Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

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

Don and all stakeholders, assembly members, and/or other interested parties,

Don Brown wrote:

> I certainly emphasize with your concerns. However, sometimes we have a
> tendency to go gunning for an isolated, but notorious, incident more
> zealously, due to its notoriety or shock value.  Perhaps, sometimes we
> gun for mosquitos with a double barrel shotgun, because we are closer
> to the mosquito bite than anyone else.  That's understandable.

  This is certainly true for tiny minority of people or stakeholders.  However
as that percentage is so tiny as to be insignificant, our members for instance,
would not fall in such a category as you describe above.

>
>
> I don't profess to know the total answer, but I recognize the problem
> from a larger scope, I think.
>
> As long as there is fraud, spammers and other pests on the Internet,
> the WhoIs information will continue to be a tool that ISP's use to
> "attempt" to stop them.

  Exactly right!  So lets not make it an even easier  tool for perpetrators,
spammers, and the like by adding additional personal and private information
to a Whois lookup on a Domain Name, such as the registrants private
physical address and personal phone number.

> We use the WhoIs all the time to identify the
> source of Spammers. We use the WhoIs to help verify credit card
> charges and to prove that a business, which is applying for a Merchant
> Account, is the legitimate registrant of the domain name represented
> by the pages we print and "fax" to the potential acquiring Bank.

  Exactly one such source indeed.  But certainly not the only one or even
the best one for these purposes.  In addition, the personal and private
address and phone number of the registrant is not required to obtain
the information that you and other registrars desire.  Only and Admin.
contact E-Mail address, Phone/fax number, and the admins. business
mailing address are needed to accomplish these desires or satisfy the
requests for the information you and other registrars seek in the Whois
database.

>
>
> If WhoIs goes totally anonymous, I think the first folks to jump at
> it will be the nefarious ones who use us and abuse us all the time.

  Again, now one is suggesting that the Whois goes totally anonymous
Don.  So it would seem that you are injecting a premise that does not
exist nor has been suggested to support your argument.  Ergo, the
conclusion is felonious as to the desired result.

>
> They do their own brand of stalking by trying to relay mail off of our
> servers, using fraudulent cards to sign up for our services and
> attacking us with Ping floods and other methods of trying to bring our
> network to its knees.

  Yes they do.  But a valid admin address, E-Mail address, Phone Number,
and Fax number would satisfy the method which you suggest that Whois
can be used for to address these problem nicely, and much more than
adequately.  Hence, again there is no need for a registrant to provide
his personal private physical address, or phone number for his/her/their
Domain Name registration.  And in fact if required to do so, law enforcement
agencies would be hampered with complaint overflow which would
impede their efforts to address real crime and thwart terrorists using the
Internet as a means of carrying out their perpetration's..

>
>
> Personally, I have an unlisted telephone number at home and I pay the
> telephone company extra for that.

  I do as well.  And I don't pay extra for it!  >;)

>  My motivation is to not have sales
> people or get rich quick screamers call me at home.  I already get
> that at work.  On the flip side of that, our neighborhood has a
> neighborhood watch program and our address and telephone number is
> listed in that directory.

  Well I live in the country.  So I don't have the need for such a neiborhood
watch program.  I have a very well trained guard dog for that purpose.

>
>
> I don't know the total solution to the WhoIs information.  I do know
> that from a business standpoint, making most information anonymous
> will certainly help the bad guys.

  Again for the forth time Don, no one is suggesting that the WHois
information be anonymous.  It isn't presently.

>  John Gotti would have liked to have
> been the anonymous Don rather than the Teflon Don.

  No, I don't think so.  His notoriety amongst his pears was part
of his extension of his abilities to do many of the things he did.

>  Given the latter,
> he would have enjoyed much better country club golf.
>
> I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer to this debate.
> We do, however, need to blend the practicality with the risk
> management of it somehow.

  Well the answer is really very simple Don.  All that is needed,
again is a valid Admin contact, to include Mailing address, valid
Phone and/or Fax number and E-Mail address for that Admin
contact.

>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tuesday, June 18, 2002, 12:12:38 PM, Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> JW> Barbara all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,
>
> JW>   INEGroup wholeheartedly and strongly agrees with Barbara's comments
> JW> below.  Indeed it is not necessary for a registrants personal and private
> JW> information such as home address and phone number to be listed in Whois
> JW> data for their domain name.  In fact to do so is s severe security risk
> JW> to that individual and a potential hindrance to law enforcement in this
> JW> unfortunate age of cyber terrorism.  Law enforcement agencies, such
> JW> as the FBI, CIA, NSA, or military intelligence do not need to be
> JW> chasing false leads due to some prankster using Whois data to
> JW> create false leads or false information fraudulently using someone's
> JW> registration information of a Domain Name that would include
> JW> their personal physical address or personal Phone Number.
> JW> To make such information necessary as part of the registration
> JW> of a Domain name is simply stupid and unnecessarily harmful, as
> JW> well as partly counter productive..
>
> JW> Barbara Simons wrote:
>
> >> If you are opposed to spammers, then I would think that you would be really
> >> upset with the whois database, which is a rich resource indeed for spammers.
> >>
> >> Information about where I live has nothing to do with openness or the lack
> >> thereof.  I am quite happy to have my email address made available (but not
> >> to spammers - I wish).  But surely you would not accuse me of a lack of
> >> openness if I were to refuse to provide my home address to the world in
> >> order to obtain my own domain name.  (It is entirely reasonable, by
> >> contrast, to require that I provide an accurate technical contact).
> >>
> >> I have no idea how many children have their own domain names, but there are
> >> obviously quite a few.  You might want to check out Chris Van Allen, whose
> >> dad gave him the domain name pokey.org several years ago.  Chris became
> >> somewhat famous when he was sent a cease and desist order by the Prema Toy
> >> Co., the company that manufactures Gumby.  You can read about Chris'
> >> adventures at www.pokey.org.
> >>
> >> To state the obvious, if a child has a website that has been purchased by
> >> that child's parent, and if the parent is required to provide his or her
> >> home address, most folks will be able to infer the address of the child.
> >>
> >> Many parents seem to believe that information about their children should
> >> not be posted for anyone in the world to view.  Many adults feel the same
> >> about their own information.
> >>
> >> You might have made a similar argument about drivers' license records being
> >> held by the California Dept of Motor Vehicles.  That information was open,
> >> and as a result a young women's home address was located by a stalker, and
> >> she was murdered.  I have heard about a woman who was stalked based on her
> >> whois information, but I'm afraid I can't give you a reference for that.
> >> Maybe someone else on one of these lists can.
> >>
> >> As far as political speech goes, I'm sure you are aware of countries and
> >> times during which criticism of one's government can be life threatening.
> >> And you don't have to go outside the US to find multiple examples of abuses
> >> and harassment of law abiding citizens by some law enforcement agencies.  If
> >> you have not been following the most recent revelations about the FBI and
> >> its obsession with UC Berkeley, the Free Speech Movement, and Clark Kerr,
> >> the then President of the University of California, I shall be happy to
> >> forward to you a very detailed set of articles published a couple of weeks
> >> ago in the San Francisco Chronicle.  If the '60s are ancient history for
> >> you, there are recent abuses by the LA Police Department, including the
> >> framing of innocent people, that date back only a few years.  I can send you
> >> some references for those as well.
> >>
> >> Openness does not mean that we must relinquish all notions of privacy if we
> >> are to own a domain name.  Rather than forcing people to provide information
> >> about where they are located, Congress should be requiring ICANN to
> >> institute meaningful privacy protections on the whois database.  Maybe then
> >> we could discuss whether or not the domain name owner's personal information
> >> should be provided.
> >>
> >> Barbara
> >>
> >> P.S.  The early incarnation of the Internet, ARPANET, was about maintaining
> >> communications after a devastating event such as the dropping of nuclear
> >> weapons on the US.  It was *not* about openness, nor was it about commerce.
> >> The openness that you and I both cherish came into being because of the
> >> small clique of researchers and academics who were the original ARPANET
> >> users.  I share your desire to maintain that openness and to prevent the
> >> Internet from being regulated and restricted to the point that it becomes a
> >> jazzed up Home Shopping Channel.  If the Internet is to continue to be the
> >> open communications channel that it has become, then it is critical that
> >> people have the ability to speak without fearing that everything they say
> >> and do can be monitored.
> >>
> >> On 6/17/02 10:46 PM, "Micheal Sherrill" <micheal@beethoven.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wait a minute.  I am all for protecting abused wives, children, and those
> >> > seeking political asylum.  But, what does this have to do with the Whois
> >> > function?  I agree that perhaps a felony conviction for a first time offense
> >> > is harsh but please do not forget what this Internet was, and is all about,
> >> > openness.  At this time this (openness) is being clogged by a proliferation of
> >> > SPAMers that will, eventually, plug the pipe for any meaningful communication.
> >> > If we do not have the means to track accurate information of those that seek
> >> > to take advantage of all the resources that others fund how will we survive?
> >> > Your arguments pluck at our heartstrings but they also try to pluck my
> >> > pocketbook.  I mean, how many children have their own domain name?  And if
> >> > they can afford it, why do they need to hide their identity?  It would seem to
> >> > me that most children are trying to reach other children.  So why protect them
> >> > from each other?  Besides, the children do not register the domain names,
> >> > their parents usually do.  It has nothing to do with discovery.  Even more so,
> >> > what Internet sites are dedicated to battered women that would somehow lead
> >> > angry, misguided men to a safe house?  I do not think that any support group
> >> > would purchase a domain name but would be smart enough and economical enough
> >> > to go through a Web hosting company.  And what is even more perplexing is the
> >> > reference to free speech.  Free speech is about openness.  We talk about
> >> > things in the open!  So why the need for subterfuge?  If we have free speech
> >> > on the Internet what makes sense about listing a false address for our cause?
> >> > Anything else is already illegal, even via the USPS.  Plus, I have no idea
> >> > what you are talking about in reference to trademark holders sending out cease
> >> > and desist letters.  Overall, the logic of your complaint does not compute.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Micheal Sherrill
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> >> > From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> >> > Date:  Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:55:34 -0700
> >> >
> >> > Barbara and all,
> >> >
> >> > We [INEGroup] agree with you here Barbara, and are in process of
> >> > contacting the appropriate senate and House members that are
> >> > involved in this rather arcane and misguided legislation being considered.
> >> >
> >> > I personally would suggest that anyone concerned about their personal
> >> > safety, and privacy that are Domain Name holders do likewise without
> >> > delay...
> >> >
> >> > Barbara Simons wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I agree that accurate information should be provided for the technical
> >> >> liaison.  What I'm saying is that a law that makes it a felony to provide
> >> >> inaccurate information for the domain name holder creates major problems
> >> >> regarding political speech, shelters for battered women, children who own
> >> >> their own domain name, etc.  The whois database is an open invitation for
> >> >> massive privacy invasion of domain name owners (as opposed to technical
> >> >> contacts).  HR 4640 would make it a felony in the U.S., punishable by up to
> >> >> 5 years in prison, to provide false address information for the owner of a
> >> >> domain name.  This would be a boon to trademark holders who are eager to
> >> >> send out large numbers of cease and desist letters, and a blow to people who
> >> >> care about protecting our privacy.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't mean to start a discussion about HR 4640, though I hope that this
> >> >> has helped to make our US based members aware of this misguided legislative
> >> >> proposal.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Barbara
>
> JW> Regards,
>
> JW> --
> JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
> JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> JW> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> JW> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> JW> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> JW> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> JW> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> JW> --
> JW> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> JW> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> JW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> JW> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

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