

Sincerely,

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:17 AM
Subject: [ga] A story about Whois and privacy

> A few days ago, I was watching one of my favourite TV shows here in
> Italy, and they were showing the following story.
>
> Some people had told the journalists of the show about a very peculiar
> online cheat: they had found a .com site advertising sex nights with
> very beautiful women (photos included) at the cost of several hundred
> Euros (even thousands in some cases). By calling the telephone numbers
> found on the site, they were told that they would have to pay in
> advance half of the money to get the "date". Money had to be paid to a
> given person and postal address through the payment system of the
> Post. But of course, when the people paid they never got anything back
> - the postal address on the payment bill was fake and by calling back
> the website owners they were only getting mocked. (And you can imagine
> that these "customers" weren't eager to go to the police to tell the
> whole story.)
>
> However, the journalist tried a WHOIS search on the domain, and he
> found the same name as on the payment bills - but this time with the
> real address! Thanks to WHOIS, he was able to get back to the owner of
> the domain. But to his surprise, he discovered that the owner was a
> mentally handicapped person living on minimal State subsidies. In the
> end, it came out that the true inventors of the fraud had exploited
> this person, convinced him to let them have his personal documents,
> and used these documents to register the domain and to collect the
> money at the Post office. The police was finally called and these
> people were caught.
>
> Now, apart from any judgement on suppliers and customers of this
> peculiar form of e-commerce, and giving for granted that everything
> was true and reported precisely, you may take different conclusions
> from this story.
>
> It is true that the people were found thanks to WHOIS, and that for
> the "customers" it could have been the only way to get back to the
> people behind the service. But it is also true that the police would
> have been able to do the same in a minute even without public WHOIS
> (either by a private access to WHOIS data, or by tracking down
> telephone numbers, or by looking for the name of the person). And what
> if, rather than by a journalist, the WHOIS search had been made by an
> angry customer? He could have ended chasing up or menacing the wrong
> person.
>
> So, personally, I take it as an indication that cases of "identity
> theft" are getting more and more common, and that some action should
> be taken; and that there should be a quick way to get back to domain
> owners in case of crimes, but it should not be accessible to everyone
> without control.
> --
> vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
> -------------------> http://bertola.eu.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
>

- --
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, 18 May 2003 07:43:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Walter Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A story about Whois and privacy

On Sun, 18 May 2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> ...I take it as an indication that cases of "identity theft" are getting
> more and more common, and that some action should be taken; and that
> there should be a quick way to get back to domain owners in case of
> crimes, but it should not be accessible to everyone without control.

Vittorio -

Your point was easily and elegantly made - now if only the solution was
similarly doable...

- --

 ---  REgards, [email-masked]  Walter C. Schmidt, IT CPA  Blue(^) ---
 - -   Microsoft MVP - Windows XP Media Center Edition - HPMC 873n  ---
 - -                 Associate Expert - Expert Zone                 - -
 ---         http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/         ---
 - - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/columns/schmidt/ ---
 - - 52 Ken           http://www.dorsai.org/~walts/          Sun 57 - -

- --
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, 18 May 2003 07:03:38 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 3:219     INFO...beyond the Proof-of-Concept...

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
3:219     INFO
====
http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-17may03.htm
      .info  550,000 1,029,000 87%

================

Many years ago, when the Proof-of-Concept approach to using the aging, legacy, 32-bit Internet was conceived, people
pointed out that market forces would eventually prevail and the "Best-of-Breed" TLDs would emerge, with wide-spread
support from various companies. .INFO may make it, now that it has over 1,000,000 SLDs.

The new 128-bit DNS software supports primarily TWO redundant 32-bit DNS registry server clusters, but can work with three. The new
128-bit DNS servers **ADD** to those legacy clusters. The new 128-bit software checks to make sure
that the SLD.INFO names are properly supported in all of the clusters, BEFORE adding (renewal) the SLD.INFO name
to the new 128-bit DNS cluster. That helps to prevent operational problems from migrating to the InterNAT.

http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=INFO&submit=Submit
LRS : Legacy Root Servers : 198.41.0.4
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2.
INFO. 2D IN NS TLD1.ULTRADNS.NET.
INFO. 2D IN NS TLD2.ULTRADNS.NET.
NSpace : Name.Space : 209.48.2.11
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6.
INFO. 1D IN NS ROOT3.AUTONO.NET.
INFO. 1D IN NS NS10.ROOT-ZONE.NET.
INFO. 1D IN NS A.TLD-SERVERS.NET.
INFO. 1D IN NS B.TLD-SERVERS.NET.
INFO. 1D IN NS NS.AUTONO.NET.
INFO. 1D IN NS NS10.AUTONO.NET.
TINC : The Internet Namespace Cooperative : 145.89.234.7
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2.
INFO. 1W IN NS TLD2.NOMINUM.COM.
INFO. 1W IN NS TLD1.NOMINUM.COM.
====

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

- --
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, 18 May 2003 07:37:19 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 3:219     INFO...ARTS, FIRM, INFO, NOM, REC, STORE [SHOP] and WEB

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-level_domain
"On 4 February 1997, the IAHC issued a report recommending the introduction of seven new gTLDs (ARTS, FIRM, INFO, NOM, REC, STORE
and WEB)"
=====
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg01542.html
"After extensive public review, there was clear consensus to change .store to .shop."
====

http://www.domain.shop
http://dot.com.shop

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
3:219     INFO
====

- --
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, 18 May 2003 14:32:01 +0100
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] A story about Whois and privacy

As a former member of the WHOIS TF (dissolved) I have done my utmost to
get the discussion on that TF to the one important matter preceding all
other matters: privacy.

I based my opinion on personal believes and the law in a large part of
the world, common sense and need.

I posted this opinion several times to the whois TF list, and copied
some of that to the GA list (last large base opinion was posted to both
and can be read here:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00602.html

It remains my opinion what I wrote there, nonetheless getting that
opinion in the reports produced was even as a dissenting opinion hardly
possible.
Up and until the final product, I have tried to push for definition of
terms, that again gets overlooked in the staff issue report, and the
legitimacy of the claims made by those who think they are "entitled" to
access (IP constituency, law representatives) as if there were no other
means of getting the domain registrants data ( like normal law
proceedings ).

See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00979.html

After that a FTC document was brought up, which was later overshadowed
by a FTC Staff opinion document, which opposed the prior document but
again I ventilated my opinion in:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00987.html

And finally when "accuracy" was an item again I pushed for my dissenting
opinion as to the nonsense of responsibilty for this non-accurate data :
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00667.html
Nonsense because the registrar HAS the correct data, or in the case
where he uses "agents" the agent has to have the correct data.
This leaves open the fact that the data should not be public, there is
NO legitimate reason for publishing personal data to the world.

Having this data readily available to anyone or even law enforcement
alone without proper warrant leaves to much room for vigilante and has a
very direct impact on freedom of speech in all those places in the world
where that accounts for something.

Nonetless CRISP moves on to (what VGRS hopes) to be a "handy" tool to do
cross TLD searches to gather even more data and even faster, though it
is even far less visible to me what a law enforcement officer in
Argentine needs with my personal data if I in the EU write that I think
they are a "doubtfull" governement.

The overall power and hand of the IP constituency becomes more and more
visible, not only in UDRP, US courts and UK courts, now also in Dtuch
courts where a judge with absolutely no knowledge on the topic of
internet and domains ruled that "netscape" has a right to "netschaap"
(translation: netsheep).
All this and the courtcases against so-called illegal filesharing take
away the eye from an industry which does more to surpress the masses
then anyone else in this world. They force(d) artists out of rights,
they decide what we listen to and they they decide what we read.
Thank anyone for the independent movements that keep us informed on what
else is made out there and the p2p networks that keep that source alive.

Keeping the whois data public only serves the industry, governments,
criminals and stalkers of the world, no one else.

Abel 

- --
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, 18 May 2003 12:16:05 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 3:219     INFO...beyond the Proof-of-Concept...

Thanks for these links, Jim.

I note from  the second link, the following objective to be fulfilled during
the financial year 2003-4:

"Complete any remaining work on the evaluation of the November 2000 round of
new gTLDs; complete any remaining work on approving and launching a limited
round of new sponsored gTLDs; and develop a framework for considering any
possible further expansion in the top-level gTLD namespace."

Due order and respect for process (and the Proof of Concept principle)
should dictate that "approving and launching a limited round of new
sponsored gTLDs" should not take place until the evaluation of the sponsored
and unsponsored new TLDs of 2000 has been completed.

May I please ask: who precisely (individually or group) is overseeing the
Evaluation Process for evaluating the New gTLDs?

What stage has this Evaluation Process reached?

Where are the Registry Evaluation Reports, required by Appendix U of their
Agreements with ICANN, and due over a year ago?

If they have been submitted, in conformity with the Agreement, why has ICANN
*still* not published them, so that all parties and constituencies can study
them, and engage in informed participation over the much-needed evaluation
of these new TLDs?

I first asked why these had not been published, back in late Spring of 2002.
I asked again in Summer 2002, when Stuart Lynn said that ICANN staff had
"not had time" to publish them on the website. I asked again in Autumn 2002.
I made a further request in Winter 2002. I asked again early in 2003. It is
now May 2003, and I am asking again.

Given that these Registry Evaluation Reports were specifically defined as
open, and given that these files could be uploaded onto a website in a few
minutes, I find Stuart Lynn's explanation unacceptable, and I request that
this key data is made available for study.

There is much pressure for the introduction of further new gTLDs, and
interest from all over the world. At the same time, there were clear
problems in the way the year 2000 TLDs were rolled out, and important
lessons to be learned, in the interests of the consumer and stakeholders
worldwide.

It is imperative that we now get a clearly-defined plan of action,
timescale, and appointees to oversee this process, to publish all data, to
engage all parties.

Otherwise, ICANN leaves us with the impression that it is "making it up as
it goes along" and marginalising its own much-vaunted Proof of Concept.

yrs

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 1:03 PM
Subject: [ga] 3:219 INFO...beyond the Proof-of-Concept...

> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> 3:219     INFO
> ====
> http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-17may03.htm
>       .info  550,000 1,029,000 87%
>

- --
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, 18 May 2003 09:35:05 -0400
From: elliot noss <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A story about Whois and privacy

There is much that is factual in what you say. I do want to add that 
there are THOUSANDS of ISPs and web hosting companies who manage the 
whois information and shield individuals from the public exposure AND 
the intricacies of managing the process as a standard business practice 
and have done so for many many years.

On Sunday, May 18, 2003, at 05:33 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:

> As Leah and I have pointed out (separately) several times on this 
> list, the
> public disclosure of personal details in the WHOIS can endanger life 
> and
> intimidate people.
>
> Anyone who has, for example, been seriously stalked will know the fear 
> and
> heart-wrenching pressure you can be exposed to, and I think it is 
> wholly
> unacceptable to have any policy which insists on publication of 
> personal
> details.
>
> As a result of a determined female stalker with a psychiatric history 
> and
> obsessive personality, my family and I moved home and have had an
> ex-directory telephone number for 9 years. The one chink in this 
> armour is
> the existence of our details on WHOIS files, which leaves me feeling 
> exposed
> (though I have formed a judgement that the person in question is 
> unlikely to
> be computer literate).
>
> Other people may be less lucky.
>
> I know there are some registrars who will mask your details for you, 
> and I
> think that is absolutely necessary. I believe that WHOIS details 
> (perhaps
> apart from e-mail address) should be kept private, retained only on a 
> secure
> list, where people can obtain the details only on the basis of a court
> order. If people wish to disclose their personal details on the WHOIS 
> files,
> fine. But what is not acceptable is that people's right to privacy (and
> right to safety) should be jeopardised.
>
> If someone abuses their domain name rights (eg by perpetrating fraud or
> misrepresentation to the financial harm of others) of course the 
> injured
> parties should have legal recourse and police should be allowed legal 
> access
> to details if a judge agrees.
>
> But most domain name registrants are just going about their daily lives
> legally and decently. Their details should not be published on the 
> WHOIS
> files unless they want them to be.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Richard Henderson
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:17 AM
> Subject: [ga] A story about Whois and privacy
>
>
>> A few days ago, I was watching one of my favourite TV shows here in
>> Italy, and they were showing the following story.
>>
>> Some people had told the journalists of the show about a very peculiar
>> online cheat: they had found a .com site advertising sex nights with
>> very beautiful women (photos included) at the cost of several hundred
>> Euros (even thousands in some cases). By calling the telephone numbers
>> found on the site, they were told that they would have to pay in
>> advance half of the money to get the "date". Money had to be paid to a
>> given person and postal address through the payment system of the
>> Post. But of course, when the people paid they never got anything back
>> - the postal address on the payment bill was fake and by calling back
>> the website owners they were only getting mocked. (And you can imagine
>> that these "customers" weren't eager to go to the police to tell the
>> whole story.)
>>
>> However, the journalist tried a WHOIS search on the domain, and he
>> found the same name as on the payment bills - but this time with the
>> real address! Thanks to WHOIS, he was able to get back to the owner of
>> the domain. But to his surprise, he discovered that the owner was a
>> mentally handicapped person living on minimal State subsidies. In the
>> end, it came out that the true inventors of the fraud had exploited
>> this person, convinced him to let them have his personal documents,
>> and used these documents to register the domain and to collect the
>> money at the Post office. The police was finally called and these
>> people were caught.
>>
>> Now, apart from any judgement on suppliers and customers of this
>> peculiar form of e-commerce, and giving for granted that everything
>> was true and reported precisely, you may take different conclusions
>> from this story.
>>
>> It is true that the people were found thanks to WHOIS, and that for
>> the "customers" it could have been the only way to get back to the
>> people behind the service. But it is also true that the police would
>> have been able to do the same in a minute even without public WHOIS
>> (either by a private access to WHOIS data, or by tracking down
>> telephone numbers, or by looking for the name of the person). And what
>> if, rather than by a journalist, the WHOIS search had been made by an
>> angry customer? He could have ended chasing up or menacing the wrong
>> person.
>>
>> So, personally, I take it as an indication that cases of "identity
>> theft" are getting more and more common, and that some action should
>> be taken; and that there should be a quick way to get back to domain
>> owners in case of crimes, but it should not be accessible to everyone
>> without control.
>> --
>> vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
>> -------------------> http://bertola.eu.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
>>
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 18 May 2003 08:41:06 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 3:219     INFO...beyond the Proof-of-Concept...

Are you on the AM Internet or the FM InterNAT ?

128-bit DNS AAAA Record Flag Day Formats
2003:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address]
[YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address]
1-bit to set the Reserved/Spare ("AM/FM") bit in Fragment Offset [S]
1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D]
2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL]
1-bit for Options Control [O]
7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFFFFFF]
4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field [TTTT]
Default SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT = 0000.0000.0000.0000
FFF.FFFF.TTTT = GGG.SSSS.SSSS
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
IPv8
0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port]
IPv16
0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port]
1AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA[32-bits][Port]
A...A=ASN=32769...65535

===
Jim Fleming
3:219
http://www.IN-ADDR.INFO

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] 3:219 INFO...beyond the Proof-of-Concept...

> Thanks for these links, Jim.
> 
> I note from  the second link, the following objective to be fulfilled during
> the financial year 2003-4:
> 
> "Complete any remaining work on the evaluation of the November 2000 round of
> new gTLDs; complete any remaining work on approving and launching a limited
> round of new sponsored gTLDs; and develop a framework for considering any
> possible further expansion in the top-level gTLD namespace."
> 
> Due order and respect for process (and the Proof of Concept principle)
> should dictate that "approving and launching a limited round of new
> sponsored gTLDs" should not take place until the evaluation of the sponsored
> and unsponsored new TLDs of 2000 has been completed.
> 
> May I please ask: who precisely (individually or group) is overseeing the
> Evaluation Process for evaluating the New gTLDs?
> 
> What stage has this Evaluation Process reached?
> 
> Where are the Registry Evaluation Reports, required by Appendix U of their
> Agreements with ICANN, and due over a year ago?
> 
> If they have been submitted, in conformity with the Agreement, why has ICANN
> *still* not published them, so that all parties and constituencies can study
> them, and engage in informed participation over the much-needed evaluation
> of these new TLDs?
> 
> I first asked why these had not been published, back in late Spring of 2002.
> I asked again in Summer 2002, when Stuart Lynn said that ICANN staff had
> "not had time" to publish them on the website. I asked again in Autumn 2002.
> I made a further request in Winter 2002. I asked again early in 2003. It is
> now May 2003, and I am asking again.
> 
> Given that these Registry Evaluation Reports were specifically defined as
> open, and given that these files could be uploaded onto a website in a few
> minutes, I find Stuart Lynn's explanation unacceptable, and I request that
> this key data is made available for study.
> 
> There is much pressure for the introduction of further new gTLDs, and
> interest from all over the world. At the same time, there were clear
> problems in the way the year 2000 TLDs were rolled out, and important
> lessons to be learned, in the interests of the consumer and stakeholders
> worldwide.
> 
> It is imperative that we now get a clearly-defined plan of action,
> timescale, and appointees to oversee this process, to publish all data, to
> engage all parties.
> 
> Otherwise, ICANN leaves us with the impression that it is "making it up as
> it goes along" and marginalising its own much-vaunted Proof of Concept.
> 
> yrs
> 
> Richard Henderson
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 1:03 PM
> Subject: [ga] 3:219 INFO...beyond the Proof-of-Concept...
> 
> 
> > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> > 3:219     INFO
> > ====
> > http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-17may03.htm
> >       .info  550,000 1,029,000 87%
> >
> 
> 

- --
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, 18 May 2003 08:42:57 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "Why is it that the IETF can standardize something like A6 DNS records that turns out undeployable (big surprise)..." ?

http://ops.ietf.org/lists/multi6/multi6.2003/msg01048.html
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]> 
"Why is it that the IETF can standardize something like A6 DNS records that turns out undeployable (big surprise)..." ?
==============================

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

- --
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, 18 May 2003 08:55:59 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A story about Whois and privacy

From: "elliot noss" <[email-masked]>
"there are THOUSANDS of ISPs and web hosting companies..."
====

They pre-date the artificial Registrar-Registry structure, which is primarily a Franchisor-Franchisee arrangement,
wrapped in the non-public-accountable cloaks of the non-prophets...who appear to have no "end-game"...

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "elliot noss" <[email-masked]>
To: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] A story about Whois and privacy

> There is much that is factual in what you say. I do want to add that 
> there are THOUSANDS of ISPs and web hosting companies who manage the 
> whois information and shield individuals from the public exposure AND 
> the intricacies of managing the process as a standard business practice 
> and have done so for many many years.
> 
> On Sunday, May 18, 2003, at 05:33 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> 
> > As Leah and I have pointed out (separately) several times on this 
> > list, the
> > public disclosure of personal details in the WHOIS can endanger life 
> > and
> > intimidate people.
> >
> > Anyone who has, for example, been seriously stalked will know the fear 
> > and
> > heart-wrenching pressure you can be exposed to, and I think it is 
> > wholly
> > unacceptable to have any policy which insists on publication of 
> > personal
> > details.
> >
> > As a result of a determined female stalker with a psychiatric history 
> > and
> > obsessive personality, my family and I moved home and have had an
> > ex-directory telephone number for 9 years. The one chink in this 
> > armour is
> > the existence of our details on WHOIS files, which leaves me feeling 
> > exposed
> > (though I have formed a judgement that the person in question is 
> > unlikely to
> > be computer literate).
> >
> > Other people may be less lucky.
> >
> > I know there are some registrars who will mask your details for you, 
> > and I
> > think that is absolutely necessary. I believe that WHOIS details 
> > (perhaps
> > apart from e-mail address) should be kept private, retained only on a 
> > secure
> > list, where people can obtain the details only on the basis of a court
> > order. If people wish to disclose their personal details on the WHOIS 
> > files,
> > fine. But what is not acceptable is that people's right to privacy (and
> > right to safety) should be jeopardised.
> >
> > If someone abuses their domain name rights (eg by perpetrating fraud or
> > misrepresentation to the financial harm of others) of course the 
> > injured
> > parties should have legal recourse and police should be allowed legal 
> > access
> > to details if a judge agrees.
> >
> > But most domain name registrants are just going about their daily lives
> > legally and decently. Their details should not be published on the 
> > WHOIS
> > files unless they want them to be.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Richard Henderson
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:17 AM
> > Subject: [ga] A story about Whois and privacy
> >
> >
> >> A few days ago, I was watching one of my favourite TV shows here in
> >> Italy, and they were showing the following story.
> >>
> >> Some people had told the journalists of the show about a very peculiar
> >> online cheat: they had found a .com site advertising sex nights with
> >> very beautiful women (photos included) at the cost of several hundred
> >> Euros (even thousands in some cases). By calling the telephone numbers
> >> found on the site, they were told that they would have to pay in
> >> advance half of the money to get the "date". Money had to be paid to a
> >> given person and postal address through the payment system of the
> >> Post. But of course, when the people paid they never got anything back
> >> - the postal address on the payment bill was fake and by calling back
> >> the website owners they were only getting mocked. (And you can imagine
> >> that these "customers" weren't eager to go to the police to tell the
> >> whole story.)
> >>
> >> However, the journalist tried a WHOIS search on the domain, and he
> >> found the same name as on the payment bills - but this time with the
> >> real address! Thanks to WHOIS, he was able to get back to the owner of
> >> the domain. But to his surprise, he discovered that the owner was a
> >> mentally handicapped person living on minimal State subsidies. In the
> >> end, it came out that the true inventors of the fraud had exploited
> >> this person, convinced him to let them have his personal documents,
> >> and used these documents to register the domain and to collect the
> >> money at the Post office. The police was finally called and these
> >> people were caught.
> >>
> >> Now, apart from any judgement on suppliers and customers of this
> >> peculiar form of e-commerce, and giving for granted that everything
> >> was true and reported precisely, you may take different conclusions
> >> from this story.
> >>
> >> It is true that the people were found thanks to WHOIS, and that for
> >> the "customers" it could have been the only way to get back to the
> >> people behind the service. But it is also true that the police would
> >> have been able to do the same in a minute even without public WHOIS
> >> (either by a private access to WHOIS data, or by tracking down
> >> telephone numbers, or by looking for the name of the person). And what
> >> if, rather than by a journalist, the WHOIS search had been made by an
> >> angry customer? He could have ended chasing up or menacing the wrong
> >> person.
> >>
> >> So, personally, I take it as an indication that cases of "identity
> >> theft" are getting more and more common, and that some action should
> >> be taken; and that there should be a quick way to get back to domain
> >> owners in case of crimes, but it should not be accessible to everyone
> >> without control.
> >> --
> >> vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
> >> -------------------> http://bertola.eu.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
> >>
> >
> > --
> > 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1701
*************************