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

Wed Jun 12 02:05:21 CEST 2002

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 at hi-tek.com>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>
Cc: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>; "James Love"
<james.love at cptech.org>; "Kent Crispin" <kent at songbird.com>;
<discuss at icann-ncc.org>; "atlarge discuss list"
<atlarge-discuss at lists.fitug.de>; "General Assembly of the DNSO"
<ga at 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 at ix.netcom.com>
> > To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>
> > Cc: "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org>; "Kent Crispin"
> > <kent at songbird.com>; <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; "atlarge discuss list"
> > <atlarge-discuss at lists.fitug.de>; "General Assembly of the DNSO"
> > <ga at 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 at cptech.org>
> > > > To: "Kent Crispin" <kent at songbird.com>; <discuss at 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 at 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 at cptech.org
> > > > > http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Discuss mailing list
> > > > > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > > > > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Discuss mailing list
> > > > Discuss at 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 at 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 at lists.fitug.de
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help at lists.fitug.de
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe at lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help at lists.fitug.de
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe at lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help at lists.fitug.de
>