Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #348
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, April 5 2001           Volume 01 : Number 348

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

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:19:49 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New Privacy Initiative

Kudos to Tucows for taking the first steps in making the privacy of
registrant data a new ICANN consensus policy. You can find a letter sent
today from Tucows to the ICANN Board, DNSO Names Council, and registrar
community here:

  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00465.html

The goal apparently is to create a new ICANN consensus policy that will
prevent the misuse of a registrant's personal data for mass marketing
purposes. 

This seems like something that the General Assembly could and should
support.

     -- 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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:38:45 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] No Members?

At 03:17 PM 4/4/2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
>You know, I would be most interested to know where you get this kind of
>information from. ... Very odd to my way of thinking.

So, let's see.  You are interested in masses of detail and then are 
suspicious when someone provides it to you?

And you further appear to believe that because you have not been tracking 
the history of these activities closely (or for a long time) and therefore 
do not know much about the other participants, that you should be 
suspicious of participants who have information?  Even when the details 
about those individuals have been discussed and re-discussed many times.

No, of course, that should not matter, should it?  You would actually have 
to do some homework on your own to find out such things.  Far better to 
attack someone's integrity.

Very nice.

On reflection, this does not seem all that strange, if one merely 
pronounces the mailbox string in your email address properly...

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:50:29 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] New Privacy Initiative

> Kudos to Tucows for taking the first steps in making the privacy of
> registrant data a new ICANN consensus policy. You can find a letter sent
> today from Tucows to the ICANN Board, DNSO Names Council, and registrar
> community here:
> 
>   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00465.html
> 
> The goal apparently is to create a new ICANN consensus policy that will
> prevent the misuse of a registrant's personal data for mass marketing
> purposes. 
> 
> This seems like something that the General Assembly could and should
> support.

Can I endorse this.  The basic summary of what is proposed seems to be that 
registrants must opt in rather than have to opt out of being included in non e-
mail mass marketing.  TUCOWs have made a good case and it is an issue that 
affects most domain name holders.

I think it is premature to have a vote of endorsement at such an early stage.  
There may well be other arguments to consider but certainly at the appropriate 
time it would be good for the GA to vote on this issue.  My initial inclination 
is very much in favour.

DPF

- --
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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:35:28 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] To be or not to be?

Hello Sotiropoulos,

Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 3:35:14 PM, Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Let me rephrase this:  Mr. Crocker, please tell us if you're currently under
> contract from ICANN, and in what capacity and relation (specifically)?

> I'm sure everyone will be interested in learning...  ;-)

Yes, please do, as this goes right to the credibility of any argument
you are making in this forum.

Of course, we all know what the response will be, that this question
is "irrelevant" - and of course he still won't have answered it.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:02:26 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] No Members?

At 03:17 PM 4/4/2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
>You know, I would be most interested to know where you get this kind of
>information from. ... Very odd to my way of thinking.

David Crocker:-
So, let's see.  You are interested in masses of detail and then are
suspicious when someone provides it to you?

No. You do realize I hope that you are attacking me for requesting the
source of hearsay information. This was a reasonable enquiry.

Dave Crocker wrote:-
And you further appear to believe that because you have not been tracking
the history of these activities closely (or for a long time) and therefore
do not know much about the other participants, that you should be
suspicious of participants who have information?

No, and just because a person says something repeatedly (or for a long time)
doesn't mean it is true.

Dave Crocker wrote:-
Even when the details
about those individuals have been discussed and re-discussed many times.

OIC. You mean I should have known that Kent is engaged in offlist dialogue
with ICANN staff. Thank you for the confirmation.

Dave Crocker:-
No, of course, that should not matter, should it?  You would actually have
to do some homework on your own to find out such things.  Far better to
attack someone's integrity.

Very nice.

OTOH, it could be viewed that it is you who is attacking my integrity, not
the other way round. Where do you go to verify the contents of ICANN's
mailbox? This was my question to Kent.

Dave Crocker wrote:-
On reflection, this does not seem all that strange, if one merely
pronounces the mailbox string in your email address properly...

d/

Well, for a person who cannot pronounce more than one syllable at a time, I
guess my email string could present a problem, but since I could not
possibly say that about you, I guess something I said must have hit home to
warrant this flame.

Thank you for the compliment.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:51:35 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:34:36 -0700, you wrote:

>At 01:45 AM 4/3/2001, DPF wrote:
>>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:01:37 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>The media makes no effort to probe deeper, such as to explain
>> >whether a given position is reasonable or whether a given speaker has any
>> >meaningful support.
>>
>>This is certainly true for some media.  But I believe the degree and
>>intensity of coverage is well beyond what one would expect for a body
>>such as ICANN.
>
>I suggest you learn more about current trends and problems in reporting.

I have to deal with such trends every day.  My professional
responsibilities include dealing with media.  While some of what you
say is true on the local scene I have observed quite a big change in
how certain organisations are reported after they have made changes to
how they operate.

>>Those officials were generally the Chairs and ranking opposition
>>members of the committees that deal with issues pertaining to ICANN so
>>it is not just a couple of rogue members of Congress but the senior
>>members in the telecommunications area.
>
>That makes their ignorance and silliness all the more offensive, but does 
>not make it less ignorant or silly.

The ignorant remarks came from the ordinary members of the cmte.  The
letters to DOC came from the senior members.

>And it is interesting that you are willing to accept comments "from 
>authority" when it agrees with your criticisms, but not when it doesn't.

I try to accept arguments and comments based on how well they are
substantiated regardless of who makes them.

>>A large contingent of NZers went to the Melbourne meeting as it was so
>>close by.  All are involved with ISOCNZ and hence have a potential
>>vested interest with regard to cctld issues but as ICANN needs the
>>cctlds far more than they need ICANN there is no real vested interest.
>
>Huh?  The cctld constituency is very highly vested.

I disagree.  Most of them don't care a damn about gTLD issues.  Their
interests are really focused on redelegation policies and whether any
attempts will be made to apply gTLD policies to ccTLDs.  

If ICANN disappeared tomorrow the cctlds would happily continue on
with no problem.   

>For nearly two years they have rather firmly and very explicitly sought to 
>delay the introduction of new TLDs.  (I got kicked out of a RIPE ccTLD 
>meeting in Scotland for raising the perspective that they were being 
>counterproductive.)

I have seen no evidence that the constituency as a whole has tried to
stop the new TLDs.  Sure a very small minority perhaps 5% may see them
as competitors but that is not the majority of the ccTLDs.  I can't
comment on why you would have bene kicked out of a meeting, not having
been there.

>>They all posted lengthy reports (4+ pages) of their experiences and
>>none of them were flattering towards ICANN.  Again you can close your
>>eyes and pretend they also do not count but I think we should be
>>concerned that people are coming away with such negative perceptions.
>
>Concerned, of course.
>
>The pervasive lack of maturity among participants in Melbourne was 
>striking.  Overall the tone from the floor was the same as watching a 
>child's tantrum.  No sense of the practical constraints on processes such 
>as ICANN, and no sense of shared responsibility for making things 
>works.  Just constant, childish outbursts.

Sigh so once again we get the attitude that everyone there was wrong
and you are right.  If people were angry about things perhaps it was
with justification.  Or do you really think that most of the
participants are thicker than you and can't see these practical
constraints you speak of.

>However one small effort:  as you look at the pattern of postings that you 
>assess to be "apologist" you might equally look at the pattern of postings 
>they respond to.
>
>First ask whether the poster has been showing a pattern of sniping at ICANN.

Some do - not all.  It is natural of course for people to concentrate
on the things they think could be done better.  What is more important
is whether people just complain or whether they actually propose
alternatives.

>Then consider carefully the practical aspects of their criticisms.  Not 
>just whether there is some surface credibility to the criticism, but 
>whether it reflects core, practical concerns, balanced against core, 
>practical constraints.
>
>In other words, do they reflect a balanced effort to negotiate through 
>difficult, practical waters or are they just idealistic, rigid and/or 
>self-centered demands from a single perspective?

This is a fair call.  I agree some of the critics do not display much
practical reality.  On the other hand a fair number of them do IMO.

>>I was on the Council of ISOCNZ during a period when it was very
>>unpopular.  I found that acknowledging the areas where performance has
>>been less than adequate does a lot for one's credibility.
>
>In a serious dialogue, with serious participants, you are entirely 
>correct.  We are not in such a situation.  The public dialogue has been 
>taken over by a a combination of interest groups that have created a 
>dynamic which entirely stifles serious discussion.

So how would you remedy this?

>>Debating the issues people raise rather than attacking them for raising it 
>>does likewise.
>
>Tried it.  At length.
>
>Doesn't work.  Sorry.

I've tried it and found it is worthwhile.  It may takes months or
years to get results but one does.  I have great faith in human
nature.  

>>I think some of the
>>analysis and discussion in wg-review was excellent.  It then lost it's
>>way a bit but that was partially due to the fact the terms of
>>reference kept changing.
>
>As my cited slide shows, yes there are some serious participants 
>around.  They have no useful effect because the forces surrounding their 
>comments combine to drown them out.

Again I disagree.  Serious participants managed to persuade the Board
to have direct not indirect elections amongst the at large membership.
Serious participants got changes to the bylaws and board meetings more
public.

>One item I left off the list is the difficulty of managing open group 
>processes.  It often requires some special skills and they are rare.

Very much agreed there.

>>...I have seen enough now to know that one could improve
>>things with some simple steps.
>
>"For every complex problem, there is a simple solution.  And it is 
>wrong."  H.L. Mencken

Always easy to find smart quotes.  Harder to identify solutions.

>>But ICANN is not a for profit corporation where the aim is to act in
>>the best interests of the corporation.  ICANN is meant to act in the
>>best interest of the internet community and this involves meaningful
>>consultation with it.  Last minute changes with no input do not
>>further these aims.
>
>Well, this is a good example of the problem with a narrow focus in looking 
>at practical matters.  In particular it reflects a failure to consider that 
>Verisign IS a business and they are running a critical infrastructure 
>service, and they have no incentive to let the matter linger on 
>endlessly.  They already had a contract, remember.

Which IMO would have been fine to stay with.  

>"The best interests of the Internet" are served better by improvements in 
>contracts with operators than by catering to a tiny group of constantly 
>plaintive observers.  If the quality of participation by the observers had 
>a more useful history, comments about process might have some legitimacy, 
>but so far this group has largely squandered its platform.

So the Registrars are a tiny group of constantly plaintive
observers???

>>I judge off what I have seen here.  I will be pleasantly surprised
>>when I see evidence to the contrary,  I would love to see from you an
>>analysis of where ICANN could do better.
>
>Interesting that you do no seem inclined to DISMISS those who show a 
>constant pattern of only criticizing, demanding from them that they provide 
>some analysis of where ICANN has done well...

I actually do dismiss to some degree those who attack ICANN non stop
without suggesting how it can do better (I have sympathy for why they
do it but don't feel it helps much).  It is a fair point that people
should praise ICANN when it does do things right and this is something
I will try to do.

>> >>Verisign however it seems were never even asked as part of the
>> >>negotiations for an extension.
>> >
>> >1.  How do you know that?
>>
>>Because the negotiators made it very clear they would not do so.
>>Their position was the same as Verisigns.
>
>You have no basis for such a claim, since you were not in the discussions 
>and they have made no public statements supporting your assertions.

The negotiators seemed more enthusiastic for the changes than Verisign
did and displayed antagonism to any delay.

>> >2.  You are wrong.  The question was put to them, explicitly, during public
>> >exchanges in Melbourne and they declined.
>>
>>Oh please.  I mean a serious request as part of the negotiations from
>>those who did the negotiations.
>
>You do not know what was said, requested or demanded.  The fact that you 
>are so firm in making assertion for which you have no objective basis 
>demonstrates undermines your claim about careful and serious discussion.

The public statements of the negotiators clearly indicated they did
not want a delay.  If there is some evidence they in fact pushed for a
delay this would be welcome.

>> >That would require that Verisign be desparate to change the status
>> >quo.  Not just interested or willing, but absolutely desparate.  What is
>> >your basis for believing that retaining the current contract is such a
>> >horrible outcome to Verisign?
>>
>>I believe they have been desperate to change the status quo.  The
>>value of being granted *.com presumptively for eternity
>
>As a practical matter, they have had that grant for some years.  The real 
>effect of the contract revision was to reduce their "hassle factor" from 
>challenges for awhile.

There is considerable disagreement on that interpretation.  I have
tried to make the point that the issue is not just whether Verisign
keeps *.com but by not granting them a presumptive right there is more
pressure on them to perform as well as possible and keep fees low.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527

- --
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 19:57:44 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] No Members?

At 07:02 PM 4/4/2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
>At 03:17 PM 4/4/2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >You know, I would be most interested to know where you get this kind of
> >information from. ... Very odd to my way of thinking.
>
>...
>
>No. You do realize I hope that you are attacking me for requesting the
>source of hearsay information. This was a reasonable enquiry.

You were not primarily requesting information.  the text I quoted (see 
directly above here) is judgemental and tailored to impune questions of 
ethics, or the like.  f

If you are insensitive to the challenging tone in your wording, a course in 
writing (probably best to focus on business writing) would be helpful.

(by the way, i tried to find a more neutral way to word the above, but your 
attempt at wide eyed innocence does not leave any choice.)

>Dave Crocker wrote:-
>And you further appear to believe that because you have not been tracking
>the history of these activities closely (or for a long time) ...
>
>No, and just because a person says something repeatedly (or for a long time)
>doesn't mean it is true.

Clearly you should not be involved in discussions on an open email list, 
since you only will be satisfied by sitting in directly during the meetings 
that you ask about.

>Dave Crocker wrote:-
>Even when the details
>about those individuals have been discussed and re-discussed many times.
>
>OIC. You mean I should have known that Kent is engaged in offlist dialogue
>with ICANN staff. Thank you for the confirmation.

OIC.  You are so interested in placing your own interpretation on things 
that you are willing to invent interpretations to statements that provide 
no basis for the interpretations.

Thank YOU for the confirmation.

If you ever interested in serious discussion about serious ICANN issues, 
please do let us know.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN & other Major Corporations

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Sandy Harris wrote:

> Kristy McKee wrote:
> >
> > Hey, I have a GREAT IDEA!
> >
> > Every voting American Netizen could get in communication with their
> > Government Representatives and help them understand:  1) The Internet,
> > 2)  The ICANN, 3)  The IETF.
>
> I very much doubt that most Netizens understand the net in any depth.

And how many citizens understand the innerworkings of their various
governments? Is this any reason to deny them the right of
self-determination via a vote?

- --
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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE:  serious participation in ICANN processes

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 01:02 PM 4/4/2001, babybows.com wrote:
> >Cindy Merry asked, "Is there a simple explanation about what the purpose of
> >the General Assembly is within the ICANN processes?
>
> Today has provided us with good demonstrations of the purpose of the GA.
>
> We see non-lawyers putting forward a legal claim (member/non-member)

I think people have mentioned that to yourself and Kent, but you both
continue to do so. *shrug*

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 20:15:02 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE:  serious participation in ICANN processes

At 08:11 PM 4/4/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > We see non-lawyers putting forward a legal claim (member/non-member)
>
>I think people have mentioned that to yourself and Kent, but you both
>continue to do so. *shrug*

In fact I agree with you.  It was entirely wasteful to respond to the 
foolish queries and assertions.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:24:27 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Cindy Merry wrote:
> This may be posted under the wrong thread but perhaps it's an appropriate
> heading.  Is there a simple explanation about what the purpose of the
> General Assembly is within the ICANN processes?

Cindy,

"Generally" speaking, a "general assembly" is a meeting place of everyone
who is involved in a given area. There is a "General Assembly" meeting of
the Address Supporting Organization this afternoon, for example, in
conjunction with the ARIN meeting in San Francisco. ICANN's Address
Supporting Organization and Protocol Supporting Organization have elected to
have one "general assembly" meeting a year, usually to present status
reports and elect Board members.

The Domain Names Supporting Organization, on the other hand, has chosen to
implement the "General Assembly" concept both as an in-person meeting and as
a virtual space in the form of this mailing list. This particular General
Assembly is subject specific -- the domain name system ("DNS") -- and there
are many aspects of ICANN that are outside its scope and purpose. In that
sense, it is different from the "At Large" concept, which is intended to
find a representative vehicle for Internet users to address the user
perspective on *all* of the issues facing ICANN.

The DNSO's General Assembly meets in real space in conjunction with each
quarterly ICANN meeting and continues its discussions on the DNS here.

A description of *this* general assembly is included in the ICANN bylaws:

Article VI-B, Section 4. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the DNSO,
and open to all who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the
DNSO. The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a knowledge
of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has
primary responsibility, and who are willing to contribute time, effort and
expertise to the work of the DNSO, including work item proposal and
development, discussion of work items, draft document preparation, and
participation in research and drafting committees and working groups.

(b) The GA shall meet at least once a year, if possible in conjunction with
regularly scheduled meetings of the Board. To the maximum extent
practicable, all meetings should be available for online attendance as well
as physical attendance.

(c) The costs of GA meetings shall be the responsibility of the DNSO, which
may levy an equitable, cost-based fee on GA attendees to recoup those costs.
There shall be no other fees required to participate in the GA.

(d) Participants in the GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by
the NC and approved by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those
seats reserved for the DNSO.

I hope that is helpful.

   -- 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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:02:39 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: [registrars] Tucows' Privacy Initiative

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_006D_01C0BD39.D1EC6550
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Timothy M. Denton
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 5:39 PM
To: Vinton Cerf
Cc: Dennis Jennings ; Patricio Poblete ; Nii Quaynor ; Philip Sheppard;
Masanobu Katoh ; Theresa Swinehart ; Roger Cochetti ; Hirofumi Hotta ;
Antonio Harris ; Michael Schneider ; Kathryn Kleiman ; Zakaria Amar ;
Youn Jung Park ; Ken Stubbs ; Erica Roberts ; Paul Kane ; Caroline
Chicoine; Axel Aus der Muhlen ; Guillermo Carey ; San-hyon Kyong; Philip
Davidson; Nii Quaynor; Masanobu Katoh; M. Stuart Lynn; Linda S. Wilson;
Ken Fockler; Karl Auerbach; Jun Murai; Jonathan Cohen; Helmut Schink;
Hans Kraaijenbrink; Frank Fitzsimmons; Andy Mueller-Maguhn; Amadeu
Abril; Alejandro Pisanty; Registrars@Dnso. Org; [email-masked]; Louis
Touton; [email-masked]
Subject: [registrars] Tucows' Privacy Initiative

To the Members of the Board of ICANN, ICANN staff, the Names Council of the
DNSO:

In Melbourne at the last ICANN meeting, Tucows launched a privacy
initiative. We are following up on that initiative by placing in your hands
the documents that set forth our position, answer some questions, and
explain who we are.
The titles of the documents are self-explanatory.

We suggest that you store these attachments for future reference.

The attachments to this email contain:
1) Tucows' Privacy Initiative: a letter calling for changes to the
Registrars' Accreditation Agreement with ICANN on the matter of bulk access
to personal data
2) A fact sheet answering some questions about this initiative
3) A fact sheet about Tucows business and personnel

You will be contacted over the next few weeks about this. We will start with
the names council of the DNSO and move on to the ICANN Board. We are aware
that the names council will soon be working on this issue and we welcome
their attention to it.

We are seeking your support to cause this amendment to happen.
Please note that our proposed changes deal only with bulk access - mass
marketing, and do not affect legitimate interests of IP holders and law
enforcement in the Whois look up.
On behalf of Tucows, I am

T.M.Denton, BA,BCL
tmdenton.com
1-613-789-5397
37 Heney Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1N 5V6
www.tmdenton.com

- ------=_NextPart_000_006D_01C0BD39.D1EC6550
Content-Type: application/pdf;
	name="An open letter regarding Registrant privacy.pdf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="An open letter regarding Registrant privacy.pdf"

- ------=_NextPart_000_006D_01C0BD39.D1EC6550
Content-Type: application/msword;
	name="Tucows.fact.sheet.final..doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Tucows.fact.sheet.final..doc"

0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAKgAAAAAAAAAA
EAAALAAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAACkAAAD/////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

- ------=_NextPart_000_006D_01C0BD39.D1EC6550
Content-Type: application/msword;
	name="Fact Sheet on Tucows' Privacy Policy(sent).doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Fact Sheet on Tucows' Privacy Policy(sent).doc"
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- ------=_NextPart_000_006D_01C0BD39.D1EC6550--

- --
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 #348
************************