[ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ISOC to bid on .org

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

So then there needs to be two sets of administrative data. The public and
the non public. Seems pretty simple.

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>; "Kent Crispin"
<kent@songbird.com>; <discuss@icann-ncc.org>; "atlarge discuss list"
<atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; "General Assembly of the DNSO"
<ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>

--
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