Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #898
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, December 3 2001           Volume 01 : Number 898

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 00:51:07 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

On 3 Dec 2001, at 5:09, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> 
> I do not think it is a good idea that the US is going to define what
> sites are politically acceptable in the DNS. 
> 

I agree that the US should not define what *sites* are acceptible if they 
are within "free speech."  However, I also feel that US based registrars 
and hosting providers (not necessarily registries who are not themselves 
registrars) should have to follow the law and not do business with 
embargoed countries.

OTOH, if a non US based registrar accepts a registration from a US 
embargoed country and a hosting provider outside of the US provides 
services to that country also, the US has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

It is also true that anyone can register an *offensive* domain name and 
put up a site that none of us appreciates.  If that site is not breaking any 
laws, I don't see how the US can do much about it.  When it comes to 
terrorism such as what happened on Sept. 11, targeting civilians, or 
shopping malls or restaurants, etc., I would certainly advocate shutting 
down sites that aid the terrorists responsible.  How to accomplish that 
is something else.

Leah

- --
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: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 21:53:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:

>
>
> Rick H Wesson wrote:
>
> > William,
> >
> > Last I check we still had a 1st ammendment, and for the record
> > your post is off topic for the GA. please move this thread to a more
> > appropiate forum.
>
> The irony of this post hardly needs comment.
> So file a complaint against my posts.

The first amendment applies to acts of government not to acts of mailing
list managers. Further, asking that you choose a more appropriate forum is
not the same as saying "you don't have the right to freedom of speech."

If we're taking votes the subject is really way off topic.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                     Stealthgeeks,LLC. Internet Consulting
                          http://www.stealthgeeks.net
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 00:57:20 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Top Three Issues

Peter,

Thank you for your comments.  The issue of representation at the Board level 
is of concern to everyone in the ICANN community.  At MdR, I had occasion to 
speak with a Board member who indicated that the following was under serious 
discussion:

5 seats for the At-Large (by region)
2 seats for the At-Large (appointed by 2/3 of the Board)
2 seats for the PSO
2 seats for the ASO
1 seats for the ccSO
1 seat for the gTLDs
1 seat for the registrars
3 seats split between ISP, Non-Commercial, IP, and Business (on a rotating 
basis)
1 seat appointed by ISOC

Doubtless there are many possible options, but each that I have evaluated 
denies the full complement of nine seats for the At-Large that was promised 
to the Internet Community.  By arguing that the ccTLDs require an SO with at 
least one Board Seat, your associates have opened the door for registrars and 
the gTLDs to also argue that they too deserve a Board seat, and this has led 
to every other constituency arguing that they should similarly not be denied. 
 In short, you bear a certain responsibility for the structural 
reconsiderations that are now being envisiged.

But please understand that we don't hold this against you, as the right to 
self-organization is paramount and well respected by members of this Assembly.

Similarly, be clear about this point:  the bulk of the members in the General 
Assembly will become the members of the At-Large as soon as it is 
constituted.  While the ccSO will have a solitary Board seat, the At-Large 
will have a substantially greater degree of representation, and it will 
choose to support those that have shown an affinity for the positions 
represented by its loyalists in the GA.

You have stated, "Please separate issues of importance to the GA of the DNSO 
from those of the @LM".  At this point in time, I no longer believe that such 
separation is possible.  This ICANN is an evolving organization wherein 
admittedly structures may change, but the participants will not.  The 
participants in the GA will become the participants in the At-Large, and we 
will assuredly remember those that gave the GA short shrift and those that 
respected the need for full and proper representation in the ICANN process.  

We have respected the contributions and participation of the ccTLDs within 
this Assembly, and many of us would like to see their efforts come to 
fruition.  So please understand that when we focus on the details at the 
origin of this experiment, we similarly act based on self-organizing 
motivations.  

We choose to focus on the promises made by Esther Dyson that we expect to be 
upheld.  Putting it within a context that should be familiar to you, if IANA 
were to break its promises and commitments regarding redelegations that were 
made in good faith a few years ago, and suddenly embark on a course of action 
to deny your members their participatory rights, you at the very least would 
take umbrage if not offense at such action.

We have similar sensibilities.  

Best wishes,
Danny younger

- --
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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 01:03:51 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Three Issues

On 3 Dec 2001, at 17:37, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> If the USG ever feels that the ICANN which eventually presents itself does
> not meet the terms of the White Paper, or any new conditions mandated by
> the USG before transfer of technical management of the Legacy Root's names
> and numbers, it will seek to have ICANN make any necessary changes, or
> decline to transfer.

And there's the real issue, IMO.  The USG DoC has repeatedly 
abrogated its responsibilties in oversight of ICANN.  That is precisely 
why not only the GA, but any other organization that can bring exposure 
to this issue should be utlized.  Individuals in the GA, as well as 
anywehere else should have input to the @LM.  The major difference 
between the DNSO GA and the @LM is that the latter encompasses 
much more than just domain name issues.

Leah

- --
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: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 22:30:03 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

Sunday, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 9:17:42 PM, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> William,

> Last I check we still had a 1st ammendment, and for the record
> your post is off topic for the GA. please move this thread to a more
> appropiate forum.

Which doesn't mean diddly, since the moderators have been told that
they are not at liberty to apply the rules universally to all list
members, only to ones not on their internal "friends" list.

So, in the interests of fairness, they have decided if the rules and
the application of sanctions don't apply equally to all members, then
they will not enforce them at all.

So consider this list a replacement for the free for all domain-policy
list once hosted by NSI until the Secretariat and Names Council stop
giving rules exemptions to their lackeys.

- -- 
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 01:06:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

Leah and all assembly members,

  Leah and all other US DNSO GA assembly members or coalition
country DNSO GA members you can file your concerns with the
FBI on these sorts of sites at: http://www.ifccfbi.gov  As the newly
appointed Homeland Security Secretary has ask it is up to each
and every one of us to do our part to keep these sorts of suspected
web sited in check and report them to the proper authorities.

  I had only wished that the ICANN BoD and staff would have been out front
on this....  :(

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 3 Dec 2001, at 5:09, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> >
> > I do not think it is a good idea that the US is going to define what
> > sites are politically acceptable in the DNS.
> >
>
> I agree that the US should not define what *sites* are acceptible if they
> are within "free speech."  However, I also feel that US based registrars
> and hosting providers (not necessarily registries who are not themselves
> registrars) should have to follow the law and not do business with
> embargoed countries.
>
> OTOH, if a non US based registrar accepts a registration from a US
> embargoed country and a hosting provider outside of the US provides
> services to that country also, the US has no jurisdiction whatsoever.
>
> It is also true that anyone can register an *offensive* domain name and
> put up a site that none of us appreciates.  If that site is not breaking any
> laws, I don't see how the US can do much about it.  When it comes to
> terrorism such as what happened on Sept. 11, targeting civilians, or
> shopping malls or restaurants, etc., I would certainly advocate shutting
> down sites that aid the terrorists responsible.  How to accomplish that
> is something else.
>
> Leah
>
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 01:14:26 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Three Issues

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Peter,
>
> Thank you for your comments.  The issue of representation at the Board level
> is of concern to everyone in the ICANN community.  At MdR, I had occasion to
> speak with a Board member who indicated that the following was under serious
> discussion:
>
> 5 seats for the At-Large (by region)
> 2 seats for the At-Large (appointed by 2/3 of the Board)
> 2 seats for the PSO
> 2 seats for the ASO
> 1 seats for the ccSO
> 1 seat for the gTLDs
> 1 seat for the registrars
> 3 seats split between ISP, Non-Commercial, IP, and Business (on a rotating
> basis)
> 1 seat appointed by ISOC

  I hope that this is really not that seriously being considered.  If so it is
still
a huge departure from the polls taken on the ALSC forum as well as
the general comments received there as well.  For the existing ICANN
Board to appoint two or the At-Large BoD members seems to be
a bit akin to nepotism or is at least very subject to it.

>
>
> Doubtless there are many possible options, but each that I have evaluated
> denies the full complement of nine seats for the At-Large that was promised
> to the Internet Community.  By arguing that the ccTLDs require an SO with at
> least one Board Seat, your associates have opened the door for registrars and
> the gTLDs to also argue that they too deserve a Board seat, and this has led
> to every other constituency arguing that they should similarly not be denied.
>  In short, you bear a certain responsibility for the structural
> reconsiderations that are now being envisiged.
>
> But please understand that we don't hold this against you, as the right to
> self-organization is paramount and well respected by members of this Assembly.

  Hummm?  This comment seems to be a stark departure of just yesterday
in your comments towards INEGroup.  Why is that Danny?

>
>
> Similarly, be clear about this point:  the bulk of the members in the General
> Assembly will become the members of the At-Large as soon as it is
> constituted.  While the ccSO will have a solitary Board seat, the At-Large
> will have a substantially greater degree of representation, and it will
> choose to support those that have shown an affinity for the positions
> represented by its loyalists in the GA.
>
> You have stated, "Please separate issues of importance to the GA of the DNSO
> from those of the @LM".  At this point in time, I no longer believe that such
> separation is possible.  This ICANN is an evolving organization wherein
> admittedly structures may change, but the participants will not.  The
> participants in the GA will become the participants in the At-Large, and we
> will assuredly remember those that gave the GA short shrift and those that
> respected the need for full and proper representation in the ICANN process.
>
> We have respected the contributions and participation of the ccTLDs within
> this Assembly, and many of us would like to see their efforts come to
> fruition.  So please understand that when we focus on the details at the
> origin of this experiment, we similarly act based on self-organizing
> motivations.
>
> We choose to focus on the promises made by Esther Dyson that we expect to be
> upheld.  Putting it within a context that should be familiar to you, if IANA
> were to break its promises and commitments regarding redelegations that were
> made in good faith a few years ago, and suddenly embark on a course of action
> to deny your members their participatory rights, you at the very least would
> take umbrage if not offense at such action.
>
> We have similar sensibilities.
>
> Best wishes,
> Danny younger
>
>
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 23:17:28 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terr or

Please Rick, I know that you must know better. The First Amendment is not
relevent to non-US citizens and orgs, of which, the PLO is such. In
addition, the Anti-terrorism act effects Hamas and others whom are proven
terrorist organizations. Lastly, the DNSO concerns itself with DNS policies
and since the ICANN is a USA organization it is impacted by USA law. That
law specifically embargos terrorist organizations and countries.

What part of "follow the law" don't you understand?

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 9:18 PM
|> To: William S. Lovell
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international
|> terror
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> William,
|> 
|> Last I check we still had a 1st ammendment, and for the record
|> your post is off topic for the GA. please move this thread to a more
|> appropiate forum.
|> 
|> -rick
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
|> 
|> > These are pages on which Hamas and the Qassam Brigades
|> > take credit for such things as the latest atrocity against a bunch
|> > of young civilians in Israel, and which Network Solutions hosts
|> > in order that such obscenities can be disseminated to the world.
|> >
|> > Bill Lovell
|> >
|> > Registrant:
|> >   palestinian information center (PALESTINE-INFO2-DOM)
|> >      Beruit
|> >      Beruit, LB
|> >      LB
|> >
|> >      Domain Name: PALESTINE-INFO.COM
|> >
|> >      Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
|> >         Sadaqa, Ziyad  (ZK30)  [email-masked]
|> >         Salam
|> >         512 Cedar Bend Cir #104
|> >         Orlando, FL 32825
|> >         407-719-0460
|> >      Technical Contact:
|> >         Administration  (AD3086-ORG)  [email-masked]
|> >         FastDns Network
|> >         3080 Ogden rd
|> >         lisle, IL 60532
|> >         US
|> >         630-357-8545 Fax- - 630-357-8545
|> >         Fax- - - 630-357-8545
|> >
|> >      Record last updated on 30-Nov-2001.
|> >      Record expires on 01-Oct-2011.
|> >      Record created on 01-Oct-1998.
|> >      Database last updated on 2-Dec-2001 06:20:00 EST.
|> >
|> >      Domain servers in listed order:
|> >
|> >      NS.HOST4U.NET                209.150.128.30
|> >      NS2.HOST4U.NET               209.150.129.3
|> >
|> >
|> >
|> >
|> >
|> > --
|> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> >
|> 
|> --
|> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 23:49:06 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

Sunday, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 11:25:36 PM, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> William,

> if you geel the GA list is a replacement for domain-policy you are doing a
> great disservice to the GA membership by distracting focus from the issues
> at hand.

Perhaps you should complain to the Names Council and the DNSO
Secretariat then, that they should agree that the DNSO GA should have
the freedom to enforce its rules equally against all members then.

Until then, there is no rule of law in the DNSO GA list.

> i'd prefer you be constructive and comment on the points our chair
> enumerated, that we focus our attention on.

"Our Chair"

You won't win points with me on that one, Rick  :)

"Our Chair" advances only items that coexist with his own agenda.

- -- 
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: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 23:56:22 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terr or

|> From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 9:51 PM

|> On 3 Dec 2001, at 5:09, Marc Schneiders wrote:
|> 
|> > I do not think it is a good idea that the US is going to  
|> >define what sites are politically acceptable in the DNS. 
|> 
|> I agree that the US should not define what *sites* are 
|> acceptible if they are within "free speech."  However, 
|> I also feel that US based registrars and hosting providers 
|> (not necessarily registries who are not themselves 
|> registrars) should have to follow the law and not do 
|> business with embargoed countries.
|> 
|> OTOH, if a non US based registrar accepts a registration from a US 
|> embargoed country and a hosting provider outside of the US provides 
|> services to that country also, the US has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

On this I might disagree. The registrar is still subject to US law. That
registrar should remove all registration data, of embargoed entities, from
all of their active zone files. Registrars are simply resellers for Registry
services. If they are registered with NSI then NSI has an obligation to
comply with US law. Downstream, this means that non-REGISTRARs cannot
register embargoed entities with a US-based REGISTRY. BTW, I don't see any
legal exceptions for ccTLD managers, under US embargo rulings, either.

This is only my interpretation of the law and ...
- --
IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking legal action based on anything I
say or write, you are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of an attorney.

- --
BTW, my personal opinion and feelings may not be in complete alignment with
this point. My only take on this is; Were I running a registry and and a
registrar (on or off shore, it doesn't matter) brought me such a registrant,
I would deny the registration and refer them to the embargo list. This, for
no other reason than, to limit my company's vulnerability to legal and
criminal liabilities, in my home jurisdiction.
- --
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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 00:20:57 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terr or

Excuse tytpo s/non-REGISTRARs/non-US REGISTRARs/

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 11:56 PM
|> To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international
|> terr or
|> 
|> 
|> |> From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> |> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 9:51 PM
|> 
|> |> On 3 Dec 2001, at 5:09, Marc Schneiders wrote:
|> |> 
|> |> > I do not think it is a good idea that the US is going to  
|> |> >define what sites are politically acceptable in the DNS. 
|> |> 
|> |> I agree that the US should not define what *sites* are 
|> |> acceptible if they are within "free speech."  However, 
|> |> I also feel that US based registrars and hosting providers 
|> |> (not necessarily registries who are not themselves 
|> |> registrars) should have to follow the law and not do 
|> |> business with embargoed countries.
|> |> 
|> |> OTOH, if a non US based registrar accepts a registration 
|> from a US 
|> |> embargoed country and a hosting provider outside of the 
|> US provides 
|> |> services to that country also, the US has no jurisdiction 
|> whatsoever.
|> 
|> On this I might disagree. The registrar is still subject to 
|> US law. That
|> registrar should remove all registration data, of embargoed 
|> entities, from
|> all of their active zone files. Registrars are simply 
|> resellers for Registry
|> services. If they are registered with NSI then NSI has an 
|> obligation to
|> comply with US law. Downstream, this means that non-REGISTRARs cannot
|> register embargoed entities with a US-based REGISTRY. BTW, I 
|> don't see any
|> legal exceptions for ccTLD managers, under US embargo 
|> rulings, either.
|> 
|> This is only my interpretation of the law and ...
|> --
|> IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking legal action based 
|> on anything I
|> say or write, you are strongly encouraged to seek the advice 
|> of an attorney.
|> 
|> --
|> BTW, my personal opinion and feelings may not be in complete 
|> alignment with
|> this point. My only take on this is; Were I running a 
|> registry and and a
|> registrar (on or off shore, it doesn't matter) brought me 
|> such a registrant,
|> I would deny the registration and refer them to the embargo 
|> list. This, for
|> no other reason than, to limit my company's vulnerability to 
|> legal and
|> criminal liabilities, in my home jurisdiction.
|> --
|> 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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 03:35:13 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terr	or

On 2 Dec 2001, at 23:56, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> On this I might disagree. The registrar is still subject to US law. That
> registrar should remove all registration data, of embargoed entities, from
> all of their active zone files. Registrars are simply resellers for
> Registry services. If they are registered with NSI then NSI has an
> obligation to comply with US law. Downstream, this means that
> non-REGISTRARs cannot register embargoed entities with a US-based REGISTRY.
> BTW, I don't see any legal exceptions for ccTLD managers, under US embargo
> rulings, either.
> 
> This is only my interpretation of the law and ...

I think that if you refer to a couple of recent posts from John Berryhill, 
you will find that non US registrars would not be prohibited from doing 
business with US embargoed countries and that registries  simply 
reflect those registrations.  The customers belong to the registrars from 
whom they collect the money.  The registry is just a record keeper.

> --
> IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking legal action based on anything I
> say or write, you are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of an
> attorney.
> 
> --
> BTW, my personal opinion and feelings may not be in complete alignment with
> this point. My only take on this is; Were I running a registry and and a
> registrar (on or off shore, it doesn't matter) brought me such a
> registrant, I would deny the registration and refer them to the embargo
> list. This, for no other reason than, to limit my company's vulnerability
> to legal and criminal liabilities, in my home jurisdiction.

I don't necessarily disagree with your position, Roeland.  It's simply a 
matter of jurisdiction.  I doubt the US could enforce or restrict a 
registrar's doing business if it based off shore unless it falls under 
specific treaty.  Then there are those registries that are not US based.  
There are no restrictions on their businesses.  That includes the 
ccTLDs, and some of the new TLDs.  The other side of the coin is that 
the registrars for those TLDs who are US based *do* fall under the 
embargo laws.

It's still not a simple matter, though.  As William said, anyone could 
register a domain - even in the US - with a US address.  The domain 
could be anything, including Hamas or other named terrorist names.  It 
would not be an illegal act to register the name as long as the registrant 
is not in an embargoed country.  Problem still not solved.

Leah

- --
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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 00:57:22 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terr or

|> From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 12:35 AM

|> It's still not a simple matter, though.  As William said, 
|> anyone could register a domain - even in the US - with a 
|> US address.  The domain could be anything, including Hamas 
|> or other named terrorist names. It would not be an illegal 
|> act to register the name as long as the registrant is not 
|> in an embargoed country.  Problem still not solved.

Actually, as registries, we only have to follow to our best capability. The
problem is that "best capability" isn't well defined. I would hate to be a
named party to the case that defines it, in criminal court. MHSC clients are
well known to MHSC due to the nature of our business relationship. 

MHSC doesn't do mass-market registrations and the volume is therefore quite
low. It is low enough that we can and do manual registration. Mass-market
registries, such as yours, have a more difficult problem in identifying its
registrants. William is indeed correct. Someone opening a personal US bank
account, to get a debit card, can use that debit card to bypass most checks
that you can reasonably perform online. The question is whether the courts
would agree that those checks are sufficient and reasonable. Or, would they
impose a higher standard? The problem is that one doesn't know until one is
actually in court and facing those charges, or watching someone else face
those charges.

That is the territory where a prudent business person would fear to tread.
Or at least, tread softly and with caution.

- --
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 21:57:24 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

At 21:53 2/12/01 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

>If we're taking votes the subject is really way off topic.

Agree. Not only off topic, but also as a US law enforcement issue a major 
noise generating subject in a global forum such as the GA list.

- --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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 22:14:17 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Three Issues

At 01:03 3/12/01 -0500, L Gallegos wrote:

>On 3 Dec 2001, at 17:37, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
>
> > If the USG ever feels that the ICANN which eventually presents itself does
> > not meet the terms of the White Paper, or any new conditions mandated by
> > the USG before transfer of technical management of the Legacy Root's names
> > and numbers, it will seek to have ICANN make any necessary changes, or
> > decline to transfer.
>
>And there's the real issue, IMO.  The USG DoC has repeatedly
>abrogated its responsibilties in oversight of ICANN.

Leah,

Could this be because from their p.o.v. ICANN is doing just fine?
Could it be that the White Paper is now considered as "something from the 
Clinton administration" and best buried?

- --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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 22:08:25 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Three Issues

At 17:37 3/12/01 +1300, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

>You should be aware that in our view, the At Large interests of registrants
>in ccTLDs ( which interests we take to be in a White Paper Principles-based
>ICANN) are being in many cases, and theoretically can be best provided for
>by the ccTLDs, and to that extent there is an overlap if not a synergy
>between the work of the ccSO and the ALSO.

Theoretically, perhaps. However, the cc's are a diverse bunch and certainly 
not all are as registrant-committed as the one we are both so familiar with.

Even democratic ccTLD's can easily be captured by registrar interests. Many 
are completely non-democratic or do not even allow Individuals'  registrations.

What the ccSO will need to make your theory work, and to deserve its Board 
seat,  is a strong Individuals' constituency.
Just like the DNSO.

- --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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 06:12:53 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international	terror

on 12/2/01 10:23 PM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked] wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:06:54 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> 
>> Sunday, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 3:55:39 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>>> But in any case, as internet inept as I may be, the question
>>> remains, has Network Solutions accepted money for which
>>> it provides a service to Hamas

Yes.
 
> <snip>
> 
>> In other words, you are making many assumptions, that are best left to
>> law enforcement officials who have the tools to see if in fact that is
>> the case.

There's nothing obvious about this?

<quote>
 
"Our operation today affirms the following:

1- It was a natural retaliation by a people slaughtered day and night and
whose dignity is being humiliated by the Zionist enemy¹s war machine.

2- This is not the revenge for martyr Mahmoud Abu Hannoud and the other
martyrs and our Brigades will soon launch that revenge Insha¹allah.

3- The American administration¹s General did not come to the region to ask
the Zionists to evacuate our lands but rather came believing that our people
will be satisfied with less than liberation of their usurped lands Š he is
only dreaming. 

And it is a Jihad until either victory or martyrdom

Qassam Brigades
17th Ramadan 1422Ad
2/12/2001AD " </quote>

>> I'm of the opinion it would most likely turn out not to be the case.

Then VRSN/ NetSol must have donated www.palestine-info.com to Hamas.

>> We have many loons in this country who would get their sick thrills by
>> putting up sites like that one.

Yes, they're called Internet Service Providers.
 
<snip>
> I have never agreed with you more, William, than I do now.
> 
> If I am not mistaken Joanna Lane has already brought this to our attention.

Not me. John Berryhill is the expert. I questioned Stuart Lynn, who
responded that ICANN doesn't care who its Registrars sells Domain Names to.
See www.IcannWatch.org "Stuart Lynn tackles Home Defense".

> I also thought the GA agreed that ICANN should comply with the law.

The GA has never stated its formal position. You are confused. An open mike
question posed in the Registry/ Registrar session at MdR elicited a response
attempting to ridicule the question, then specific instances were cited,
including palestine-info.com. ICANN then issued a short statement that it
expected its Registrars to comply with the law, but neither the GA, nor
ICANN, have developed any anti-terrorist policies in relation to DN
Registration.
> 
> Personally, I think the DNS is enough of an emotive sinkhole.

Since when were Domain Names registered by known terrorist groups not a DNS
issue? 

On November 9, well before action was taken by ATT & BT to pull the plug on
Al-Barakaat's/ Somalia's internet connectivity, John Berryhill posted this
to the GA:-

<quote> "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)? </quote>

To which I would add, that SRC is currently seeking an exclusive bottling
contract for Somalia for its carbonated drinks with an international
recognized brand. Do you think it is legal for a US Corporation to offer
them one? 

Question: If it is illegal for ATT & BT to provide Al Barakat with internet
connectivity, why is it legal for Network Solutions to sell them Domain
names?

Regards,
Joanna

> 
> Best 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
> 

Regards,

Joanna

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents")

Part I: Introduction, Principles and Definitions
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: Flow Chart
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III - Time Line Guide
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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 #898
************************