Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #751
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, September 22 2001         Volume 01 : Number 751

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

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:25:24 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

Thursday, Thursday, September 20, 2001, 8:07:29 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Bill my friend,

> Get a law degree!  Read Erie and a slew of other long arms statute cases 
> then review a bunch more causation cases with opinions written by Cordoza, 
> but don't do any of that until you are capable of passing a bar (no not the 
> dew drop in kind).  Giving opinions on jurisdiction without proper training 
> is really wrong especially when you are wrong.

> The bottom line is always:  piss a judge off bad enough and then never 
> appear in his jurisdiction again.

Doesn't take a law degree to understand, Eric.  Only common sense.

Might want to try to make sure your comments are applicable to what is
being discussed, by the way.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 21 Sep 2001 16:39:25 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] rolling up the sleeves.

Danny and all,

In case people are not aware of this , I presented a draft Charter for an 
Individuals' Constituency at the GA meeting in Montevideo.

Peter the Blanc was looking for a proposal to put his name under, perhaps 
there are other GA members who would want to indicate their broad support 
for such a Charter by affixing their name to it.

www.democracy.org.nz/idno/ICcharter.htm

Constructive criticism is most welcome.  We can discuss improvements on the 
GA-icann sublist.

I am especially interested to hear comment on the funding idea's presented 
there (a fourth level nnn.members.icann.org domain name for all members of 
this constituency as real value for the proposed $12 membership fee.)

Better funding idea's are of course welcome too.

- --Joop

- --
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, 21 Sep 2001 01:15:05 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] rolling up the sleeves.

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Danny and all,
>
> In case people are not aware of this , I presented a draft Charter for an
> Individuals' Constituency at the GA meeting in Montevideo.
>
> Peter the Blanc was looking for a proposal to put his name under, perhaps
> there are other GA members who would want to indicate their broad support
> for such a Charter by affixing their name to it.
>
> www.democracy.org.nz/idno/ICcharter.htm
>
> Constructive criticism is most welcome.  We can discuss improvements on the
> GA-icann sublist.

  I think on this list is sufficient...  The sublist, which of late have hardly
been
used, are and always have been divisive and a basic distraction to all of
the assembly members.

  Here are the specific problems I see with your IC Charter:
From: http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/ICcharter.htm

4.1. IC constituency membership is open to any person who
is an individual domain name holder

4.2 An Individual Domain Name Holder is any person who
can demonstrate a level of control over a specified domain name
that a reasonable person would conclude grants the individual
person the exclusive legal right to exploit the specified
domain name worldwide subject to applicable laws.

     " Examples of items that may be submitted in support of an
application include but are not limited to
      (i) evidence of applicants name on domain contact information
      (ii) evidence of applicant's funds used to pay registration fees, if any
      (iii) evidence that the applicant may cause the domain name to be
relinquished
      (iv) evidence that the applicant is the beneficial holder of
any domain name that is registered or operated by a third party
      (v) Where the applicant does not hold direct control over t
he domain name, written evidence must be provided that the
controlling party is acting on instructions of the beneficial holder
and that such instructions may be withdrawn at the applicant's
sole discretion."

  These requirements would restrict membership to only Domain Name
owners/holders that have registered a Domain Name as and individual
or a third party that is holding that Domain name in the intended registrants
or otherwise holders name, or provide evidence to such.

  Given this bias restriction, to call this proposed constituency a
"IC" or Individuals Constituency is misleading at best...

>
>
> I am especially interested to hear comment on the funding idea's presented
> there (a fourth level nnn.members.icann.org domain name for all members of
> this constituency as real value for the proposed $12 membership fee.)

  I think you are going to have trouble for funding something called an
"Individuals Constituency" when it does not represent any and all
potential Individuals or stakeholders...

>
>
> Better funding idea's are of course welcome too.
>
> --Joop
>
>

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: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 13:49:20 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Alleged links between WTC attacks and domain names

 Investigators Can Access Internet Domain Data
 By Jeff Johnson
 CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
 September 20, 2001

 The company that maintains the registry of .com, .org, and .net
 Internet domain names may have information on the identities of
 individuals who registered web addresses that a counter-terrorism
 expert believes may have foretold last Tuesday's terrorist attacks
 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

 CNSNews.com first reported Wednesday that Dr. Neil Livingstone,
 CEO of Global Options, LLC, a Washington, D.C.-based counter-
 terrorism and investigations company, believed the terrorists
 who orchestrated last week's attacks in New York and Washington,
 or their co-conspirators, may have registered as many as 17
 Internet domain names that could have tipped-off authorities
 as early as last summer.

 Patrick Burns, spokesman for VeriSign, acknowledged that his
 company does archive some of the data on expired registrations,
 though the public does not routinely request such information.

 The VeriSign subsidiary responsible for domain name registrations
 is Network Solutions, Inc. He added that the Internet Corporation
 for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) does not require Network
 Solutions to maintain any records on expired addresses.

 As of late Wednesday, VeriSign would not release either the
 identity of the person or people who registered the domain names,
 or the identity of the company or companies that handled the
 registrations.

 VeriSign is willing to help investigators, according to Burns,
 but does not want to fuel speculation about the domain names on
 Livingstone's list.

[...]

 The list of domain names provided to Livingstone by an industry
 insider included:

 "august11horror.com"
 "august11terror.com"
 "horrorinamerica.com"
 "horrorinnewyork.com"
 "nycterroriststrike.com"
 "pearlharborinmanhattan.com"
 "terrorattack2001.com"
 "towerofhorror.com"
 "tradetowerstrike.com"
 "worldtradecenter929.com"
 "worldtradetowerattack.com"
 "worldtradetowerstrike.com"
 "wterroristattack2001.com"

[...]

(http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/archive/200109/NAT20010920c.html)

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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, 21 Sep 2001 15:12:05 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] rolling up the sleeves.

On 10:15 21/09/01, Jeff Williams said:
> > I am especially interested to hear comment on the funding idea's presented
> > there (a fourth level nnn.members.icann.org domain name for all members of
> > this constituency as real value for the proposed $12 membership fee.)
>
>   I think you are going to have trouble for funding something called an
>"Individuals Constituency" when it does not represent any and all
>potential Individuals or stakeholders...

Dear Joop, Jeff,
in this particular case Joop's proposition seems odd. To be a registered DN 
holder (while you may not have a DN by your own, but just control one by 
someone else) you would have to become a real holder of another DN.

Now the problem is general. Internet governance (what make the network 
consensus organized) has three levels we see very well in here: participant 
individual (individual domain names holders, @large, developers at IEFT, 
etc...), participant constituencies (here the IDNHC) and governance centers 
(here the ICANN) where constituency delegate representatives. So the basic 
problem is the PIN: to ubniquely identify the individuals in the cheapest 
and most secure way.

IMHO The ALSC's and Joop's way to use DNs is not appropriate because most 
of the collected money goes to other purposes and because the DN solution 
itself is not credible enough. DN have to be reformed to identify the DN 
holders and his rights: what makes this to loop.

I see three main problems. One is to identify the participant as unique. 
The second is to make sure he can confortably vote (receive his PIN, be 
able to vote, etc... without problem nor extra cost). The third one is 
secrecy of the vote (when you vote in real world no one can trace your vote 
to you as votes and ID records are kept separated, while in e-votes keep 
the vote and the identification together for checking - in real you recount 
votes, in e-votes you recount voters).

At IALNA boot strap (Internet At Large Network Association I announced at 
Montevideo GA meeting) we have that problems. We have a cheap solution in 
mind calling for a very small program we are developing right now. We will 
deploy and test it (we think it may cost us around $ 200 a month + R&D and 
control). Then we will need to partner with an existing industry sharing 
the same need for good local coverage. I expect we could be ready by Feb or 
March 2002 (I explained we want to be fully operational for the 2002 @large 
election). I will report on it.

Any comment and suggestion welcome as this is a very general problem.
Jefsey

- --
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, 21 Sep 2001 16:12:23 +0200
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] rolling up the sleeves.

On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 03:12:05PM +0200, Jefsey Morfin took time to write:
> I see three main problems. One is to identify the participant as unique. 
> The second is to make sure he can confortably vote (receive his PIN, be 
> able to vote, etc... without problem nor extra cost). The third one is 
> secrecy of the vote (when you vote in real world no one can trace your vote 
> to you as votes and ID records are kept separated, while in e-votes keep 
> the vote and the identification together for checking - in real you recount 
> votes, in e-votes you recount voters).
> 
> At IALNA boot strap (Internet At Large Network Association I announced at 
> Montevideo GA meeting) we have that problems. We have a cheap solution in 
> mind calling for a very small program we are developing right now. We will 
> deploy and test it (we think it may cost us around $ 200 a month + R&D and 
> control). Then we will need to partner with an existing industry sharing 
> the same need for good local coverage. I expect we could be ready by Feb or 
> March 2002 (I explained we want to be fully operational for the 2002 @large 
> election). I will report on it.

If you read ``Applied Cryptography'' from B.Schneier you will see a
discussion about e-votes and all pitfalls (page 135 and following in
the French version).

If you read a issue #20 of Perl Journal you will find perl code
that do implement all of these ideas (page 18 and following)

This would come for free and operationnal right now. No need to do
anything else/more IMNSHO.

Regards,
Patrick Mevzek
- --
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, 21 Sep 2001 10:55:59 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] rolling up the sleeves.

Perhaps I am confused here...

The URL belo includes "/idno". Is that "Individual Domain Name Holders"?

Are we talking about an "Individuals'" constituency or an "Individual
Domain Name Holders'" constituency ?

Peter de Blanc

(still willing to support)

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
Williams
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 4:15 AM
To: Joop Teernstra
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] rolling up the sleeves.

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Danny and all,
>
> In case people are not aware of this , I presented a draft Charter for

> an Individuals' Constituency at the GA meeting in Montevideo.
>
> Peter the Blanc was looking for a proposal to put his name under, 
> perhaps there are other GA members who would want to indicate their 
> broad support for such a Charter by affixing their name to it.
>
> www.democracy.org.nz/idno/ICcharter.htm
>
> Constructive criticism is most welcome.  We can discuss improvements 
> on the GA-icann sublist.

  I think on this list is sufficient...  The sublist, which of late have
hardly been used, are and always have been divisive and a basic
distraction to all of the assembly members.

  Here are the specific problems I see with your IC Charter:
From: http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/ICcharter.htm

4.1. IC constituency membership is open to any person who
is an individual domain name holder

4.2 An Individual Domain Name Holder is any person who
can demonstrate a level of control over a specified domain name that a
reasonable person would conclude grants the individual person the
exclusive legal right to exploit the specified domain name worldwide
subject to applicable laws.

     " Examples of items that may be submitted in support of an
application include but are not limited to
      (i) evidence of applicants name on domain contact information
      (ii) evidence of applicant's funds used to pay registration fees,
if any
      (iii) evidence that the applicant may cause the domain name to be
relinquished
      (iv) evidence that the applicant is the beneficial holder of any
domain name that is registered or operated by a third party
      (v) Where the applicant does not hold direct control over t he
domain name, written evidence must be provided that the controlling
party is acting on instructions of the beneficial holder and that such
instructions may be withdrawn at the applicant's sole discretion."

  These requirements would restrict membership to only Domain Name
owners/holders that have registered a Domain Name as and individual or a
third party that is holding that Domain name in the intended registrants
or otherwise holders name, or provide evidence to such.

  Given this bias restriction, to call this proposed constituency a "IC"
or Individuals Constituency is misleading at best...

>
>
> I am especially interested to hear comment on the funding idea's 
> presented there (a fourth level nnn.members.icann.org domain name for 
> all members of this constituency as real value for the proposed $12 
> membership fee.)

  I think you are going to have trouble for funding something called an
"Individuals Constituency" when it does not represent any and all
potential Individuals or stakeholders...

>
>
> Better funding idea's are of course welcome too.
>
> --Joop
>
>

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

- --
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, 21 Sep 2001 11:04:47 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Alleged links between WTC attacks and domain names

>  "worldtradetowerattack.com"

The WTC was attacked in 1993, in case anyone had forgotten.  These domain
names were registered well _after_ that attack.

However, the former Taliban UN represesentative who subsequently became a
fugitive in the US is likely to have paid by credit card for the following
domain name, which had been used by them and was last updated on September
14, 2001:

Registrant:
Afghan Taleban Mission to the  U.N. (TALEBAN-DOM)
 5516 Main Street suite #1d
 Flushing, NY 11355
 US

 Domain Name: TALEBAN.COM

  Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact:
 Mujahib, Abdul Hackeem  (AHM19)  [email-masked]
 Afhgan Taleban Mission
 55-16 Main Street Suite #1d
 Flushing, NY 11355
 718-359-0457

 Record last updated on 14-Sep-2001.

- --
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, 21 Sep 2001 10:17:44 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] rolling up the sleeves.

I do not think that I am confused on this.  If the alsc draft is implemented
and excludes non domain name holders then the IDNO should be open to any
individual and not limited to domain name holders.  If non holding members
are included in the AL then we should limit the IDNO to holders. The second
scenario is obviously the correct one.  However compromising both is not an
option.

Eric

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Perhaps I am confused here...
>
> The URL belo includes "/idno". Is that "Individual Domain Name Holders"?
>
> Are we talking about an "Individuals'" constituency or an "Individual
> Domain Name Holders'" constituency ?
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> (still willing to support)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
> Williams
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 4:15 AM
> To: Joop Teernstra
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] rolling up the sleeves.
>
> Joop and all assembly members,
>
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > Danny and all,
> >
> > In case people are not aware of this , I presented a draft Charter for
>
> > an Individuals' Constituency at the GA meeting in Montevideo.
> >
> > Peter the Blanc was looking for a proposal to put his name under,
> > perhaps there are other GA members who would want to indicate their
> > broad support for such a Charter by affixing their name to it.
> >
> > www.democracy.org.nz/idno/ICcharter.htm
> >
> > Constructive criticism is most welcome.  We can discuss improvements
> > on the GA-icann sublist.
>
>   I think on this list is sufficient...  The sublist, which of late have
> hardly been used, are and always have been divisive and a basic
> distraction to all of the assembly members.
>
>   Here are the specific problems I see with your IC Charter:
> From: http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/ICcharter.htm
>
> 4.1. IC constituency membership is open to any person who
> is an individual domain name holder
>
> 4.2 An Individual Domain Name Holder is any person who
> can demonstrate a level of control over a specified domain name that a
> reasonable person would conclude grants the individual person the
> exclusive legal right to exploit the specified domain name worldwide
> subject to applicable laws.
>
>      " Examples of items that may be submitted in support of an
> application include but are not limited to
>       (i) evidence of applicants name on domain contact information
>       (ii) evidence of applicant's funds used to pay registration fees,
> if any
>       (iii) evidence that the applicant may cause the domain name to be
> relinquished
>       (iv) evidence that the applicant is the beneficial holder of any
> domain name that is registered or operated by a third party
>       (v) Where the applicant does not hold direct control over t he
> domain name, written evidence must be provided that the controlling
> party is acting on instructions of the beneficial holder and that such
> instructions may be withdrawn at the applicant's sole discretion."
>
>   These requirements would restrict membership to only Domain Name
> owners/holders that have registered a Domain Name as and individual or a
> third party that is holding that Domain name in the intended registrants
> or otherwise holders name, or provide evidence to such.
>
>   Given this bias restriction, to call this proposed constituency a "IC"
> or Individuals Constituency is misleading at best...
>
> >
> >
> > I am especially interested to hear comment on the funding idea's
> > presented there (a fourth level nnn.members.icann.org domain name for
> > all members of this constituency as real value for the proposed $12
> > membership fee.)
>
>   I think you are going to have trouble for funding something called an
> "Individuals Constituency" when it does not represent any and all
> potential Individuals or stakeholders...
>
> >
> >
> > Better funding idea's are of course welcome too.
> >
> > --Joop
> >
> >
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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, 21 Sep 2001 16:20:49 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

Hello William,
on 9/20/01 10:41 PM, William X Walsh at [email-masked] wrote:

> Thursday, Thursday, September 20, 2001, 1:44:07 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
>> Why does the Losing Registrar need to know whether the Domain is in a UDRP
>> situation, or more important, whether the Registered Name Holder is pending
>> bankrupcy? Surely, as long as the Losing Registrar's bills are paid, and the
>> Domain will still be subject to the same UDRP procedures whoever the gaining
>> Registrar may be, it's none of their business? It seems to me another reason
>> for delay, also an intrusion of privacy into a Registrant's personal
>> affairs. Anyway, how on earth can a Registrar check whether a foreign
>> national is subject to a pending bankrupcy?
> 
> These parts of the "rules" are not new, they are in the existing
> policies as well.  It provides for a reason why the losing registrar
> may deny a transfer, not that they are obligated to do so.
> 
> Remember, the UDRP provides that someone filing legal actin may do so
> in the jurisdiction of the registrar, so a change of registrars during
> a UDRP proceeding would change the entire dynamics of the process.
> (By the way, I strongly disagree with that provision of the UDRP).

I understand that, but it's no different from a business changing its
registered office while involved in legal proceedings, which can result in
change of jurisdiction, and where I come from, that's not illegal. UDRP is
under review and it may be better to reword this agreement to be less
specific, stating a requirement to be consistent with UDRP rules, whatever
they may be. (IANAL). A domain name is either in UDRP or it is not, and
fairly easily discernable, so although I do not agree with compounding UDRP
errors in this way, it is not something that the Losing Registrar can turn
to advantage at whim. That is not the case for the Bankrupcy clause. The
bankrupcy clause is onerous on the Registrant. I have yet to receive any
answer from the Regisrar community to my question: how can a Registrar check
whether a foreign national is subject to a pending bankrupcy? If one is
looking for an excuse to deny transfer, this is it, and I thought the whole
point of redoing these Registrar Agreements was to avoid exactly that.

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: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:10:45 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

|> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 1:21 PM

|> That is not the case for the Bankrupcy clause. The
|> bankrupcy clause is onerous on the Registrant. I have yet to 
|> receive any answer from the Regisrar community to my question: 
|> how can a Registrar check whether a foreign national is 
|> subject to a pending bankrupcy?

Joanna, one can't even do that for an American firm. Evidence is provided by
Ricochet, which went through bankruptcy to liquidation in less than 60 days.
Also see Rythms, Flashpoint, and NorthPoint. All were big public NASDAQ
companies, that evaporated in the blink of a business eye.

- --
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, 21 Sep 2001 17:16:18 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

on 9/21/01 4:44 PM, Ross Wm. Rader at [email-masked] wrote:

>> I thought the whole
>> point of redoing these Registrar Agreements was to avoid exactly that.
> 
> Unfortunately not at this point. The proposal in front of us now is a
> clarification of the agreements, not a statement of changed policy.
> 
> -rwr

Ross,
In that case, it seems appropriate and not an unreasonable to request to at
least clarify the bankrupcy clause. For the benefit of individual and small
business Registrants, would the Registrar community please expand on how it
determines/ proposes to determine a Registrant is pending bankrupcy:-

1. with respect to Registrants based in the USA
2. with respect to Registrants based in other territories

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: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 18:00:20 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Alleged links between WTC attacks and domain names

Check your facts Jeff Johnson. This is a good example of irresponsible
reporting that only serves to waste valuable FBI resources. At the time of
writing:-

"august11horror.com" - available
"august11terror.com" - available
"horrorinamerica.com" - registry database inaccessible
"horrorinnewyork.com" - available
"nycterroriststrike.com" - available
"pearlharborinmanhattan.com" - registered 9/20
"terrorattack2001.com" - available
"towerofhorror.com" - available
"tradetowerstrike.com" - available
"worldtradecenter929.com" - available
"worldtradetowerattack.com" - registry database inaccessible
"worldtradetowerstrike.com" - registered 9/21
"wterroristattack2001.com" - available.

Many names were registered 9/11, as could be expected, including
nycterroristattack.com and wtradecenter911.com

Regards,
Joanna

 

on 9/21/01 7:49 AM, Alexander Svensson at [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> 
> Investigators Can Access Internet Domain Data
> By Jeff Johnson
> CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
> September 20, 2001
> 
> The company that maintains the registry of .com, .org, and .net
> Internet domain names may have information on the identities of
> individuals who registered web addresses that a counter-terrorism
> expert believes may have foretold last Tuesday's terrorist attacks
> on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
> 
> CNSNews.com first reported Wednesday that Dr. Neil Livingstone,
> CEO of Global Options, LLC, a Washington, D.C.-based counter-
> terrorism and investigations company, believed the terrorists
> who orchestrated last week's attacks in New York and Washington,
> or their co-conspirators, may have registered as many as 17
> Internet domain names that could have tipped-off authorities
> as early as last summer.
> 
> Patrick Burns, spokesman for VeriSign, acknowledged that his
> company does archive some of the data on expired registrations,
> though the public does not routinely request such information.
> 
> The VeriSign subsidiary responsible for domain name registrations
> is Network Solutions, Inc. He added that the Internet Corporation
> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) does not require Network
> Solutions to maintain any records on expired addresses.
> 
> As of late Wednesday, VeriSign would not release either the
> identity of the person or people who registered the domain names,
> or the identity of the company or companies that handled the
> registrations.
> 
> VeriSign is willing to help investigators, according to Burns,
> but does not want to fuel speculation about the domain names on
> Livingstone's list.
> 
> [...]
> 
> The list of domain names provided to Livingstone by an industry
> insider included:
> 
> "august11horror.com"
> "august11terror.com"
> "horrorinamerica.com"
> "horrorinnewyork.com"
> "nycterroriststrike.com"
> "pearlharborinmanhattan.com"
> "terrorattack2001.com"
> "towerofhorror.com"
> "tradetowerstrike.com"
> "worldtradecenter929.com"
> "worldtradetowerattack.com"
> "worldtradetowerstrike.com"
> "wterroristattack2001.com"
> 
> [...]
> 
> (http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/archive/200109/NAT20010920c.html)
> 
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
> --
> 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: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 00:20:01 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Alleged links between WTC attacks and domain names

Hi Joanna and John,

my last two comments on this:
1) It seems the domains were found because of the
dropping process. From the article: "Adding a one-year
registration period to the 60 to 90 day waiting period
indicates that the addresses were probably originally
registered between mid-June and mid-July of 2000."
So it's no wonder you (Joanna) find them available now.
2) Two of the names refer to the year 2001, not
to 1993 (year of first WTC attack).

I'm not saying that this is a major lead. IF this turns
out to be a lead at all, it may become an argument in
the debate about Whois.

Back to other business!
/// Alexander

> Check your facts Jeff Johnson. This is a good example of irresponsible
> reporting that only serves to waste valuable FBI resources. At the time of
> writing:-

> "august11horror.com" - available
> "august11terror.com" - available
> "horrorinamerica.com" - registry database inaccessible
> "horrorinnewyork.com" - available
> "nycterroriststrike.com" - available
> "pearlharborinmanhattan.com" - registered 9/20
> "terrorattack2001.com" - available
> "towerofhorror.com" - available
> "tradetowerstrike.com" - available
> "worldtradecenter929.com" - available
> "worldtradetowerattack.com" - registry database inaccessible
> "worldtradetowerstrike.com" - registered 9/21
> "wterroristattack2001.com" - available.

> Many names were registered 9/11, as could be expected, including
> nycterroristattack.com and wtradecenter911.com

> Regards,
> Joanna

> on 9/21/01 7:49 AM, Alexander Svensson at [email-masked] wrote:

>>
>>
>> Investigators Can Access Internet Domain Data
>> By Jeff Johnson
>> CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
>> September 20, 2001
>>
>> The company that maintains the registry of .com, .org, and .net
>> Internet domain names may have information on the identities of
>> individuals who registered web addresses that a counter-terrorism
>> expert believes may have foretold last Tuesday's terrorist attacks
>> on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
>>
>> CNSNews.com first reported Wednesday that Dr. Neil Livingstone,
>> CEO of Global Options, LLC, a Washington, D.C.-based counter-
>> terrorism and investigations company, believed the terrorists
>> who orchestrated last week's attacks in New York and Washington,
>> or their co-conspirators, may have registered as many as 17
>> Internet domain names that could have tipped-off authorities
>> as early as last summer.
>>
>> Patrick Burns, spokesman for VeriSign, acknowledged that his
>> company does archive some of the data on expired registrations,
>> though the public does not routinely request such information.
>>
>> The VeriSign subsidiary responsible for domain name registrations
>> is Network Solutions, Inc. He added that the Internet Corporation
>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) does not require Network
>> Solutions to maintain any records on expired addresses.
>>
>> As of late Wednesday, VeriSign would not release either the
>> identity of the person or people who registered the domain names,
>> or the identity of the company or companies that handled the
>> registrations.
>>
>> VeriSign is willing to help investigators, according to Burns,
>> but does not want to fuel speculation about the domain names on
>> Livingstone's list.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> The list of domain names provided to Livingstone by an industry
>> insider included:
>>
>> "august11horror.com"
>> "august11terror.com"
>> "horrorinamerica.com"
>> "horrorinnewyork.com"
>> "nycterroriststrike.com"
>> "pearlharborinmanhattan.com"
>> "terrorattack2001.com"
>> "towerofhorror.com"
>> "tradetowerstrike.com"
>> "worldtradecenter929.com"
>> "worldtradetowerattack.com"
>> "worldtradetowerstrike.com"
>> "wterroristattack2001.com"
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> (http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/archive/200109/NAT20010920c.html)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> /// Alexander
>> --
>> 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 #751
************************