Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #692
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, August 22 2001          Volume 01 : Number 692

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:21:50 +0900
From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS services

Miriam wrote:

> technical, policy or other communities.  But we must not confuse this
effort
> -- to conduct R&D on a universal Whois -- with the myriad of Whois policy
> issues now appropriately under discussion by the Whois Committee, the GA
and
> others.

Point of clarification.

Whois Committee, DNSO, has been waiting for the access to survey
results which has been presented on July 24. There is still no access.

>All Committee members have access to all the information including
> (in confidence) the identity of the author.

As Paul, chair of Whois Committee guaranteed earlier, Whois Committee
will exert its efforts to make sure this Whois Survey to meet its original
purpose for survey.

After enough survey review for the around 2800 responses, according to
Paul's report during NC teleconference - consideration for non-native
speakers of English should be counted in, Whois Committee is going to
get some consensus whether the policy is needed or not.

> That debate is now taking place, and will continue, irrespective of
> the R&D effort on a universal Whois to which we have committed.  We were
not
> tasked with setting policy with respect to Whois, but rather conducting
R&D
> on a possible technical solution for a universal Whois.  When consensus
> decisions are made on those policy issues, they should be reflected in
> whatever Whois database is in use/development.

Yes, there should be enough time for review for written consultation,
which will reflect very limited part of the world.

Thank you,
YJ

- --
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, 22 Aug 2001 06:22:02 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Net-block issues

That sounds like a well though out plan.

Could you please tell me who exactly you mean by "Fellow Followers"?

Please name names. 

Also, how many persons support your plan?
Again, please name names.

Finally, I believe the GA is open:

>From the "rules of the GA list"
(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.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:26 AM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Net-block issues

Peter and all assembly members,

  Two things must happen to facilitate what you are requesting me to
propose.  1.) The IDNHC should be formed or the GA must open up for any
and all interested parties that do not otherwise belong to another
constituency as voting members.  2.) The At-Large must be re-initiated
and funding for casting a ballot on UDRP (Current version) and/or any
other vetted proposal for a revised UDRP.

  Than a vote of the At-large with all of the Constituencies as well as
the GA must be done.  Whichever proposal wins the majority of the votes
is the choice of the Stakeholders.

  All of this could have been accomplished over a year ago had not the
ICANN BoD and "Fellow Followers" of their ideology  not blocked these
building blocks put into place.  But alas, this is not the history we
all suffer or to a very small extent benefit from...

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> OK, Jeff, so how do you propose that we might "bring it all into 
> compliance" ?
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 4:03 PM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Net-block issues
>
> Peter and all assembly members,
>
>   As you know or should know the current version of the UDRP is not a 
> "Consensus" based policy or practice.  It is contrived or otherwise 
> edicted upon the stakeholders without their consent or even ability to

> vote upon it as a policy tool.  As such, it is not a valid ICANN/WIPO 
> policy tool.
>
>   The registrar "Contracts" that potential registrants are not 
> "Consensus" based documents by the stakeholders as they were not 
> allowed to VOTE on them.  As such, they are not under the MoU and 
> White Paper valid documents or contracts by which registration of 
> domain names are managed.
>
>   Given these FACTS, it is inconsistent in the extreme to even 
> consider the present atmosphere or the DNS and especially Registration

> of Domain Names as well as "Selection" of TLD's to be in compliance 
> with the White Paper and the MoU.
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > Whether you call it "ICANN meddling" or not, the ultimate authority 
> > here (in UDRP) comes by contract. Registries have "terms and 
> > conditions" of service. The registrars pass those terms and 
> > conditions
>
> > along to the users of the service. The users (domain name holders) 
> > contractually agree to be bound by those terms, in order to get a 
> > domain name. terms may be financial (they pay $ 25.00) or 
> > non-financial (they agree to UDRP).
> >
> > All of this comes by contract. Anyone is free to enter into, or not 
> > enter into a contract, or, for that matter, to attempt to negotiate 
> > the terms.
> >
> > All terms, including UDRP, could be re-negotiated in the future, 
> > provided enough of the stakeholders wish to.
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> > Sandy Harris
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 12:53 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]'
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Net-block issues
> >
> > "William S. Lovell" wrote:
> >
> > > > On the other hand, an ISP or a registry should not be acting 
> > > > against
> >
> > > > its customers for anything other than direct abuse OF the 
> > > > network.
>
> > > > There are laws against libel, trademark misuse, stalking, 
> > > > harassment, some types of pornography, 'hate literature', 
> > > > slander,
>
> > > > software 'piracy', ...
> > > >
> > > > All these forms of abuse ON the net are better dealt with by 
> > > > police and courts than by system admins. Courts have legal 
> > > > authority to act
> >
> > > > on these issues, experience and expertise, protections for the 
> > > > accused, standards of evidence, ... Neither ISPs nor registries 
> > > > have
> >
> > > > any of those.
> > > >
> > > > There may be some exceptions for extremely blatant violators, 
> > > > where an ISP or registry might reasonably help stop abuse, but 
> > > > when there is any doubt at all, they should give their customers

> > > > the benefit of
> >
> > > > that doubt.
> > > >
> > > > So, while I feel that having registries disconnect spammers is 
> > > > not
>
> > > > a
> >
> > > > good idea (mainly because I don't trust ICANN to come up with 
> > > > good
>
> > > > guidelines and NSI are themselves spammers), I do think you can 
> > > > make
> >
> > > > a far better case for that than for having them try to enforce 
> > > > trademark restrictions.
> > >
> > > All of the above hangs together perfectly.  It also leads to the 
> > > key
>
> > > question, though.  Copying the phrase "Courts have legal authority

> > > to act on these issues, experience and expertise, protections for 
> > > the accused, standards of evidence, ... Neither ISPs nor 
> > > registries have any of those," a complete statement would be made 
> > > if one added ICANN along with ISPs and registries, and with 
> > > specific emphasis on trademarks.  ICANN, with its UDRP and other 
> > > policy meddling, suffers
>
> > > from the same lack of legal authority, experience and expertise, 
> > > protections for the 'accused,' standards of evidence, and soforth.
> > >
> > > Bill Lovell
> >
> > I agree completely.
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send mail 
> > to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga" in the body 
> > of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send mail 
> > to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga" in the body 
> > of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. 
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail 
> [email-masked] Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 
> 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 22 Aug 2001 07:21:29 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Partial response to questions from Danny Younger regarding Business Constituency: Charter and ByLaw Violations

>  Of course, we all recognize that
>AT&T is also a communications company, as well as a web hosting, business
>user, and Internet company. \

I thought their main business was telemarketing???

Cade is also involved in ensuring that corporations like AT&T have
unfettered access to the personal information for individuals.  Cade lobbies
to make sure that no laws get passed that will place any restrictions on how
personal information is used by companies such as AT&T.

I have seen Cade in action here in Washington.  You should see how these
people operate.  You cannot believe anything these people say ... and I mean
anything.  Their allegiance is to their corporation and their stockholders.
They don't care about anybody or anything else.  Many of them know little or
nothing about what they are talking about.  All they know is how to suck up
to those who have some power.  Lobbying, policy development and advocacy are
exactly the same thing.  let's just say you lie on behalf of your parent
company.

AT&T is in constant litigation because they cannot tell the truth and cannot
follow the law over violating privacy laws.  I took them before the FCC and
they were found guilty of violating privacy laws.  They still break these
laws and then lie about it (as anyone with a telephone can attest).

see http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/1999/fcc99401.txt

Why should anyone believe anything said by an AT&T lobbyist is beyond me.
How can anyone be so stupid as to believe these people?

But hey, if you have something to sell give ole Marilyn a call as I am sure
she loves telemarketing calls.

Russ Smith

- --
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, 22 Aug 2001 07:29:00 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS services

> It was focused on getting input from business and
>IP folks, as well as the law enforcement community.

So was it explained that an IP whois is maintained which is verified and can
be used to find who is in charge of the IP address and, therefore, any legal
action such as subpoenas, "takedowns," etc. can be accomplished using this
whois database.  The unverified domain whois databases are not actually
needed for this purpose.

This point is glossed over or ignored in most discussions I have seen.
Also, I don't see how Verisign can be viewed as a neutral party.  They
certainly do not represent the individual domain holder.

When these people get control you can say bye to any personal privacy.  The
lawyers and lobbyists will rule the day.

Russ Smith

- --
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, 22 Aug 2001 23:02:43 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN approves widespread new domain cybersquatting

ICANN approves widespread new domain cybersquatting
By Kieren McCarthy
Posted: 21/08/2001 at 15:10 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21179.html

ICANN has officially approved widespread corporate cybersquatting for new
domain name registry operators.

It is not a well-known aspect of the new domain operators' contract, but
they are entitled to register up to 10,000 domains for themselves before
allowing anyone else access. ICANN argues that a registry operator will need
a wide range of addresses on that registry in order to work effectively, and
it is impossible to disagree with that.

However, a registrar is given free rein to select up to 10,000 domains that
they wish to possess - something that to our minds is a little excessive. Of
these, only half need have anything to do with the registry business. Under
the ICANN contract: "Registry Operator may register the domain names listed
on Appendix X (PartA) for its own use in operating the registry and
providing Registry Services under this Agreement, provided the total number
of domain names listed on Appendix X at any time does not exceed 5000". A
further 5,000 are allowed "for its own use".

This excessive generosity came to light after one member of Yahoo's domain
policy newsgroup queried why Afilias was entitled to the "search.info"
domain. A scan of Afilias' contract revealed the situation. As far as
publicly available information goes, Afilias has only registered 150
domains, although that was back in May this year so the situation may now be
very different.

This revelation comes on top of widespread criticism of how ICANN chose the
seven new top-level domains and how it decided which company was most suited
to running that TLD. ICANN appears to have been over generous to the
companies that have donated the majority of the independent, not-for-profit
organisation's money in recent years. ®

Related Link
The ICANN contract - look at clauses 3.6.1 and 3.6.2

- --
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, 22 Aug 2001 23:09:25 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Web Domain Name Chief Urges Patience, Perseverance

Web Domain Name Chief Urges Patience, Perseverance
August 17, 2001 03:51 PM ET
By Andy Sullivan
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=XUWAJ12TCRDOSCRBAEZSFEY
KEEATGIWD?type=internetnews&StoryID=165509

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the organization that oversees the
Internet's address system has advice for those trying to snag a domain like
www.mortgage.info or www.show.biz -- hang in there.

The process of expanding available addresses beyond ".com" and other
existing top-level domains has hit a few potholes, but M. Stuart Lynn, chief
executive of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or
ICANN, urged domain-name applicants not to give up hope.

"Stay with the process, work through it," Lynn said in an interview with
Reuters. "If it doesn't work, we'll certainly know about it ... this isn't a
research experiment using 10,000 rats."

ICANN approved seven new top-level domains last November to expand the
Internet's addressing system beyond the original seven, including .com, .net
and .org, set up in 1984.

But with only three of the new domains accepting applications, the process
has already descended into a miasma of lawsuits and fraud allegations.
NeuLevel Inc., responsible for the business-focused .biz domain, has become
embroiled in court challenges questioning the legality of its process, while
Afilias has struggled to curb abuses of the pre-registration process for its
.info domain.

ICANN itself has come under pressure from Internet users and members of
Congress who want the nonprofit corporation to pick up the pace and approve
more domains like .kids and .travel. At the same time, alternative
addressing systems have sprung up to challenge ICANN's authority.

Lynn, who joined ICANN in March after retiring as the University of
California system's computer chief, said the domain-name expansion was
proceeding as planned, warts and all. In the face of overwhelming public
demand for names like www.money.biz, conflicts are bound to arise, he said.

BUILT-IN AGGRAVATION

"Inherently, you have built-in aggravation. Why is that? Because there are
10,000 people who want a given name, and only one person will be happy,"
Lynn said.

ICANN's primary responsibility is to ensure that the new domains do not
disrupt the existing addressing system, he said, noting that the problems
encountered by .biz and .info domain managers have proved the wisdom of
ICANN's go-slow approach.

"We have lots of people telling us we need lots more top-level domains," he
said. "Think what would have happened if we had taken that advice."

Lynn said he hoped all seven domains would be operable by the end of the
year, but declined to say when ICANN might consider a second round of
domain-name expansion, or if domains not chosen in the first round last year
would be automatically reconsidered without having to pay another $50,000
fee.

"We appreciate the fact that so many proposals were submitted (in the first
round) and the funding was provided to fund the program. I think it shows a
great deal of public spirit," he said.

Lynn said he was certain the next round will proceed more smoothly. While
ICANN is unlikely to dictate one specific model for new domains in the
future, the organization will likely have a better idea of what works and
what doesn't, he said.

"Hopefully what we'll learn out of some of these things is a better way to
deal with the process," he said.

- --
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, 22 Aug 2001 23:31:43 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] You Were Asking About Links

Hi William

http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Domain_Names/

Here's 1429 of them !!

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: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 07:15:35 -0700
From: "Mark C . Langston" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Registries get first shot at 10,000 free domains

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21179.html

From the article:

  "[...A] registrar is given free rein to select up to 10,000 domains
  that they wish to possess - something that to our minds is a little
  excessive. Of these, only half need have anything to do with the
  registry business. Under the ICANN contract: "Registry Operator may
  register the domain names listed on Appendix X (PartA) for its own use
  in operating the registry and providing Registry Services under this
  Agreement, provided the total number of domain names listed on
  Appendix X at any time does not exceed 5000". A further 5,000 are
  allowed "for its own use"."

- -- 
Mark C. Langston
[email-masked]
Systems & Network Admin
http://www.bitshift.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: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 08:07:19 -0400
From: "Sapiro, Miriam" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS servi ces

Jeff - 

Thanks for your input.  We are in the process of setting up the web forum.
Once that's done we will send the URL to the list.  

Regards, Miriam

Miriam Sapiro
Director of International Policy

VeriSign, Inc.
1666 K Street, NW, Suite 410
Washington DC 20006
tel:    202-973-6600
fax:   202-466-9103
cell:  703-282-7117
email: [email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 5:20 AM
To: Sapiro, Miriam
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS
servi ces

Miriam and all assembly members,

  I will not try to characterize Danny's comments one way or the other.
I think they should just stand as is.

  However I am happy to see that Verisign is taking a more concerted
interest
in WHOIS related issues, the most important of which is privacy of
registrants
with their Domain Names.  What concerns me with Versigns approach that
you very nicely outline below, is that it seems to be a attempt to divide
the interested parties into groups that may or may not be representative
of the interest parties or Domain Name holders/owners.  As such, this
proposed process you outline seems to be open to divisiveness and
manipulation that is not necessary or could be counter productive.
I would also like to ask is there a URL where the forum you mention
by which interested parties may submit papers or comments?
Please advise.

Sapiro, Miriam wrote:

> Danny -
>
> I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but your note may have left some folks
> with the wrong impression about what I said and the state of play:
>
> -  The first of three consultations that VeriSign plans to hold on
> developing a universal Whois database took place on Aug 15, hosted by the
> U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  It was focused on getting input from business
and
> IP folks, as well as the law enforcement community.  Efforts were made
> several weeks ago to publicize the session, as everyone was most welcome.
> The invitation was, for example, sent to the Registrar and Registry
> Constituencies.  Our intention was not to exclude anyone, but to focus
> different sessions on different audiences.
>
> -  We are organizing two additional consultations, as well as setting up a
> web-based forum for public comment.  The web forum will be particularly
> important to ensure that everyone who has views can provide them easily.
> The second consultation will focus on getting input from civil liberty
> groups, ngos and additional parts of the ICANN community.  The third
> consultation will be focused on getting international input.  We will
> publicize details as soon as they are available.  Please note that we had
> considered whether to schedule a consultation during the ICANN meeting in
> Montevideo and concluded, just as some members of the Names Council did at
> their meeting, that the schedule is already too packed.
>
> -  I made clear we welcome input from everyone, whether they represent
> technical, policy or other communities.  But we must not confuse this
effort
> -- to conduct R&D on a universal Whois -- with the myriad of Whois policy
> issues now appropriately under discussion by the Whois Committee, the GA
and
> others.  That debate is now taking place, and will continue, irrespective
of
> the R&D effort on a universal Whois to which we have committed.  We were
not
> tasked with setting policy with respect to Whois, but rather conducting
R&D
> on a possible technical solution for a universal Whois.  When consensus
> decisions are made on those policy issues, they should be reflected in
> whatever Whois database is in use/development.
>
> - Let me emphasize again that we welcome input from everyone, by web or in
> person.  It would be particularly helpful to our technical team if users
> could provide input on their requirements and priorities.  And let me also
> reinforce that VeriSign did not "side-step" the GA -- as noted above,
other
> key parts of the ICANN community will be the focus of future
consultations.
> And the web forum will be open and accessible to all whom would like to
> express views.
>
> Regards, Miriam
>
> Miriam Sapiro
> Director of International Policy
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:19 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS
> services
>
> This first meeting by VeriSign (one of three scheduled) was designed to
> allow
> panelists representing Law Enforcement and Intellectual Property interests
> to
> address their concerns (subsequent sessions will allow for representatives
> of
> Privacy groups and others to express their views).  A representative for
the
>
> FBI pointed out the need for accurate and timely world-wide information.
> The
> head of the Intellectual Property Constituency, Steve Metalitz, required
> searchability across a broad spectrum of data fields.
>
> Information on this centralized WHOIS is to be found at:
>
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appw-com-16apr01
> .h
>
> tm
>
> Participants at this meeting noted that neither registrars nor other
> registries were specificly invited to attend, nor were representatives of
> the
> DNSO nor the NC WHOIS committee.   The lack of participants from IETF and
> other such groups was also noted.  Miriam Sapiro who headed the Verisign
> panel replied that the meeting was sufficiently publicized.
>
> It was asked (my question), will VeriSign abide by a consensus decision if
> privacy concerns outweigh the interests of the Intellectual property
> constituency.  I did not find the response to be satisfactory.
>
> This centralized WHOIS database raises many policy issues, especially with
> regard to privacy.  I would hope that the NC chooses to add this topic to
> their agenda and that policy matters can be resolved and honored prior to
> being presented with a "fait accompli" by VeriSign.
>
> I continue to be troubled by VeriSign side-stepping the DNSO, and would
hope
>
> that they would choose to be more cooperative in the future.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 22 Aug 2001 08:07:13 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Partial response to questions from Danny Younger regardi ng Business Constituency: Charter and ByLaw Violations

|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 4:21 AM

|> >  Of course, we all recognize that
|> >AT&T is also a communications company, as well as a web 
|> hosting, business
|> >user, and Internet company. \
|> 
|> I thought their main business was telemarketing???

In the old days, when IBM was the "evil Empire", before the rise of MSFT,
someone told me that IBM was not in the computer business. I stood there,
amazed. They went on to state that IBM was in the business of making profits
and that designing computers was incidental. At the time, I was whining
about the crappy ISA bus that I had to design an interface card for (as
opposed to STD bus). By the same token, AT&T isn't in the telecomm business.
Telecomm is a means to an end, for AT&T. Lucent kinda forgot that (actually,
Bell Labs never did learn that, IMHO).

|> Their allegiance is to their corporation and 
|> their stockholders.
|> They don't care about anybody or anything else.

Duh! Please look up "Fiduciary Duty", in your local US law library. Look up
the penalties for failing in such duty. Geez, they actually include
jail-time!

|> Why should anyone believe anything said by an AT&T lobbyist 
|> is beyond me.

We all have our biases, some of them are required, by law. Others are a
personal affliction. The trick, on ALL sides, is to recognise such biases
when they appear and account for them accordingly. That's politics and
marketing.

|> How can anyone be so stupid as to believe these people?

I don't think that this audience is as terribly naive as you think. The
bottom-line is that those that control [access to] resources have capability
for making stronger argument then those that don't. After that, it's an
question of degree. Why does the ICANN continue to blunder on? Because, they
have semi-exclusive access to a very desireable resource, via the DOC MoU.
Namely, the DNS root. Otherwise, no one would be talking to ICANN, there
would be no need or value-add.

Marilyn Cade works for AT&T and is actually paid to do what she does. She is
much more constrained, in what she is allowed to say, than you are, by law.
She has a fiduciary responsibility to her employer. Please recognise that
for what it's worth. Also, recognise that AT&T is part of www.gip.org,
ICANN's primary backer.

- --
R O E L A N D   M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
t:01 925 373 3954
c:01 925 352 3615
f:01 925 373 9781 
- --
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, 22 Aug 2001 11:24:21 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS servi ces

>Thanks for your input.  We are in the process of setting up the web forum.
>Once that's done we will send the URL to the list.

>Regards, Miriam

>Miriam Sapiro
>Director of International Policy

>VeriSign, Inc.

And are you going to delete the whole thing without warning like Verisign
did with the Domain policy list?

Don't let these people at Verisign monopolize the WHOIS issue.  They want to
make a profit selling and mining the database.  That is their only interest.

Russ Smith

- --
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, 22 Aug 2001 11:29:02 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS services

"Sapiro, Miriam" wrote:

> -  We are organizing two additional consultations, as well as setting up a
> web-based forum for public comment.  The web forum will be particularly
> important to ensure that everyone who has views can provide them easily.

Why a web forum rather than a mailing list? I consider mailing lists far
more convenient to use, they are much easier to keep a personal archive
of, and they are the traditional discussion mechanism.
- --
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, 22 Aug 2001 11:22:12 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo

FYI
- ----------
From: Kristi Plahn-Gjersvold <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 10:49:10 -0400
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo

Dear Ms. Lane:

I am writing in response to your recently submitted request for funds from
the Benton Foundation.

While your situation sounds very promising, the Benton Foundation does not
accept unsolicited funding proposals and does not fund individuals. We focus
our limited funds on operating projects that staff initiate and direct in
support of our mission to realize the social benefits made possible by the
public interest use of communications.   Information about Benton's projects
and its recent publications can be found at our Web site www.benton.org.

Good luck with the election.

Sincerely, 
Kristi Plähn-Gjersvold
Grants Manager, Benton Foundation
1800 K Street NW, 2nd Fl
Washington, DC  USA  20006
www.benton.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: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 11:38:57 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Technical Whois/DNS question (was Re: [ga] Summary ...)

[email-masked] wrote:

> Information on this centralized WHOIS is to be found at:
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appw-com-16apr01.h
[snip] 
> This centralized WHOIS database raises many policy issues, especially with
> regard to privacy.  I would hope that the NC chooses to add this topic to
> their agenda and that policy matters can be resolved and honored prior to
> being presented with a "fait accompli" by VeriSign.

Is there any good reason whois information is not simply embedded in DNS?
Require every zone to include contact info. Enforce that with software.
Allow optional addition of contact info for each A record.

This says nothing about the vital questions of what contact info should be
provided, what restrictions on its use are reasonable, and how to enforce
those restrictions.

It does, however, neatly avoid the other problems of having to design and
run a centralised whois service.
- --
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, 22 Aug 2001 12:10:16 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Partial response to questions from Danny Younger regarding  Business Constituency: Charter and ByLaw Violations

We all know that AT&T main business is not telemarketing.

Being one who has personally litigated the U.S. Government, the United
States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and other government and
quasi-government agencies, and won, I do not believe that your position
against Marilyn Cade is fair nor does the language in your comment
appear balanced against her.   

I have also seen Cade in action here in Washington and I have seen her
abroad participating in various ICANN related meetings and processes.

It does not appear fair to attack Cade for her participation in the
ICANN processes because of her relationship with AT&T.  Cade should
promote her position regardless of what others think about her
connections and positions.  If participants believe that Cade is
representing AT&T and others' positions, then stake holders and
interested parties can assess Cade's information and position and get a
sense of her efforts or direction in these processes.

AT&T and VeriSign are examples of enterprises that appear as easy
targets for attention seeking consumer rights advocate flag wavers,
however, the facts are that such enterprises maintain the integrity of
communications systems, and they have the resources to protect the
communications infrastructure and advance the development of
communications technology.  

I am a consumer rights advocate and it had taken me time to get off my
adrenaline high and come down to reality and realize the significance
and benefit of these enterprise organizations' positions in the
information industry in today's world.  In today's aggressive global
competitive market, these organizations strive to protect consumers'
personal and private information.  Without these organizations'
resources, consumers' personal and private information would certainly
be in jeopardy and most difficult to control.

It is important for enterprise organizations to follow standards, policy
and regulations.  If AT&T, VeriSign or any other similar enterprises
choose to propose new standards, policy and regulations, or changes to
existing standards, policy and regulations, then these organizations
should be heard and we should not be afraid of that. We figure out what
to do from their proposals.  We choose to agree, disagree, or modify
their proposals.  Let them do the work.  Let's stop being paranoid and
move this process forward.  

If you want to worry about things, worry about a break-down in these
enterprise organizations' positions or a break-down in their ability to
protect consumers' personal and private information.  Worry about a
foreign group or competitor outside U.S. control obtaining consumers'
personal and private information and using it.

That we need these enterprise organizations for our own good are for
some a difficult thing to accept.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

admin wrote:
> 
> >  Of course, we all recognize that
> >AT&T is also a communications company, as well as a web hosting, business
> >user, and Internet company. \
> 
> I thought their main business was telemarketing???
> 
> Cade is also involved in ensuring that corporations like AT&T have
> unfettered access to the personal information for individuals.  Cade lobbies
> to make sure that no laws get passed that will place any restrictions on how
> personal information is used by companies such as AT&T.
> 
> I have seen Cade in action here in Washington.  You should see how these
> people operate.  You cannot believe anything these people say ... and I mean
> anything.  Their allegiance is to their corporation and their stockholders.
> They don't care about anybody or anything else.  Many of them know little or
> nothing about what they are talking about.  All they know is how to suck up
> to those who have some power.  Lobbying, policy development and advocacy are
> exactly the same thing.  let's just say you lie on behalf of your parent
> company.
> 
> AT&T is in constant litigation because they cannot tell the truth and cannot
> follow the law over violating privacy laws.  I took them before the FCC and
> they were found guilty of violating privacy laws.  They still break these
> laws and then lie about it (as anyone with a telephone can attest).
> 
> see http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/1999/fcc99401.txt
> 
> Why should anyone believe anything said by an AT&T lobbyist is beyond me.
> How can anyone be so stupid as to believe these people?
> 
> But hey, if you have something to sell give ole Marilyn a call as I am sure
> she loves telemarketing calls.
> 
> Russ Smith
> 
> --
> 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 #692
************************