Re: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey and all assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Michael, Mailyn Jeff and all,
> are really relevant these discussions on local details and personal
> feelings?

  Well Jefsey, the answer is yes and no here.  Yes that personal feelings
from leaders such as those within our organization that are widely shared
by our members as well as many that on some issues, are not our members
as well.  No, with respect to individual personal feelings about or towards
other individuals on a personal level.

> We have a case were the US law conflicts with other country's
> laws. The root of Lynn's call.

  Yes it would seem reasonable to accept that this is the situation
on a number of issues including personal and private information
made publicly available in Whois data.

>
>
> On 03:21 21/04/02, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law said:
> >Plus, here in Florida we have strong laws prohibiting telemarketing (you
> >sign up for a list, and then they may not bug you).
> >On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > > Jeff, do elaborate on the differences on what is listed in a "white
> > > pages" listing and WHOIS.
> > > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> > >   In any event comparisons of a phone # listing and private information
> > > listed in WHOIS data are not really comparable, and therefore making
> > > such comparisons is felonious at best.
>
> We are right now facing a simple situation:
>
> - ICANN has confused International services with American control. The
> result is the current mess and its call on International help at proper
> level, ie Govs.
> - ITU/T responds with a true internatioinal management solution at Govs
> level. And we are wandering.

  As you know the ITU in the US is not widely liked or even politically
accepted.  Hence given the current problems of privacy in Whois
data it is necessary that the stakeholders under the White Paper
and especially the MoU must be the overriding documents/contracts
that the ICANN BOD and staff should or must use to guide development
of developing a policy for this issue, not the ITU or Govs...

>
>
> The reason why is that neither American control, nor International
> management fits the Intenet.

  Precisely right IOHO...

> The internet is a people's consensus and as
> such includes the Govs as well as many other organizations, but as users.
> Among the other participating investors, but not above them: part or
> leaders of the @large national Internet communities, not a replacement for
> it. The reaon why is that the Intenet is multinational, at individual level
> (while govs by nature are national/international). This multinational
> aspect is its specific interest. Remove it from the Intenet: you will keep
> a lot of interesting features but you will have killed the soul of the system.

  Very good points here.  And in brief, this has been central to
INEGroups position as well as it seems a number of other organizations.
Yet it seems that the ICANN BoD and staff do not share or believe
in this position even though they are supposed to if such a consensus
can be reached and measured appropriately.  But there is where
the "Rub" is presently.  As there is now no At-Large, the DNSO GA
is effectively emasculated, the NCDNHC is under stress from the ICANN
BoD as a constituency the broad representation of the stakeholders/users
by which a consensual can be measured or otherwise accurately determined
is being undermined by the ICANN BoD and staff...

>
>
> So, we are to convince the goodwilling USG, EEC, ITU/T that the only
> solution is that the real oragnizers of the Internet (physical adressing
> plans, naming spaces and all the other stakehodles) may concert in an
> international Gov approved way. And that they may use this concertation of
> them, with a built-in help of the Govs through the ITU/T,  to dig out their
> consensuses and fight their hijackers.
>
> If we do not succeed in convincing them, the future is clear. The Internet
> will only be a major value added Telco service among others, under the
> control of the local regulation authorities and subject to endless
> stardization committees.

  This is one likely possibility.  It seems that the BC, the Registry, and the
IP constituencies would like to see it that way...  However such an outcome
would be very bad for business in the mid to long term and would not last
very long as well...

> Everything by the people will have to be remade.
> And every one, including ATT, MS, SAIC, IBM etc will have wasted a huge
> business opportunity.

  Our members including myself agree with this...

>
>
> If we succeed in having the ITU/T acting only as an host and an equal
> member of a concertation among   every actor really concerned, without them
> having to be a Member of the ITU/T, with a rotating Chair showing that no
> one has the lead, then there are huge developments ahead, for Internet and
> for Telcos supporting the Intenet alike.
>
> The decision IMHO is pending: Govs favor or accept the ITU/T solution. The
> ITU/T is considering how to best tune it. The real problem is Verisign, and
> to some extent MS. No Gov is sure that the current consensus system (they
> obviously see as in tune with the Intenet project and as an help to its
> development) is strong enough to stop Verisign and MS from hijacking the net.

  Yes Verisign to and extent is part of the problem.  But the ICANN
Registrars and Registries are also as well as the ICANN BoD and
staff are themselves huge contributors as they almost routinely violate
the MoU and the White paper...

>
>
> 1. IMHO the first reason why is that the ICANN has limited the number of
> opponents in trying to stay exclusive (ICP-3 oddity), probably with ATT and
> others helps confusing statu quo with market share protection. So we have
> to make clear and real that there are several large name spaces that
> Verisign has to deal with : legacy by ICANN, ccNET by the ccTLDs, Govnet
> (gov/mil/edu) by the USG, Newnet, the Open Systems, the ITU/T with the
> telephone/mobile numeric names, many large plans like ISSN, ISBN, TM
> registrations etc... This makes a more serious protection against Verisign
> WLS/Whois fancies and a better help for them to understand where is their
> market and their support.
>
> 2. The second reason is the ability of smart people like you, BoD Members,
> Esther, Mike, Joe, Straton, Lynn, Louis, etc. etc. daily implied in the
> nets gouvernance to understand where is the real global common interest. No
> one wants to kill the Internet. I am sure that even Bill Gates and Straton
> Sclavos may understand when they go a step too far and they start spoiling
> their own market rather than developping it. We have to show now that this
> kind of auto-limitation may happen : WLS and Whois are good cases.
> Otherwise no one will believe we are grown enough for this to ever happen
> and no one will take the risk. Also, many will question the reasons of
> Verisign and will feel un secure about their good health if they
> desesperately need such short term sales.
>
> I am sure that most of the Govs will favor a slower, harder, more limited
> development under nations control than a brillant, easy, great development
> ... of the Redmond and the Herndon monopolies. And if Bill Gates and
> Starton Sclavos do not understand this is the way the world sees it, we
> have to help them understanding. Frankly we would all prefer to develop
> with them in the years to come, than spending our life figting them.

  Well the other approach is to route around them.  That effort is
and has been underway for some time now and has excelerated
over the past year of so...

>
>
> jfc
>
>

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 jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
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 ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html