[ncdnhc-discuss] [long] The NCDNHC's .org report is numerically inconsistent.

[J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin]

On 15:28 21/08/02, Thomas Roessler said:
>http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/isoc/section5.html#c25A1
>
>1. ORGWatch
>This service, available at a nominal fee, will allow monitoring of  a .ORG 
>domain name, or a keyword and its domains associated with  the keywords. 
>Any changes to the domain name data for the linked  domains will result in 
>a notification being generated.
>
>The keyword part of that sounds like what you really want when you're 
>interested in suing or UDRPing everyone who registeres 
><yourdomain>sucks.org as quick as possible.

Dear Michael,
as a US lawyer you must be familiar with 1996 revision of the communication 
act. I am interested in the following.

1. prior to the Internet defintion given by 47 USC 230 (f)(1) the FNC 
passed a definition on Oct 24, 95 in consultation with IP rights 
representatives which talks about protocol, address continuity and access 
to high layered services. None of the tow definitions talk about namespace 
and domain names.

2. IP addresses are related to the hardware and lines. They therefore share 
in the oganization of the telecommunication service. I certainly see how 
the whois/DNS fall into the information service definition but I hardly see 
how the delivery of a DN can fall into either definitions (it may be 
carried by regular mail). One can therefore claim that DNs are informations 
used together with the IP to partly permit the telecommunication 
management. As such they should be protected by telecommunication regulations.

3. telecommunications regulations prevent operator to disclose information 
on their subscriber without their prior consent. I hardly see how ORGwacth 
may be legal if the registrant is not asked if the change he makes can be 
disclosed under such a services (if I am right it is section 631) and if I 
am correct it is to be in each case, what means that the watched 
Registrants should be told the name of all the watchers.
jfc
















1. if there in any jurisprudence trying to discriminate between 
telecommunications and information services based upon the delivery/usage 
of an IP address? (IMHO there is an obvious claim that hardware related 
services are part of





>--
>Thomas Roessler                        <roessler at does-not-exist.org>
>
>
>
>
>On 2002-08-21 09:14:18 -0400, Harold J. Feld wrote:
>>Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:14:18 -0400
>>From: "Harold J. Feld" <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>
>>To: Thomas Roessler <roessler at does-not-exist.org>
>>Cc: Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu>, discuss at icann-ncc.org,
>>         lynn at icann.org
>>Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] [long] The NCDNHC's .org report is 
>>numerically inconsistent.
>>X-No-Spam: whitelist
>>
>>ORGWatch looked like their version of WLS.  While some intellectual 
>>property types might want it, it seems a fairly generic service.
>>
>>Harold
>>
>>Thomas Roessler wrote:
>>
>>>On 2002-08-20 17:46:41 -0400, Harold J. Feld wrote:
>>>
>>>>ISOC was the only applicant to address the privacy issue with ORGCloak 
>>>>service.  The description makes clear this was done to safeguard 
>>>>noncommercial speakers.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah, ok.  I have to admit that, when I saw that one, I thought much  more 
>>>about "personal" registrations than "non-commercial" ones...  I read 
>>>through that part of the application fairly quickly, so I  missed the 
>>>rationale for this service. Thanks for the clarification.
>>>
>>>>The caveat that it will consult with the IPC to implement the  service 
>>>>in a way that will still allow intellectual property  holders and law 
>>>>enforcement to have access to necessary  information to persue 
>>>>legitimate claims does not negate the  usefulness of the service. The 
>>>>ORGSURE certification service  would, on its own, constitute a "low" on 
>>>>the services, such as was done with ORGFoundation.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I see no services targeted to IP users.
>>>
>>>
>>>I suppose that ORGwatch could be pretty appealing to them.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/02