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

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 10 Jun 2002, at 0:44, Micheal Sherrill wrote:

> I use Whois all the time to fight SPAM.
> 
> Regards,   
> 
> Micheal Sherrill
> 
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: eric@hi-tek.com
> Date:  Sun, 09 Jun 2002 20:45:30 -0700
> 
> Todd,
> 
> "There needs to be an easy way"
> "Public domain that is published"
> 
> I find both of these an anathema to privacy rights.
> 
> Please take the liberal time to trace the development of the Whois.
> 
> Whois is strictly, as it exists today a product of knowing who people
> are for
> the purpose of suing them for trademark purposes.
> Please explain a need for public knowledge otherwise.
> I am at a loss as to any other reason for having a whois.
> 
> Restructure needs to occur outside not inside.
> 
> Eric
> 
> todd glassey wrote:
> 
> > Erik, if not Whois then what. There needs to be an easy way to find the
> > contact points for any public domain that is published out of any root
> > servers tables. Registrars or otherwise. Likewise the complex
> > registration data and addresses are also an issue.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <eric@hi-tek.com>
> > To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> > Cc: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>; "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 11:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ISOC to bid on .org
> >
> > > No!
> > >
> > > The whois is a crock of the worst crap ever developed.
> > >
> > > Review the data on which Verisign was bought and sold.
> > >
> > > They sold the database not the working registration base.
> > >
> > > There needs to be no farmable/harvestable data base.
> > >
> > > This is a non retractable and incontrovertible position of any caring
> > soul.
> > >
> > > Destruction of this existing spam organism is in compliance with ISOs
> > > and
> > all
> > > existing BTAs and the WTO.
> > >
> > > WIPO is evil and insists on the existence.
> > >
> > > Whois as it exists is wrong.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > todd glassey wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de For
> > > additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To
> > unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de For
> > additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
> 


--
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