Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #840
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, November 9 2001           Volume 01 : Number 840

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

Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 09:31:28 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Registrar Data Escrow Announcement

http://www.icann.org/escrow/registrar-escrow-08nov01.htm

- --
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, 9 Nov 2001 11:05:36 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Al Barakaat Prefers US Domain Registrar...

According to President Bush:

"Al Taqua and Al Barakaat raise funds for Al Qaeda. [...] They provide
terrorist supporters with Internet service...."

Do our terrorist fighters at ICANN want to tackle the issue of this domain
name registered through a Florida domain registrar:

www.somalirefreshment.com

"Somali Refreshment Company (SRC) is a member of Barakaat Group of Companies
and a share holding company. This group includes a telecommunication company,
bank, and money transfer business."

And, sure enough, the Refreshment division of Al Barakaat is identified on
the recent terrorist update at www.ustreas.gov/ofac

Is anyone at ICANN interested in real terrorists and the domain name system
(or at least those purported to be real by the US government)?

- --
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, 9 Nov 2001 10:55:59 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Report on the NC Transfers Task Force activities

In my opinion, Bret's explanation of the consensus process is right on
target.  With regard to impacted parties though, I would add one more to the
registrars and registrants.  The registrar transfer process also involves
registries.  In fact, the transfer process is part of the contractual
relationship between registries and registrars (the Registry Registrar
Agreement).  Depending on what is proposed as a solution, there are
contractual and possibly implementation issues for registries as well.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret A. Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 5:00 PM
> To: Rick H Wesson
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Report on the NC Transfers Task Force activities
> 
> 
> > Besides, don't you think its time we learn how to develop a 
> "consensus
> > policy?"
> 
> Absolutely. Here's my view of how it should be done.
> 
> While the DNSO generally operates by consensus (Bylaws, 
> Article VI-B(2)(b)),
> new policies that purport to place binding obligations on 
> registries and
> registrars, like the transfer policy now under consideration, 
> have to meet a
> more specific definition of a "consensus policy" as set out 
> in the various
> accreditation contracts:
> 
>   "Consensus Policies" are those adopted based on a consensus
>   among Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process,
>   as demonstrated by (1) the adoption of the policy by the
>   ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a recommendation that the policy
>   should be adopted, by at least a two-thirds vote of the council
>   of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is
>   delegated, and (3) a written report and supporting materials
>   (which must include all substantive submissions to the Supporting
>   Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents the
>   extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups,
>   (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve
>   adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely
>   to be impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of
>   reasoned support and opposition to the proposed policy.
> 
> http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-10nov99.htm 
> (Section I.B.1)
> http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm 
> (Section 4.3.1)
> 
> As I see it, you read that definition backwards to find the 
> chronological
> order in which a consensus policy is created. In other words, 
> you first need
> to create a report that meets the definition in subsection 
> (3). That report
> is then adopted by the Names Council as specified in 
> subsection (2). And, in
> turn, the report and the NC recommendation to adopt it are 
> passed to the
> Board for a final vote, as set out in subsection (1). Only then are
> registries and registrars bound to follow it.
> 
> The job of a Working Group is to start the process by 
> creating the report
> described in Section 3.
> 
> The first requirement for the report is that it document "the 
> extent of
> agreement and disagreement among impacted groups." In the 
> present case, the
> "impacted groups" are pretty clearly the registrars and the 
> registrants. If
> the latter voice is not represented, or even inadequately 
> represented, then
> it's simply not possible to adequately complete this section 
> of the report.
> 
> The next requirement of the report is that it document the 
> "outreach process
> used to seek to achieve adequate representation of the views 
> of groups that
> are likely to be impacted." This obviously assumes that there 
> is an outreach
> process and that it is adequate for the task. In an open 
> working group, the
> process is part of the outreach, as impacted parties given 
> adequate notice
> of the opportunity to join can readily participate 
> themselves. In a closed
> task force, affirmative outreach to impacted parties must be 
> undertaken,
> both through the constituencies and to any unrepresented 
> impacted groups.
> 
> I'm also skeptical that a TF that began work on 29 October 
> can create a
> "consensus policy" -- with all the outreach and documentation 
> that such a
> policy requires -- in time for a vote by the NC and ICANN 
> Board next week.
> While it seems that the registrars have done an excellent job 
> preparing
> something that has broad support from their constituency, the 
> process is
> only half complete as long as the much larger and very 
> diverse community of
> registrants has not also expressed its opinion.
> 
> Commercial and non-commercial organizational registrants *might* be
> adequately represented through the existing constituencies 
> (B&C, NCDNHC),
> but individual domain name owners are not. Is the GA an 
> adequate forum for
> representing them? I don't know. This is an instance though 
> in which our
> collective failure to create a constituency for individual domain name
> holders may have an impact, as it's not clear how to solicit 
> the views of
> this impacted group.
> 
> Given the fact that Verisign voted against the transfer policy and,
> according to Danny's message this morning, has now expressed 
> doubt about the
> adequacy of the representation of registrants in this 
> process, the TF and NC
> would be well advised to invest the time and effort in outreach and
> consultation necessary to ensure that Verisign is bound by 
> the outcome,
> whatever it may be. Better to do it right the first time than find the
> policy suspended by an indepedent review or AAA arbitration.
> 
>           -- Bret
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
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, 09 Nov 2001 08:07:28 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

Jeff,

Thank you for your temperate comments in response to my inflammatory response.

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2823645,00.html

This came from that great service gigalaw this morning.

Security is a funny word, it is chameleon, it changes color quicker than a tree toad.
To me security is my dotINFO resolving, Privacy and the knowledge that I am
so mean I can walk Venice Beach at night.  To you it is anti-viral.

So we just should agree to disagree and carry on. I forwarded two of the threads posts to
a few of our clients, they basically all responded the same; "you guys are dealing with
this right?  Good, now stop sending me that crap!"

The GA is not a technical advisory body of any sort, and it is dangerous to suggest this
is where someone should get that type of information.  Very Dangerous ;-1 especially if
your anti-terrorist claim is right.

anonymoooous

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
>   Nice try Eric my ignorant friend, but no cigar.  You comments
> not only are not reasonable but miss the mark entirely. They (Your remarks)
> kinda remind me of Nevel Chamberlin just after he arrived back
> in england after chatting with Hitler.  Thank god Churchill replaced
> him in short order, eh?  >;)  But to some I suppose ignorance is
> bliss, until they get bitten, that's when the screaming usually starts.
>
>   So What Roeland, myself and a couple of others are discussing
> on this proper forum has great relevance and has been helpful to
> some, including myself, so as to be better prepared just in case
> al Queada decides to devise a virus along the same lines specifically
> to attack Root Servers, Name Servers, and/or Registry/Registrar
> Databases.
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Sorry big Guy but your opinion is skewed.  Take your techno talk else where and read
> > what this list is for.
> > This ignorance is what has totally incapacitated  the GA.
> >
> > OTOH wow are all these guys smart, between them they cannot agree on one single
> > virus, it's origin or how to prevent it.  Sorry Jeff but three or four guys arguing
> > about where a virus came from and the best way to prevent it's spread is a list
> > killer, the virus became human.  And you are becoming typhoid Mary.
> >
> > Peace
> > Eric
> >
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > Eric and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >   Perhaps you haven't been paying close attention Eric.  So let us
> > > do a little review in conjunction with interspersed responses to
> > > your commentary.  (See more below)
> > >
> > > Eric Dierker wrote:
> > >
> > > > Could someone relate why this is relevant to this list.
> > >
> > >   Yes.  So more below
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DOMAIN NAME SUPPORT ORGANIZATION
> > > >
> > > > Look at the charters and at the NC papers and the GA formation docs.
> > > >
> > > > We are here to deal with issues of domain names.
> > >
> > >   Indeed we do.  But also the DNS in general as well.  As such
> > > virus concerns with posts to this forum are VERY relevant to
> > > it's participants as well as viruses that effect the DNS and Root server
> > > structure(s).
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We are not here to talk about how each one of you is better at virus
> > > > protection than the other.
> > >
> > >   If in doing so provides additional information regarding name server,
> > > root server, and overall DNS security specific to viruses we need
> > > and should be discussing it.  If you do not understand the lingo, than
> > > perhaps you need to bone up.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do any of you have a dotBIZ or a dotINFO or dotUS that resolves correctly and
> > > > is not misleading servers?
> > >
> > >   Many of us do of course.  But some viruses can effect and has effected
> > > the resolution of those domain names.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > UDRP that is DNSO - GA related.
> > > >
> > > > How we are represented for DNSO purposes is related.
> > > >
> > > > Your technical analysis of how each of you can better deal and phrase virus
> > > > problems is not related.
> > >
> > >   Untrue.  It is quite importantly related to DNS and Domain Name
> > > issues.  In fact it is an issue in and of itself.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you pull a "it's the security of the net gig" forget about it.
> > >
> > >   Forget about what?  Please try to be more specific Eric.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anyone can go and watch participation on this list and see when technical
> > > > chatter like this comes up it hurts particpation, as opposed to flame wars on
> > > > personality helping participation.
> > >
> > >   I haven't noticed it.  In fact the contrary seems to be more accurate.
> > >
> > > >  Certainly there is a middle ground and this
> > > > is not it.
> > >
> > >   Perhaps and than again perhaps not.  If you have issues that you feel are
> > > more interesting ot others of this forum, please initiate a thread/topic/subject
> > > line for them.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Eric
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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-full" 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-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, 9 Nov 2001 10:59:11 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Review Task Force Final Report

Danny,

I think you are exactly right on this.  This recommendation by the Review TF
is a way of avoiding the need to get a full community consensus (in other
words, skirting around the real issues).  Too many people want something
fast and easy and are not willing to expend the effort and time to do what
is necessary to show true consensus.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 12:03 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Review Task Force Final Report
> 
> 
> The Final Report of the NC review Task Force has been released:  
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/doc00013.doc
> 
> As expected, the views of the General Assembly and the 
> Non-Commercials were 
> cited, and then disregarded.  
> 
> One of the most damaging recommendations:  
> 
> "A 2/3 vote of the NC should be taken as meaning consensus on 
> the issue and 
> the by-laws should be changed to remove the obligation on the NC to 
> "determine community consensus"  with the implication it is 
> an external 
> factor."
> 
> The report is a mockery of the Review process, but read it 
> yourself and draw 
> your own conclusions.
> --
> 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, 9 Nov 2001 08:57:28 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Report on the NC Transfers Task Force activities

Friday, Friday, November 09, 2001, 7:55:59 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> In my opinion, Bret's explanation of the consensus process is right on
> target.  With regard to impacted parties though, I would add one more to the
> registrars and registrants.  The registrar transfer process also involves
> registries.  In fact, the transfer process is part of the contractual
> relationship between registries and registrars (the Registry Registrar
> Agreement).  Depending on what is proposed as a solution, there are
> contractual and possibly implementation issues for registries as well.

Yes, and it is in fact one of the many problems.

The company who is most at fault over transfer policies is owned by
Verisign, who is also tasked with enforcing those policies on the
registrars.

Verisign gets a free ride for registrars owned by it to act in
non-compliance with the transfer policies that all other registrars
abide by.  Repeated requests for Verisign to enforce its agreements
with regard to the Verisign registrar have been left completely
unanswered.

All of those here who just blindly accepted the extortion by Verisign
and let it get out of the divestiture of the registrar, and then also
gave it huge concessions on the previous mandatory separation of the
two divisions, can now see one of the consequences of that pathetic
and wrong decision.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

- --
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, 9 Nov 2001 17:45:19 -0000
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Please fill-in UDRP Questionnaire

Unless I am going mad, when you click submit on that form and it opens an
alert with "Your answer has been submitted" it doesn't actually appear to
send anything anywhere.

Regards

Paul Cotton

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 8:43 PM
Subject: [ga] Please fill-in UDRP Questionnaire

[To: [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
_______________________________________________

Please find below the url for the UDRP Review Questionnaire.
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html
Please complete the questionnaire online and "submit" at the end.
Your participation is much appreciated.
Thank you

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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, 09 Nov 2001 12:26:22 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar Data Escrow Announcement

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> http://www.icann.org/escrow/registrar-escrow-08nov01.htm

  Thank you Danny for passing this on.  Very interesting information.

  There are a couple of sections that we believe should be highlighted
according to our technical staff.  They are as follows:

 Under the testbed escrow program:

       Full escrow will take place weekly.

       Escrow will follow one of two formats specified by ICANN:
"text-delimited" or XML.

       Escrow data will be encrypted and transmitted via FTP from
registrar to the designated escrow agent.

       Each registrar may choose to escrow its data with either a
third-party escrow agent (at the registrar's own expense) or with ICANN.
Third-party escrow agents will process data received with validation
scripts (to be provided by ICANN), and will send script output to ICANN
for verification.

       Third-party escrow agents and ICANN will maintain escrow data in
secure facilities, and escrow data will only be used in case of
registrar de-accreditation.

       ICANN will publish registrar escrow deposit success statistics.

  ICANN seeks advice from the Internet community (including registrars)
on several additional details:

       How should the testbed voluntary program be broadened to other
registrars, and under what schedule?

       Should a list of approved third-party escrow agents be
established, or should they be selected and approved on a case-by-case
basis?

       Should other options for deposit transmission (such as by mailed
tape/CD-R) be opened in a further rollout of the program?

       Should registrar escrow success results be published to the
public? If so, on what level of granularity and with what frequency?

       What disaster recovery procedures should be established to enable
the use of the escrowed data in the event it becomes necessary?

       Should customers of a failed registrar all be allocated to one
registrar, or be split among several registrars, or should customers
choose?

>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 13:33:21 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ACLU response to ICANN's ban on leaflets

American Civil Liberties Union letter on ICANN leafleting ban
November 9, 2001 

Dr. Vinton Cerf
Chairman
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey CA 90292-6601 

Dear Dr. Cerf: 

It has come to our attention that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 
and Numbers (ICANN) plans to restrict leafleting at its meetings in Marina 
Del Rey on November 12-15, 2001. 

Specifically, ICANN will not permit anyone to distribute leaflets or other 
such materials at the conference unless they pay at least $5000. This plan is 
explained on ICANN's website: 

"A table will be provided for distribution of literature for sponsors only. 
Additional recognition of sponsorship is listed below in the description of 
each level. An organization that is not a sponsor will not be permitted to 
distribute materials in the meeting area." 1 

The lowest level of sponsorship requires a minimum payment of $5000. 2

We are deeply troubled by this development, and we urge you to revoke the 
ban. This decision runs counter to Article III of ICANN's own Bylaws, which 
requires the organization to be open and transparent to the general public: 

"The Corporation and its subordinate entities shall operate to the maximum 
extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with 
procedures designed to ensure fairness." 3

The restriction on leafleting will diminish the public confidence in the 
quality of the ICANN's decision-making that Article III was intended to 
foster, as well as substantially prejudice the rights of many persons with 
interests in ICANN's proceedings. ICANN can and should hear from all points 
of view and encourage public debate regarding its activities. As many 
observers have pointed out, "ICANN must rededicate itself to its original 
conception as a decentralized, bottom-up organization." Your organization has 
already been criticized as suffering from a "democracy deficit." This ban on 
leafleting will only further fuel these fears. 

Moreover, your decision raises significant free speech issues. It has long 
been recognized that the right to distribute flyers and literature is a 
protected form of expression. In some instances, leafleting even when other 
forms of speech have been prohibited. When an organization such as ICANN 
intentionally open a space for public discourse, it should refrain from 
imposing burdens on such discussions. By prohibiting leaflets (except from 
those who can afford to pay at least $5000), ICANN violates these basic 
freedom of expression precepts. 

Based on the foregoing, we urge you to rescind this ban. 

Sincerely, 

Barry Steinhardt
Associate Director
American Civil Liberties Union

Peter Eliasberg
Managing Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California

1. ICANN Meetings in Marina Del Rey (visited Nov. 8, 2001) 
http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/#sponsors (emphasis added). 

2. Id. ("Three levels of sponsorship are available: Top-Level: US$15,000 - 
Booth/table in meeting area for entire meeting * Second-Level: US$10,000 - 
Booth/table in meeting area for one day * Third-Level: US$5,000 - Signage on 
coffee break tables."). 

3. ICANN Bylaws, Art. III, §1 (2001), available at 
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#III 
- --
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, 09 Nov 2001 12:38:43 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Al Barakaat Prefers US Domain Registrar...- On the Terroist front!

John and all assembly members,

  Thank you John for passing this on to all of us.

  To answer your question below:  Indeed it is puzzling as to the
interest level of the ICANN BoD and staff for doing their part to
protect the Stakeholder community from terrorists or the "Front
Companies" from their activities vailed in a legitimate looking
business.  I am hoping that some day the ICANN BoD and
staff will get off their collective asses and get busy on this front
ASAP.   But I have my doubts.

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> According to President Bush:
>
> "Al Taqua and Al Barakaat raise funds for Al Qaeda. [...] They provide
> terrorist supporters with Internet service...."
>
> Do our terrorist fighters at ICANN want to tackle the issue of this domain
> name registered through a Florida domain registrar:
>
> www.somalirefreshment.com
>
> "Somali Refreshment Company (SRC) is a member of Barakaat Group of Companies
> and a share holding company. This group includes a telecommunication company,
> bank, and money transfer business."
>
> And, sure enough, the Refreshment division of Al Barakaat is identified on
> the recent terrorist update at www.ustreas.gov/ofac
>
> Is anyone at ICANN interested in real terrorists and the domain name system
> (or at least those purported to be real by the US government)?
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:43:36 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ACLU response to ICANN's ban on leaflets

Friday, Friday, November 09, 2001, 10:33:21 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> American Civil Liberties Union letter on ICANN leafleting ban
> November 9, 2001 

ACLU needs to stop going after schools for putting "God Bless America"
on their school signs and start focusing on more important issues.

This isn't one of them.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

- --
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, 09 Nov 2001 12:52:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Thank you for your temperate comments in response to my inflammatory response.
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2823645,00.html

  This came from that great service gigalaw this morning.

  Yes it is long on verbiage and short of facts.

>
> Security is a funny word, it is chameleon, it changes color quicker than a tree toad.
> To me security is my dotINFO resolving, Privacy and the knowledge that I am
> so mean I can walk Venice Beach at night.  To you it is anti-viral.

  No it is not anti viral to me.  You are juxtaposing terms and possibly thought
processes in the process here.

>
>
> So we just should agree to disagree and carry on. I forwarded two of the threads posts to
> a few of our clients, they basically all responded the same; "you guys are dealing with
> this right?  Good, now stop sending me that crap!"

  No one is sending it to you.  We are sending it to the DNSO GA
Forum.  If you do not wish to receive it, than build a specific E-Mail
filter or unsubsubscribe from this forum.  Your choice.

>
>
> The GA is not a technical advisory body of any sort, and it is dangerous to suggest this
> is where someone should get that type of information.

  Incorrect.  The DNSO GA is an assembly of Domain Name holders or interested
parties/stakeholders that have an interest in DNS issues.  Those issues include
to a great degree, very technical issues and technical aspects of the operation
of the DNS in all of its parts.  These included security related technical
related issues as well, amongst others.  So, bone up, move on, or
build a specific filter to filter out what you are not interested in.  If you
don't know how to build such a filter, there are many here that can and will
help you do so.

  This forum is also an excellent place to get "That Type of Information"
as you put it, as well.  Terrorists that know they are being scrutinized
are much more reluctant to engage in their terror or illegal activities.
Knowledge is power, and to be vigilant it our duty.  I shall not
disregard my duty.  Perhaps you shall?

>  Very Dangerous ;-1 especially if
> your anti-terrorist claim is right.

  Nonsense.

>
>
> anonymoooous
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric and all assembly members,
> >
> >   Nice try Eric my ignorant friend, but no cigar.  You comments
> > not only are not reasonable but miss the mark entirely. They (Your remarks)
> > kinda remind me of Nevel Chamberlin just after he arrived back
> > in england after chatting with Hitler.  Thank god Churchill replaced
> > him in short order, eh?  >;)  But to some I suppose ignorance is
> > bliss, until they get bitten, that's when the screaming usually starts.
> >
> >   So What Roeland, myself and a couple of others are discussing
> > on this proper forum has great relevance and has been helpful to
> > some, including myself, so as to be better prepared just in case
> > al Queada decides to devise a virus along the same lines specifically
> > to attack Root Servers, Name Servers, and/or Registry/Registrar
> > Databases.
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry big Guy but your opinion is skewed.  Take your techno talk else where and read
> > > what this list is for.
> > > This ignorance is what has totally incapacitated  the GA.
> > >
> > > OTOH wow are all these guys smart, between them they cannot agree on one single
> > > virus, it's origin or how to prevent it.  Sorry Jeff but three or four guys arguing
> > > about where a virus came from and the best way to prevent it's spread is a list
> > > killer, the virus became human.  And you are becoming typhoid Mary.
> > >
> > > Peace
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eric and all assembly members,
> > > >
> > > >   Perhaps you haven't been paying close attention Eric.  So let us
> > > > do a little review in conjunction with interspersed responses to
> > > > your commentary.  (See more below)
> > > >
> > > > Eric Dierker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Could someone relate why this is relevant to this list.
> > > >
> > > >   Yes.  So more below
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DOMAIN NAME SUPPORT ORGANIZATION
> > > > >
> > > > > Look at the charters and at the NC papers and the GA formation docs.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are here to deal with issues of domain names.
> > > >
> > > >   Indeed we do.  But also the DNS in general as well.  As such
> > > > virus concerns with posts to this forum are VERY relevant to
> > > > it's participants as well as viruses that effect the DNS and Root server
> > > > structure(s).
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We are not here to talk about how each one of you is better at virus
> > > > > protection than the other.
> > > >
> > > >   If in doing so provides additional information regarding name server,
> > > > root server, and overall DNS security specific to viruses we need
> > > > and should be discussing it.  If you do not understand the lingo, than
> > > > perhaps you need to bone up.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Do any of you have a dotBIZ or a dotINFO or dotUS that resolves correctly and
> > > > > is not misleading servers?
> > > >
> > > >   Many of us do of course.  But some viruses can effect and has effected
> > > > the resolution of those domain names.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > UDRP that is DNSO - GA related.
> > > > >
> > > > > How we are represented for DNSO purposes is related.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your technical analysis of how each of you can better deal and phrase virus
> > > > > problems is not related.
> > > >
> > > >   Untrue.  It is quite importantly related to DNS and Domain Name
> > > > issues.  In fact it is an issue in and of itself.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you pull a "it's the security of the net gig" forget about it.
> > > >
> > > >   Forget about what?  Please try to be more specific Eric.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone can go and watch participation on this list and see when technical
> > > > > chatter like this comes up it hurts particpation, as opposed to flame wars on
> > > > > personality helping participation.
> > > >
> > > >   I haven't noticed it.  In fact the contrary seems to be more accurate.
> > > >
> > > > >  Certainly there is a middle ground and this
> > > > > is not it.
> > > >
> > > >   Perhaps and than again perhaps not.  If you have issues that you feel are
> > > > more interesting ot others of this forum, please initiate a thread/topic/subject
> > > > line for them.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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-full" 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-full" 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #840
************************