<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ISOC to bid on .org
Todd and all,
todd glassey wrote:
> The problem with the WHOIS data is that so much of it is bogus. Many many
> domains are registered with fictitious names and addresses.
Yes this is a problem. But it is one that has been a knee jerk
reaction
from registrants wanting their privacy protected in Whois data, and
ICANN
refusing to acknowledge that. All that is needed is valid contact
for the Admin. for the Domain Name. The registrants private and
personal physical address is not needed. Hence fictitious addresses
and E-Mail contact addresses are used as a workaround. This of course
can and does cause various problems that could be avoided were it not
for the ICANN staff and to a lesser degree, the ICANN BoD's refusal
to recognize the right to a persons personal privacy..
> One of my
> favorites was one domain registered with its local address as an empty
> field. The email address was a Yahoo one and disappeared right after the
> domain was issued.
>
> The problem is that the registrar's know that this is going on and without a
> reason to change, they have no impetus to make sure that the domain name
> contact points are real.
>
> Todd
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
> To: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>; <discuss@icann-ncc.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ISOC to bid on .org
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
> > : Does this mean that you are strongly in favor of accurate, public whois
> > : data?
> >
> > I do believe that a government policy in favor of accurate whois data is
> a
> > reasonable measure to address unlawful activity on the Internet. How
> > "public" that data is probably not a simple binary set of choices, and I
> > also support methods of addressing legitimate privacy concerns. But I
> would
> > certainly agree that the MPAA or the BSA should be able to determine who
> is
> > the registrant for a web site that was disseminating infringing materials,
> > and I understand why governments want to require this. I don't think
> ICANN
> > itself has to go further in terms of enforcement of copyright or other law
> > enforcement issues, other than to obey laws passed by real governments.
> >
> > :
> > : > The fact that it is "working" in the CIRA is relevant
> > : > information.
> > :
> > : Nope. Not "fact".
> > :
> > : 1) It is not a "fact" that it is "working" for CIRA - the low turnouts
> > : raise some serious questions that you and Hans wave away because it
> > : doesn't fit with your ideology.
> >
> > This is insulting and silly. What is your "ideology" about the CIRA?
> > Is it "ideological" to disagree with you? What is the "ideology"
> regarding
> > popular democratic elections? Being against fascism, communism or other
> > authoritarian systems? This is really silly. I'm happy to look at more
> > elitist models, and have even proposed one that I would be ok with. If
> you
> > shrunk ICANN and have a narrow terms of reference, you could probably have
> > lots of different entities do it, maybe even John Postel if he was still
> > around. But looking at the well functioning .ca ccTLD, which works, is
> > stable, has a well qualified board, and has adopted "best practice"
> > policies, makes it hard to dismiss, unless one has a bias.
> >
> > What is your point on the turnout? How can you say that any partricular
> > level of turnout is too low? You just winging this one? Because you
> don't
> > like Karl and Andy? I have said that a 1 percent turnout for the GDSO
> would
> > be fine with me. What is your basis for saying 1 percent would be too
> low?
> >
> > I would be happy to take a random sample of domain holders, and have them
> > choose some board members. Lots of things might work. You never bother
> to
> > defend anything positive in terms of board selection. You hate popular
> > elections, but what is your alternative?
> >
> > : 2) It is not a "fact" that the CIRA elections are relevant to ICANN.
> >
> > Certainly they are relevant, but also certrainly some ICANN staff and
> > Board want to pretend they are not relevant.
> >
> > :
> > : > The fact that Jonathan Cohen is on both the CIRA and the
> > : > ICANN board illustrates that ICANN board me be over reacting to Karl
> and
> > : > Andy's elections.
> > :
> > : Nope. Not fact that Jonathan Cohen's positions illustrates anything
> > : about the ICANN's boards reactions. The quality of the elected
> > : directors is simply a red herring. The issue is the director selection
> > : process, not the current directors.
> >
> > The quality of the elected directors seems to be one of the two most
> > important outcomes to me. The second one being fairness.
> >
> > When ICANN can come up with a system that addresses both the quality
> and
> > the fairness issue, let's look at it, as a real alternative to a popular
> > democracy. We know what you don't like. What do you like?
> >
> > : > I'm not really a hard liner even on the issue of at large elections.
> I
> > : > can imagine ways of organizing a shrunken ICANN where elections really
> > are
> > : > not needed, or other systems of electing a board would be ok. The
> > details
> > : > are everything. But the idea that elections are not feasible or
> don't
> > : > produce good board members isn't true empirically, either for ICANN or
> > the
> > : > CIRA.
> > :
> > : You mixed up 4 different things; I'll just address one: the empirical
> > : evidence from the ICANN elections is very strong that they are simply
> > : not feasible, and that is well documented -- eg, the method of voter
> > : identification (physical mail) simply didn't work (there was a huge
> > : amount of returned mail from China, for example).
> >
> > Well, ICANN's own study said the elections were feasiable, as pointed
> > out by Adam. The proposal was to use domain name registrations for
> voter
> > registration, and why won't that work?
> >
> > Also, who on ICANN staff works on the at-large.org web site and the
> > at-large.org activities?
> >
> > --------------------------------
> > James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
> > http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|