Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #541
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 15 2001            Volume 01 : Number 541

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

Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:38:07 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "They're Coming To Take Me Away.  Ha Ha."

I agree that it is flawed; to add another example:
Question 9 contains superfluous single questions like
9.A (should the Whois contain the SLD?) and then question
groups like 9.I (name, postal address, e-mail address,
voice telephone number, fax number) where the necessary
differentiation is not possible. I might want to keep
the name of the administrative contact in the database,
but not his or her phone number, or I may want to
have opt-in or opt-out mechanisms.

Additionally, the explanations are in ICANNese language
at the extreme.

I hope that both respondents and those analysing the
comments make good use of the free text areas!

Best regards,
/// Alexander

Michael Froomkin wrote on 14.06.01, 21:17:53:
> This survey is very badly designed, and has several signs of bias.  I wish
> whoever
> wrote this had consulted a professional.  Here are just some examples:
>
> Question 9 is a loaded question: the opposite of essential is not
> valueless but "unnecessary".  In asking the question the way you do you
> leave no space for those who believe information may have "value" but
> still not be appropriate to be published.  Almost any information has
> value. The question is whether the value exceeds the privacy cost.  This
> entire survey is designed to minimize the chances that this view could
> be expressed.  Who is going to say that the name of the registrant is
> 'valueless' - that does not mean, however, that it is either 'essential'
> or 'desireable'.  This is, I repeat, a very biased an inappropriate
> question.
>
> Question 5 leaves out the possibility that what one wants is a technical
> contact to reach about problems e.g. spam, rather than the spammer.  The
> entire survey minimizes the use of 'whois' for IP numbers, focussing on
> domain names.
>
> Question 17 gives multiple choice options for the status quo, and the
> extension of the status quo, but not for the obvious choice of
> *increasing* privacy.  That requires survey respondents to type text of
> their own in a box.  Again, the bias is against making it easy for
> people to express pro-privacy views -- yet it could hardly be a surprise
> that this is the main issue with the bulk access provisions of the
> contract.

> Question 19 does not say whether the option of third-party registration
> would (a) be costly and (b) without prejudice to any legal rights.  More
> importantly, the survey fails to ask if people want an "unlisted"
> registration (disclose but don't publish) as exists for telephone
> registrations in many countries.

_______________________________________________________
  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
- --
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, 14 Jun 2001 14:59:52 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] DPF support of Derek's proposition

Hello Patrick,

Thursday, June 14, 2001, 8:24:15 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> Here's just one comment I made to you on Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:02:21 +1000
> when I wrote:

>> My "agenda" as you call it is to be altruistic, helpful, honest and
>> hard-working.  Nobody spends more time trying to build consensus
>> (writing long letters to people like you, for example) than I do.  I
>> could go on but I feel it's a waste of time . . .

Sorry, Patrick, but as a recipient of some of those emails from you, I
take exception to your characterization of them as something you are
doing to build consensus in a non-biased way.

In fact, those messages are almost always much more like attempts to
convince others that your position is for the most part correct and
really doing nothing more than trying to solicit support or get a jump
on what the criticisms will be.

To be honest, I haven't seen much from either you or Danny on the
front of trying to help build consensus.

It is quite disappointing.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
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, 14 Jun 2001 18:23:16 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha." 

With regard to the WHOIS survey, Michael Froomkin writes:  "I wish whoever
wrote this had consulted a professional."

Actually, we are probably quite lucky that the Names Council's WHOIS
committee (of which I am also a member) wrestled this project away from the
ICANN staff which some time ago had formed its own WHOIS Committee
http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/.  Yes, it might have been more
professional had the ICANN staff devoted their full-time professional skills
to it, but I for one am quite happy to see the uncompensated volunteer
members of the Names Council showing some real initiative and a desire to
address the problems that lay ahead.

Whatever this survey may lack in "design", one has to admit there has been a
major effort made at outreach, along with a significant effort to translate
this survey into multiple languages (more soon to be forthcoming).  Please
bear in mind that this is only step one in a much longer process that will
fully involve the General Assembly.    Let's not go overboard with the
criticism when it is clear that we are making forward progress.

- --
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, 15 Jun 2001 00:47:37 +0100
From: Michael Froomkin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

I meant a professional with experience in survey design, not someone paid by
ICANN to do whatever it is ICANN pays them to do.  It goes without saying that
no one at ICANN, or the NC, has this somewhat specialist skill (although I would
not be surprised to find it in the GA somewhere).  No blame attaches for this,
as there is no reason we should expect them to--it's a technical body (right?),
not a social science research unit.  But nor should we place much credence in
the results, whoever designed it.

I don't see the value of a lot of energy being used to produce something that
cannot be relied on.   The lesson is: if you are going to do a survey, run it by
someone who designs them for a living.   Someone in a sociology department or a
psychology department of a university who does empirical work if you can't get a
professional pollster.

In fact, given the bias of the design, the greater the 'outreach' for this
survey, the greater the damage.

[I'll almost certainly be offline from now until Tuesday due to travel.]

Danny Younger wrote:

> With regard to the WHOIS survey, Michael Froomkin writes:  "I wish whoever
> wrote this had consulted a professional."
>
> Actually, we are probably quite lucky that the Names Council's WHOIS
> committee (of which I am also a member) wrestled this project away from the
> ICANN staff which some time ago had formed its own WHOIS Committee
> http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/.  Yes, it might have been more
> professional had the ICANN staff devoted their full-time professional skills
> to it, but I for one am quite happy to see the uncompensated volunteer
> members of the Names Council showing some real initiative and a desire to
> address the problems that lay ahead.
>
> Whatever this survey may lack in "design", one has to admit there has been a
> major effort made at outreach, along with a significant effort to translate
> this survey into multiple languages (more soon to be forthcoming).  Please
> bear in mind that this is only step one in a much longer process that will
> fully involve the General Assembly.    Let's not go overboard with the
> criticism when it is clear that we are making forward progress.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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, 15 Jun 2001 09:44:12 +0800
From: "erica" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Secretar5iat

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C0F57F.BC288E00
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would like to draw the atention of list members to the Request for =
Proposals for DNSO Secretariat services. This can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.RFP-DNSO.html

erica

- ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C0F57F.BC288E00
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I would like to draw the atention of =
list members=20
to the Request for Proposals for DNSO Secretariat services. This can be =
found=20
at:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.RFP-DNSO.html">http://www.dn=
so.org/secretariat/2001.RFP-DNSO.html</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>erica</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C0F57F.BC288E00--

- --
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, 14 Jun 2001 19:45:23 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: DNSGA funding trip to Montevideo - Re: [ga] Fw: [icann-announce] ICANN  Montevideo Meeting (7-10 September 2001); DNSO Whois Survey

- --------------DFD5C3C749FB8B9CA002641F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I was not indicating that the CIA would be in an advisory position (per se).
Rather more like as a security force or in a protection position to make certain
people are not kidnapped, jailed or whatever.  I could be that ICANN's choice of
Uruguay to hold its meetings is a sophisticated message in itself.  Anyway, I
was only kidding.

The DNSGA has funding reserved for certain DNSGA representatives trip to
Montevideo.  I personally will not be able to attend the ICANN meeting in
Montevideo, however, the DNSGA is looking for candidates to represent the DNSGA
at the ICANN meetings in Montevideo, Uruguay.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Derek Conant wrote:
>
> >ICANN just amazes me.  Who picked Uruguay?  Why Uruguay instead of some
> >more
> >predictable or more stable country?  Like Brazil or somewhere else in South
> >America?  Maybe things have changed in Uruguay?  Maybe not?  I'll have
> >friends at the CIA before considering attending this ICANN meeting.
>
> As I said in a different message, I would not have thought of the CIA as
> advisor if to participate to an ICANN meeting or not.
> Don't get me wrong, I do recognize that the CIA has had a leading role in
> some events of the recent history of Latin America, and therefore they may
> be well informed about past, present and even future of that part of the
> world: I simply thought that this element would not have had any relevance
> in the choices for an Internet meeting.
>
> Oddly enough, other ICANN meetings have raised similar "concerns" from a
> couple of people (Santiago and Cairo come to my mind), but in all cases the
> meetings went well.
> Incidentally, I bet that the March 2002 and the June 2002 locations may also
> stimulate these postings ;>).
>
> >  Maybe
> >I'll go to Sydney instead.
>
> Enjoy your trip!
>
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

- --------------DFD5C3C749FB8B9CA002641F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I was not indicating that the CIA would be in an advisory position (<i>per
se)</i>.&nbsp; Rather more like as a security force or in a protection
position to make certain people are not kidnapped, jailed or whatever.&nbsp;
I could be that ICANN's choice of Uruguay to hold its meetings is a sophisticated
message in itself.&nbsp; Anyway, I was only kidding.
<p>The DNSGA has funding reserved for certain DNSGA representatives trip
to Montevideo.&nbsp; I personally will not be able to attend the ICANN
meeting in Montevideo, however, the DNSGA is looking for candidates to
represent the DNSGA at the ICANN meetings in Montevideo, Uruguay.
<p>Derek Conant
<br>DNSGA President and Chairman
<p>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Derek Conant wrote:
<p>>ICANN just amazes me.&nbsp; Who picked Uruguay?&nbsp; Why Uruguay instead
of some
<br>>more
<br>>predictable or more stable country?&nbsp; Like Brazil or somewhere
else in South
<br>>America?&nbsp; Maybe things have changed in Uruguay?&nbsp; Maybe not?&nbsp;
I'll have
<br>>friends at the CIA before considering attending this ICANN meeting.
<p>As I said in a different message, I would not have thought of the CIA
as
<br>advisor if to participate to an ICANN meeting or not.
<br>Don't get me wrong, I do recognize that the CIA has had a leading role
in
<br>some events of the recent history of Latin America, and therefore they
may
<br>be well informed about past, present and even future of that part of
the
<br>world: I simply thought that this element would not have had any relevance
<br>in the choices for an Internet meeting.
<p>Oddly enough, other ICANN meetings have raised similar "concerns" from
a
<br>couple of people (Santiago and Cairo come to my mind), but in all cases
the
<br>meetings went well.
<br>Incidentally, I bet that the March 2002 and the June 2002 locations
may also
<br>stimulate these postings ;>).
<p>>&nbsp; Maybe
<br>>I'll go to Sydney instead.
<p>Enjoy your trip!
<p>Roberto
<p>_________________________________________________________________
<br>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a></blockquote>
</html>

- --------------DFD5C3C749FB8B9CA002641F--

- --
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, 15 Jun 2001 00:21:04 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

Michael Froomkin wrote:
> I meant a professional with experience in survey design, not someone paid by
> ICANN to do whatever it is ICANN pays them to do.  It goes without saying that
> no one at ICANN, or the NC, has this somewhat specialist skill (although I 
would
> not be surprised to find it in the GA somewhere).  

As it so happens one of the tasks I had when working for the NZ Prime Minister 
was design, conduct and analysis of surveys and polls.  Did over 100 of them.

I would be happy to assist ICANN or the DNSO in this area in future should they 
want such assistance :-)

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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:33:32 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] <sigh>

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:42:35 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
Re: [ga] DPF support of Derek's proposition

> you just confort my point: a lot of good will, non coordinated with the
> Chair (or ther Directors in the Danny/Derek proposition) would result in a
> lot of mails ... Sorry I forgot all the mails to repeat part of the
> preceding mails. :-)

I am afraid that your objections are quite valid but not for the reason you
suggest (the lack of consensus).  They are correct because you have said
that you will do whatever it takes to sabotage the idea.  Please don't deny
that you have said that.

In fact, I have politely made that point onlist on several occasions.

> PS. I do not why there would be any crackpot scheme what ever it may mean
> because I say you tried in the best you could a silly scheme about these
> now forgotten articial sub-lists.  :-)

A "crackpot" scheme means the same as a "silly" scheme.  This is clearly the
import of your comments.  The fact is that the noise on the main lists,
which you have referred to, makes the creation of dedicated working groups a
good idea.

I just wonder what motivates a few people to deliberately wreck any
constructive proposal that they, personally, happen not to agree with.

<sigh>

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 14 Jun 2001 21:12:48 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] let's try to see this constructively... and not over react ... 

I agree with Danny's response. In my view, always easy to be critical;
better to be constructive.  

I regret that Michael has expressed only concerns. Isn't the survey  not to
determine an outcome in itself, but to try to gather information?
Obviously, using narrative responses is not going to result in a
statistically valid study; and given the method of distribution, it isn't a
"sample", but that wasn't and isn't the point, I would say. 

I still encourage everyone who uses WHOIS to respond and to be constructive.

I believe that even sociologists sometimes do non-statistical "field
research"....

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:48 PM
To: Danny Younger
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

I meant a professional with experience in survey design, not someone paid by
ICANN to do whatever it is ICANN pays them to do.  It goes without saying
that
no one at ICANN, or the NC, has this somewhat specialist skill (although I
would
not be surprised to find it in the GA somewhere).  No blame attaches for
this,
as there is no reason we should expect them to--it's a technical body
(right?),
not a social science research unit.  But nor should we place much credence
in
the results, whoever designed it.

I don't see the value of a lot of energy being used to produce something
that
cannot be relied on.   The lesson is: if you are going to do a survey, run
it by
someone who designs them for a living.   Someone in a sociology department
or a
psychology department of a university who does empirical work if you can't
get a
professional pollster.

In fact, given the bias of the design, the greater the 'outreach' for this
survey, the greater the damage.

[I'll almost certainly be offline from now until Tuesday due to travel.]

Danny Younger wrote:

> With regard to the WHOIS survey, Michael Froomkin writes:  "I wish whoever
> wrote this had consulted a professional."
>
> Actually, we are probably quite lucky that the Names Council's WHOIS
> committee (of which I am also a member) wrestled this project away from
the
> ICANN staff which some time ago had formed its own WHOIS Committee
> http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/.  Yes, it might have been more
> professional had the ICANN staff devoted their full-time professional
skills
> to it, but I for one am quite happy to see the uncompensated volunteer
> members of the Names Council showing some real initiative and a desire to
> address the problems that lay ahead.
>
> Whatever this survey may lack in "design", one has to admit there has been
a
> major effort made at outreach, along with a significant effort to
translate
> this survey into multiple languages (more soon to be forthcoming).  Please
> bear in mind that this is only step one in a much longer process that will
> fully involve the General Assembly.    Let's not go overboard with the
> criticism when it is clear that we are making forward progress.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:44:07 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's try to see this constructively... and not over react ... 

         I think you miss Michael's point, Marilyn.  He's not saying that 
the study is statistically invalid because it allows for narrative 
responses.  He's saying that it's invalid because it's systematically 
biased in favor of one set of results.  Thus, for example, he mentions 
Question 9, which asks whether each whois data element is "essential," 
"desirable" or "valueless."  Problem is, almost any information has 
value.  Nobody would say that a registrant's postal address, say, is 
"valueless" -- but the survey gives no opportunity to say that it is 
nonetheless unnecessary, or that the privacy costs associated with 
including it outweigh that value.  Rather, the respondent's only other 
choices are that the information is either "essential" or 
"desirable."  That's a slanted question.

         I think that everyone should fill out the survey, notwithstanding 
its bias, because -- like it or not -- the responses this survey generates 
will help shape ICANN action.  But that doesn't mean that one shouldn't 
point out the survey's rather unfortunate flaws.

Jon

At 09:12 PM 6/14/2001 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>I agree with Danny's response. In my view, always easy to be critical;
>better to be constructive.
>
>I regret that Michael has expressed only concerns. Isn't the survey  not to
>determine an outcome in itself, but to try to gather information?
>Obviously, using narrative responses is not going to result in a
>statistically valid study; and given the method of distribution, it isn't a
>"sample", but that wasn't and isn't the point, I would say.
>
>I still encourage everyone who uses WHOIS to respond and to be constructive.
>
>I believe that even sociologists sometimes do non-statistical "field
>research"....
>
>
>
>Marilyn
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Froomkin [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:48 PM
>To: Danny Younger
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."
>
>
>I meant a professional with experience in survey design, not someone paid by
>ICANN to do whatever it is ICANN pays them to do.  It goes without saying
>that
>no one at ICANN, or the NC, has this somewhat specialist skill (although I
>would
>not be surprised to find it in the GA somewhere).  No blame attaches for
>this,
>as there is no reason we should expect them to--it's a technical body
>(right?),
>not a social science research unit.  But nor should we place much credence
>in
>the results, whoever designed it.
>
>I don't see the value of a lot of energy being used to produce something
>that
>cannot be relied on.   The lesson is: if you are going to do a survey, run
>it by
>someone who designs them for a living.   Someone in a sociology department
>or a
>psychology department of a university who does empirical work if you can't
>get a
>professional pollster.
>
>In fact, given the bias of the design, the greater the 'outreach' for this
>survey, the greater the damage.
>
>[I'll almost certainly be offline from now until Tuesday due to travel.]
>
>Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > With regard to the WHOIS survey, Michael Froomkin writes:  "I wish whoever
> > wrote this had consulted a professional."
> >
> > Actually, we are probably quite lucky that the Names Council's WHOIS
> > committee (of which I am also a member) wrestled this project away from
>the
> > ICANN staff which some time ago had formed its own WHOIS Committee
> > http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/.  Yes, it might have been more
> > professional had the ICANN staff devoted their full-time professional
>skills
> > to it, but I for one am quite happy to see the uncompensated volunteer
> > members of the Names Council showing some real initiative and a desire to
> > address the problems that lay ahead.
> >
> > Whatever this survey may lack in "design", one has to admit there has been
>a
> > major effort made at outreach, along with a significant effort to
>translate
> > this survey into multiple languages (more soon to be forthcoming).  Please
> > bear in mind that this is only step one in a much longer process that will
> > fully involve the General Assembly.    Let's not go overboard with the
> > criticism when it is clear that we are making forward progress.
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:16:53 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha." 

Hello Danny,
on 6/14/01 6:23 PM, Danny Younger at [email-masked] wrote:

> Whatever this survey may lack in "design", one has to admit there has been a
> major effort made at outreach,

That depends on what you mean by outreach. Whatever languages the survey is
translated into, it will still be in ICANNESE, reaching only internal parts
of the DNSO. If that's all it sets out to do, fine, but where's the outreach
to the public? Where's the explanations of the issues ? Where's the
reference to international privacy laws? Where's the evidence of
geographical diversity in those participating in the survey?

Also, it amazes me that those raised in an educational system based on
multiple choice exam papers still don't quite fully appreciate the
limitations it imposes. For example, I have a personal/family domain, I
sponsor a non-profit domain, I have a commercial business domain, I have a
ccTLD, I have a gTLD, I have a .org, each with different priorities. Do I
fill in the survey multiple times with different hats on?

On the GA-SYS list, the point has been raised that the WHOIS Committee has
no plans to contact consumer organizations that would have something of
value to say on the issues (and not necessarily fitting into those tick
boxes). 

Danny, as you are on the Whois Committee, perhaps you could confirm that
efforts will be made to contact some of these. Here's a short list from the
EPIC Online Guide to Privacy Resources:-

http://www.epic.org/privacy/privacy_resources_faq.html

Contents:
[1] Organizations
[2] Printed Publications
[3] US Privacy Sites
[4] International Privacy Sites
[6] Mailing Lists and Electronic Newsgroups

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

[1] Privacy Organizations

Electronic Privacy Information Center. EPIC was established in 1994 to focus
public attention on emerging privacy issues relating to the National
Information Infrastructure, such as the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony
proposal, medical records privacy and the sale of consumer data. EPIC
conducts litigation, sponsors conferences, produces reports, publishes the
EPIC Alert and leads campaigns on privacy issues. For more information
email: [email-masked], or contact EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite
200, Washington, DC 20009. Tel: (202) 483-1140. Executive Director: Marc
Rotenberg. 

American Civil Liberties Union. National civil liberties organization.
Originally founded in 1920, the ACLU conducts extensive litigation on
Constitutional issues including privacy, and free speech. The ACLU
Washington office lobbies Congress for civil liberties and civil rights
issues. Contact: [email-masked]. 125 Broad Street, NY, NY 10004-2400.
Executive Director: Norman Siegel.

Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering. CASPIAN is a
national web-based organization opposing the current trends of supermarkets
to require customer information in order to receive discounts. Email
[email-masked]. Founder: Katherine Albrecht.

Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email. CAUCE is an all volunteer,
entirely web-based organization, created by Netizens to advocate for a
legislative solution to the problem of UCE (spam). CAUCE began as a
discussion group called SPAM-LAW, formed of members who felt that
legislation was necessary to stop spam from choking the life out of the
Internet. In 1997 CAUCE proposed an amendment to the Federal statute which
outlaws junk "faxes" (47 USC 227) to also prohibit junk e-mail, and since
then has remained a pre-eminent voice in the anti-spam community. Email:
[email-masked]. President: Edward Cherlin.

Center for Digital Democracy. A non-profit public interest group dedicated
to ensuring open access to Internet architectures.

Center for Media Education. A national non-profit organization dedicated to
improving the quality of electronic media, especially on the behalf of
children and families. Provides guides, reports and other information on
children's and consumer privacy. Contact: [email-masked]. 2120 L Street, NW
Suite 518, Washington, DC 20037. Tel: (202) 331-7833. Fax: (202) 331-7841.
President: Kathryn M. Montgomery.

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. A national membership
organization of people concerned about the impact of technology on society.
CPSR sponsors an annual conference, maintains numerous mailing lists on
computer-related issues, a large internet site of information and publishes
a quarterly newsletter. It has 24 local chapters across the US and several
international affiliates. CPSR sponsors working groups on civil liberties,
working in the computer industry and others. Contact: [email-masked]. PO
Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94302. Tel: (650) 322-3778. Fax: (650) 322-4748.

Consumer Project on Technology. The CPT was created by Ralph Nader in 1995
to focus on a variety of issues, including telecommunications regulation,
pricing of ISDN services; fair use under the copyright law; issues relating
to the pricing, ownership and development of pharmaceutical drugs; impact of
technology on personal privacy; and several other issues. The CPT is
currently focusing on intellectual property rights, health care, electronic
commerce ad competition policy. Contact: Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036,
Tel: (202) 387-8030. Fax: (202) 234-5176. Director: James Love.

Cypherpunks. Informal group that develops technological solutions to protect
privacy. the Cypherpunks write cryptography and other programs, set up
anonymous remailers and discuss political and technical issues. Meetings are
also regularly held in California and other states. Email:
[email-masked].

EF-Texas. Texas-based, electronic civil liberties organization founded in
1990. Purpose is to engage in and support educational activities that
promote a clearer understanding of the social, legal, and technical issues
surrounding online telecommunications. Contact: [email-masked]. PO
Box 328, Bastrop, TX 78602. President: Gene Crick.

Electronic Frontier Foundation. Organization formed in 1990 to maintain and
enhance intellectual freedom, privacy, and other values of civil liberties
and democracy in networked communications. Publishes newsletters, Internet
Guidebooks and other documents, provides mailing lists and other online
forums, and hosts a large electronic document archive. Contact:
[email-masked]. 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110-1914. Tel: (415)
436-9333. Fax: (415) 436-9993. Executive Director: Sheryl Steele.

Global Internet Liberty Campaign. International coalition of 40 privacy,
free speech and human rights groups dedicated to fighting international
threats to privacy and free speech on the Internet. Email: [email-masked].

Privacy Coalition. A nonpartisan coalition of consumer, civil liberties,
educational, family, library, labor, and technology organizations in support
of legislation that effectively protects personal privacy. Contact:
[email-masked].

Privacy International. An international human rights group based in London,
England with offices in Washington, DC and Sydney, Australia. PI has members
in over 40 countries and has led campaigns against national id cards, video
surveillance and other privacy violations in numerous countries including
Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the Philippines. PI sponsors
yearly international conferences on privacy issues. Contact: [email-masked].
Privacy International , 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200, Washington,
DC 20009. Director General: Simon Davies.

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. A California-based organization formed in
1992. The Clearinghouse has produced many fact sheets and an annual report,
and maintains a toll free hotline to provide advice to consumers about their
rights. Email: [email-masked]. 1717 Kettner Avenue Suite 105, San
Diego, CA 92101. Tel: 619-298-3396. Fax: 619-298-5681. Director: Beth
Givens.

US Privacy Council. A coalition of US privacy groups and individuals founded
in 1991 to deal with privacy issues in the US. USPC works in Washington
monitoring legislation and the activities of government agencies. USPC works
closely with other groups on privacy issues including National ID cards,
reforming credit reporting, Caller ID and international issues. Email:
[email-masked] . Tel: 202 829-3660. Chair: Evan Hendricks.

US Public Interest Group (PIRG). The State Public Interest Research Groups
(PIRGs). Non-profit, non-partisan consumer and environmental watchdog
groups. Advocates for better consumer privacy laws, preventing identity
theft and correcting credit reports. Fact sheets and reports available on
web. For general information, email: [email-masked]. Tel:1-800-838-6554.To
contact DC Office (U.S. PIRG) email: [email-masked]. 218 D Street SE,
Washington, DC 20003. Tel: (202) 546-9707. Fax: (202) 546-2461. Executive
Director: Gene Karpinsk.

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

[2] Printed Publications

US-Based Newsletters

2600 Magazine. Inside technical information on telephone and computer
network operations. Published quarterly. Contact: [email-masked]. P.O. Box
752, Middle Island, NY 11953. Tel: (631) 751-2600. Fax: (631) 474-2677.
Cost:$18/year. 

Access Reports. A biweekly newsletter covering the Freedom of Information
Act, other federal open government statutes, and information policy issues
on both the legislative and administrative level. It also covers case law
development on open government issues in the states. Current trends and
issues in privacy are also covered. Editor: Harry Hammitt. Contact:
[email-masked]. 1624 Dogwood lane, Lynchburg, VA, 24503. Tel
(804) 384-5334. Fax (804) 384-8272. Cost: $350/year.

Full Disclosure. A monthly newspaper on surveillance and civil liberties
issues. Editor: Glen Roberts. PO Box 1533, Oil City, PA 16301. Cost:
$29.95/year.

Gray Areas. Covers subject matter which is illegal, immoral and/or
controversial. Covers all sorts of privacy issues ranging from urine tests
to computer crimes to the rights of prisoners. Editor: Netta Gilboa.
Address: Gray Areas, Inc. P.O. Box 808, Broomall, PA 19008-0808. Quarterly.
Cost: $8.00/sample $12.00 foreign 4-issue subscriptions are $23 bulk/$32
first class mail/$45 foreign.

Privacy and American Business. Bimonthly publication giving an industry
perspective on privacy. Editor: Robert Belair. Contact: [email-masked] or
[email-masked]. Two University Plaza, Suite 414, Hackensack, NJ 07601. Tel:
(201) 996-1154. Fax: (201) 996-1883. Cost: $395/year.

Privacy Journal. A monthly journal on privacy, mainly in the U.S., now in
its 24th year of publication. Publisher: Robert Ellis Smith. Contact:
[email-masked]. P.O. Box 28577, Providence, RI 02908. (401)
274-7861 (tel) (401) 274-4747 (fax). Cost: $225/year.

Privacy Law Adviser. Abi-weekly Pike & Fisher publication designed to
provide concise, objective and current information on the full range of
today's consumer and employee privacy issues. Contact: [email-masked]. 1010
Wayne Avenue, Suite 1400, Silver Spring, MD 20910-5600.
Phone:1-800-255-8131.

Privacy Times. Biweekly newsletter on information law. Each issue covers
developments related to privacy and information access, including summaries
of court decisions on the Freedom of Information Act and other relevant
statutes. Editor: Evan Hendricks. Contact: [email-masked]. P.O. Box
21501, Washington, DC 20009. Tel: (301) 229-7002. Fax: (301) 229-8011. Cost:
$250/Year.

International Newsletters

Computer Law and Security Report. UK-based report that focuses on world-wide
developments in security granted by computer and technology laws. Editor:
Stephen Saxby. Contact: [email-masked].. Fax: 44-0-1865-843971
Cost: $822/year. 

Privacy Laws and Business. UK-based newsletter that focuses on international
privacy and data protection from a business perspective. Editor: Stewart
Dresner. Contact: Raeburn House Fifth Floor, 100 Northholt Road, Harrow,
Middlesex HA2 0BX, United Kindgom. Tel: 44-20-8423-1300. Fax:
44-20-8423-4536. [email-masked]. Cost: $US 464/year.

Privacy Law and Policy Reporter. A well written, law-oriented overview of
privacy developments in NZ, Australia and South Pacific. 10 issues/year.
Editor: Graham Greenleaf. Contact: Level 11, Carlton Centre, 55-63 Elizabeth
Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia. 61-2-221-6199 (tel). Cost: $AZ 345

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

[3] U.S. Privacy Sites

ACLU Freedom Network. Reports, testimony and other materials on privacy,
free speech and other civil liberties issues. America Online Keyword: ACLU

The Antitelemarketers Source. Extensive information and help on fighting
telemarketing.

CASPIAN - Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering.

The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email. Ad hoc coalition of
Internet users, network technology professionals, and Internet Service
administrators opposing junk email.

CPSR Internet Library. Maintains the online archives for CPSR, EPIC Privacy
International and other groups.

Cypherpunks. Archives on cryptography and other privacy technologies.

Echelon Watch. Information on the threat to privacy and other civil
liberties posed by the extensive international resources of ECHELON.

Electronic Frontier Foundation Archives. Archives on privacy, free speech,
underground newsletters.

Electronic Privacy Information Center. Includes back issues of EPIC Alert,
privacy resources, legislation, and articles.

Encryption Policy Resource Page. Materials and news on current debates in US
encryption debate.

Federal Trade Commission. Information on credit reports, kids, and consumer
privacy.

Fight Spam on the Internet! Campaign to fight unsolicited email.

Junkbusters. Materials on fighting junk mail, spam, telemarketing calls and
other privacy invasive marketing. Also tools to protect privacy.

Privacy.net. Extensive archives on consumer privacy and federal and state
levels.

Privacy.org. Daily news, information, and initiatives on privacy.

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Email: [email-masked].

Private Citizen. Dedicated to junking junk mail, spam and telemarketers.

Stopcarnivore.org. Information on the threat to privacy and other civil
liberties posed by the extensive resources of Carnivore, the FBI's wire
tapping tool.

Tech Law Journal. Decisions, legislation, news, and other materials on
privacy, encryption, censorship, copyright and other online legal issues.

US PIRG's Consumer Credit & Privacy Page. Reports, testimony, fact sheets
and advice on credit reports, identity theft and privacy.

Yahoo's Privacy Resources. Link to Yahoo Web resources page on privacy.

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

[4] International Privacy Sites

Arge Daten. Web Site on Austrian Privacy. Mostly in German.

Australia Office of the Privacy Commissioner

New South Wales Privacy Committee

Privacy in Belgium - A Resource Guide

Canadian Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Materials on Canadian privacy.
Includes text of law, reports. In English and French.

British Columbia, Canada Information and Privacy Commissioner. Official web
page of the commissioner. Includes the text of the BC act and decision.

Ontario, Canada Information and Privacy Commissioner. Text of law, reports,
guides, orders and investigations.

Commission for Liberties and Informatics. Web pages on privacy in Spain.
Spanish version.

Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK). UK-based civil liberties group

Data Surveillance and Information Privacy Web Page. Extensive materials on
privacy of transactional records and data matching.

Electronic Frontiers Australia. Australian cyber-rights group. Materials on
free speech, privacy, and encryption.

Electronic Frontiers Canada. Materials on Privacy and Civil Liberties in
Canada.

Foundation for Information Policy Research. An independent body that studies
the interaction between information technology and society in UK and Europe.

Finland Privacy Commission. Mostly in Finnish.

German Privacy Information from Humbalt University. Extensive collection of
German data protection information. All in German.

Global Internet Liberty Campaign. Coalition of human rights, privacy,
anti-censorship and cyberliberties groups.

Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information
(Hungary). Mostly in Hungarian.

Italian Privacy Site. New site on recently enacted Italian Data protection
law. Mostly in Italian.

Netherlands Privacy Page. Materials on Privacy in the Netherlands and
internationally. In Dutch and English.

New Zealand Office of Privacy Commissioner. Guides and fact sheets on wide
range of privacy issues including the NZ Privacy Act, case notes, and
medical records.

The Norwegian Data Inspectorate (Datatilsynet). Web page of Norway Privacy
Commissioner. English available.

The Policing & Surveillance WWW-page. Information on technologies of
surveillance and control. In German.

Privacy International. Extensive materials on international privacy and
human rights. Includes fact sheets on current issues such as national id
cards, CCTV and others. Detailed country pages.

Statewatch.. UK-based civil liberties group. Extensive database (15+ years)
of materials on civil liberties in the UK and Europe.

Swiss Data Protection Agency WWW page. In German, French and Italian.

UK Data Protection Registrar. Overview of UK Data Protection Act.

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

[6] Mailing Lists and Electronic Newsgroups

Moderated Newsletters and Digests:

ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update. Biweekly newsletter. To subscribe to the ACLU
Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to [email-masked] with "subscribe
Cyber-Liberties" in the body of the message.

BNA's Internet Law Reporter. Free daily e-mail summary of developments in
Internet law with links to full text articles.

CPSR Announce. Moderated mailing list for CPSR. Newsgroup:
comp.org.cpsr.announce. Includes Telecom Report, and other CPSR newsletters
and releases. Also available as mailing list. Mail to [email-masked]. 1st
line: subscribe cpsr-announce.

CPSR-Global. CPSR sponsored mailing list on Global information
infrastructure issues. To subscribe, email [email-masked] with the 1st
line: subscribe cpsr-global. Moderator: Marsha Woodbury.

Computer Privacy Digest. Moderated digest on privacy. Newsgroup:
comp.society.privacy. To subscribe, email: [email-masked], 1st
line "subscribe". Back issues gopher: gopher.cs.uwm.edu, ftp:
ftp.cs.uwm.edu/pub/comp-privacy/. Moderator: Len Levine.

Computer Underground Digest. Weekly moderated digest on computer
underground, privacy, free speech issues. Newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest.
Email: [email-masked], Subject: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST. Back
issues at http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest. Moderator: Jim Thomas.

EPIC Alert. Biweekly electronic newsletter of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center. Mail to [email-masked]. Subject: subscribe.

Epic Digest. Privacy.org's weekly newsletter of privacy news, information,
and action. Mail to [email-masked]. Subject: subscribe.

Gigalaw. Offers two newsletters. GigaLaw.com Weekly Update provides weekly,
in-depth articles on basic and cutting-edge issues in the law. GigaLaw.com
Daily News provides daily reports on the most important Internet and
technology law news from around the web.

Netizen: Le Bulletin Lambada. French newsletter on online privacy and free
speech issues. Available in French and English.

The Network Observer. [Archives] On-line newsletter about networks and
democracy. Email: [email-masked]. with the Subject: subscribe
Jane Doe.

Privacy Forum. Moderated digest on privacy partially sponsored by ACM. To
subscribe, email: [email-masked]. Back issues at ftp.vortex.com
/privacy or http://www.vortex.com/. Moderator: Lauren Weinstein.

Risks Digest. Moderated digest on risks to the public using computers and
related systems. Newsgroup: comp.risks. Also available as mailing list from
email: [email-masked] 1st line: SUBSCRIBE. Back issues at
unix.sri.com /risks/ . Moderator: Peter Neumann.

VTW Announce. Moderated mailing list of Voters Telecomm Watch. Email
[email-masked], 1st line of the message: SUBSCRIBE VTW-ANNOUNCE your
name.

Unmoderated Newsgroups and Mailing Lists:

Alt.privacy. Discussion on privacy. High traffic, low content.

Alt.privacy clipper. Discussion of the Clipper chip and encryption policy.

Comp.org.cpsr.talk. Discussion of issues related to the Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility. Topics include privacy, the NII,
telecommunications reform and social implications of technology.

Comp.org.eff.talk. Discussion of privacy, free speech, copyright and other
issues related to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Cypherpunks Mailing list. Discussion of cryptography and technical
protections of privacy. Email: [email-masked], to subscribe to
cypherpunks. Warning: High Traffic (100+ messages/day).

sci.crypt. Technical discussion of encryption.

talk.politics.crypto. Discussion of the Clipper chip and encryption policy.

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

along with a significant effort to translate
> this survey into multiple languages (more soon to be forthcoming).  Please
> bear in mind that this is only step one in a much longer process that will
> fully involve the General Assembly.    Let's not go overboard with the
> criticism when it is clear that we are making forward progress.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #541
************************