[wg-review] useful topics

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Joanna's suggestion about the need for member identification is a very
useful one. I recall that during the last election, that several "experts"
from research and academic settings, as well as business, did consult on
these issues.  

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:Eric@HI-TEK.COM]
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 11:04 PM
To: Jefsey Morfin
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] confusion?


Credibility and accountability not to mention great P.R. and empowerment,
and
education and trust, and familiarity, and interest, and portability of
knowledge
bases.
Maybe not all good things?

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Please can someone explain how this has an impact on the DNS?
> Jefsey
>
> On 00:57 04/02/01, Joanna Lane said:
> >Sandy Harris wrote:-
> >How do you make the process genuinely representative, given that anyone
with
> >some
> >resources and an agenda can create bogus domains and/or users at will?>
> >
> >It is crucial not only to the credibility of DNSO, but also @Large and
> >ICANN, that member identity and record keeping rules are put on the
agenda
> >as a priority. Membership of this WG has been granted on a trust basis,
but
> >it doesn't scale. In the long term, it is essential for membership
identity
> >to be verified at local level on a country by country basis ("country" in
> >the context of this post also means jurisdiction, region or  territory).
> >This is backed up by the Financial Action Task Force Report, published
Feb1.
> >
> >The FATF, an inter-governmental body, includes 29 countries and 2
observer
> >organizations and notes the increased opportunities on the internet for
> >money laundering using identity fraud, (of individuals and corporations)
> >without a face to face meeting, noting how the internet allows for
anonymous
> >registration of accounts and trading through international companies
where
> >few, if any records are kept, located in countries which may not only be
> >difficult to identify, but also have refused to co-operate with
> >international guidelines.
> >
> >In issuing its report, the FATF said countries could take several
measures
> >to counter money laundering. They include:
> >
> >1) Requiring internet service providers to maintain accurate and thorough
> >subscriber information
> >2) Require the establishment of log files, showing access and telephone
> >number identity
> >3) Ensure that information is made available internationally .
> >
> >It was recognised from the outset of the FATF that countries have diverse
> >legal and financial systems and so all cannot take identical measures.
The
> >Recommendations are therefore the principles for action in this field,
for
> >countries to implement according to their particular circumstances and
> >constitutional frameworks allowing countries a measure of flexibility
rather
> >than prescribing every detail. The measures are not particularly complex
or
> >difficult, provided there is the political will to act. Nor do they
> >compromise the freedom to engage in legitimate transactions or threaten
> >economic development.
> >
> >FATF countries are clearly committed to accept the discipline of being
> >subjected to multilateral surveillance and peer review. All member
countries
> >have their implementation of the Forty Recommendations monitored through
a
> >two-pronged approach: an annual self-assessment exercise and the more
> >detailed mutual evaluation process under which each member country is
> >subject to an on-site examination. In addition, the FATF carries out
> >cross-country reviews of measures taken to implement particular
> >Recommendations.
> >
> >The twenty-nine FATF member countries and governments are: Argentina;
> >Australia; Austria; Belgium; Brazil; Canada; Denmark; Finland; France;
> >Germany; Greece; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Ireland; Italy; Japan;
> >Luxembourg; Mexico; the Kingdom of the Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway;
> >Portugal; Singapore; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; the United
Kingdom;
> >and the United States.
> >
> >The two international organisations are: the European Commission and the
> >Gulf Co-operation Council.
> >
> >The report is available in English, French, Chinese, German, Japanese,
> >Portuguese, Spanish and Russian
> >
> >The URL is http://www.oecd.org/fatf/40Recs_en.htm See Customer
> >Identification and Record-keeping Rules
> >
> >I submit this document as reference and source material for this WG in
> >relation membership ID and record keeping rules of the GA.
> >
> >Joanna
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> >Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html