RE: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue
Dear Michael, Mailyn Jeff and all,
are really relevant these discussions on local details and personal
feelings? We have a case were the US law conflicts with other country's
laws. The root of Lynn's call.
On 03:21 21/04/02, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law said:
>Plus, here in Florida we have strong laws prohibiting telemarketing (you
>sign up for a list, and then they may not bug you).
>On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > Jeff, do elaborate on the differences on what is listed in a "white
> > pages" listing and WHOIS.
> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > In any event comparisons of a phone # listing and private information
> > listed in WHOIS data are not really comparable, and therefore making
> > such comparisons is felonious at best.
We are right now facing a simple situation:
- ICANN has confused International services with American control. The
result is the current mess and its call on International help at proper
level, ie Govs.
- ITU/T responds with a true internatioinal management solution at Govs
level. And we are wandering.
The reason why is that neither American control, nor International
management fits the Intenet. The internet is a people's consensus and as
such includes the Govs as well as many other organizations, but as users.
Among the other participating investors, but not above them: part or
leaders of the @large national Internet communities, not a replacement for
it. The reaon why is that the Intenet is multinational, at individual level
(while govs by nature are national/international). This multinational
aspect is its specific interest. Remove it from the Intenet: you will keep
a lot of interesting features but you will have killed the soul of the system.
So, we are to convince the goodwilling USG, EEC, ITU/T that the only
solution is that the real oragnizers of the Internet (physical adressing
plans, naming spaces and all the other stakehodles) may concert in an
international Gov approved way. And that they may use this concertation of
them, with a built-in help of the Govs through the ITU/T, to dig out their
consensuses and fight their hijackers.
If we do not succeed in convincing them, the future is clear. The Internet
will only be a major value added Telco service among others, under the
control of the local regulation authorities and subject to endless
stardization committees. Everything by the people will have to be remade.
And every one, including ATT, MS, SAIC, IBM etc will have wasted a huge
If we succeed in having the ITU/T acting only as an host and an equal
member of a concertation among every actor really concerned, without them
having to be a Member of the ITU/T, with a rotating Chair showing that no
one has the lead, then there are huge developments ahead, for Internet and
for Telcos supporting the Intenet alike.
The decision IMHO is pending: Govs favor or accept the ITU/T solution. The
ITU/T is considering how to best tune it. The real problem is Verisign, and
to some extent MS. No Gov is sure that the current consensus system (they
obviously see as in tune with the Intenet project and as an help to its
development) is strong enough to stop Verisign and MS from hijacking the net.
1. IMHO the first reason why is that the ICANN has limited the number of
opponents in trying to stay exclusive (ICP-3 oddity), probably with ATT and
others helps confusing statu quo with market share protection. So we have
to make clear and real that there are several large name spaces that
Verisign has to deal with : legacy by ICANN, ccNET by the ccTLDs, Govnet
(gov/mil/edu) by the USG, Newnet, the Open Systems, the ITU/T with the
telephone/mobile numeric names, many large plans like ISSN, ISBN, TM
registrations etc... This makes a more serious protection against Verisign
WLS/Whois fancies and a better help for them to understand where is their
market and their support.
2. The second reason is the ability of smart people like you, BoD Members,
Esther, Mike, Joe, Straton, Lynn, Louis, etc. etc. daily implied in the
nets gouvernance to understand where is the real global common interest. No
one wants to kill the Internet. I am sure that even Bill Gates and Straton
Sclavos may understand when they go a step too far and they start spoiling
their own market rather than developping it. We have to show now that this
kind of auto-limitation may happen : WLS and Whois are good cases.
Otherwise no one will believe we are grown enough for this to ever happen
and no one will take the risk. Also, many will question the reasons of
Verisign and will feel un secure about their good health if they
desesperately need such short term sales.
I am sure that most of the Govs will favor a slower, harder, more limited
development under nations control than a brillant, easy, great development
... of the Redmond and the Herndon monopolies. And if Bill Gates and
Starton Sclavos do not understand this is the way the world sees it, we
have to help them understanding. Frankly we would all prefer to develop
with them in the years to come, than spending our life figting them.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html