<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Dutch Govcert procedure
- To: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Dutch Govcert procedure
- From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:11:53 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
<HEAD><TITLE>Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Dutch Govcert
procedure</TITLE>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:
#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=compText>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:
#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR>
<DIV id=compText>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:
#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR>
<DIV id=compText>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:
#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR>
<DIV id=compText>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:
#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR>
<P>Palmer and all,</P>
<P> </P>
<P> Prrhaps you should do some reading up on more recent case law in this
area,</P>
<P>for instance:<FONT face=TimesNewRomanPSMT size=2></P>
<P align=left>Brief </FONT><I><FONT face=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT size=2>Amicus
Curiae </I></FONT><FONT face=TimesNewRomanPSMT size=2>of EPIC in Support of
Appellant, </FONT><I><FONT face=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT size=2>Peterson v.
Nat. Telecomm.& Info. Admin.</I></FONT><FONT face=TimesNewRomanPSMT
size=2>, No. 06-</P>
<P align=left>1216 (4th Cir. Apr. 24, 2006).</P>
<P align=left>and, <A
href="http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/papers/02/0239.pdf";>http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/papers/02/0239.pdf</A></P>
<P align=left>and, <A
href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/banks/index.htm";>http://www.opensecrets.org/news/banks/index.htm</A></P></FONT>
<DIV id=compText><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff
2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Palmer Hamilton
<PALMERHAMILTON@xxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: May 13, 2007 3:05 PM <BR>To:
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] RE: [gnso-whois-wg]
Dutch Govcert procedure <BR><BR><ZZZHTML><ZZZHEAD><ZZZMETA
HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8"><ZZZMETA
CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7651.59"
NAME="Generator"></ZZZHEAD><ZZZBODY><ZZZ!-- Converted from text plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>You may need to more carefully read my prior email, but let me
try again to explain the law in this area.<BR><BR>The law specifically
prohibits banks from providing customer information to law enforcement without
a subpoena. This is contained in the Right to Financial Privacy Act which
was passed in the 1970s. <BR><BR>This is what your unnamed banks were
apparently talking about, not WHOIS information. I do wish you would
provide the names of the banks so we could confirm that they did not mean what
you took them to mean. It is obviuous that you misunderstood what they
were saying. <BR><BR>I am not being critical. This area of the law
can be arcane. It is certainly understandable that misunderstandings
might arise. I can assure you, however, that all sizeable banks assist
law enforcement in the fight against internet fruad through doing leg work for
law enforcement with WHOIS information. <BR><BR>As for your reference to
dereulation causing "the change in law in the 1990s," I practice in this
area of the law, and I have no idea what you are talking about. I spend
three days of every week in Washington working on matters of this sort and I
did so throughout the 1990s, and I have no idea what change in law you are
talking about. Please be more specific.<BR><BR>I am familar with and
worked on all the banking legislation passed by Congress in that decade, and I
don't know what you're talking about.<BR><BR>Again, I am not being
critical. There is no reason you should have followed the law in this
area. But I would hope you would use extre care when making blanket
assertions about banking law. If we are going to reach common ground, we
need to be dealing from a base of facts. Reaching this consensus will be
tough enough without our having to go down innumerable rabbit trails.
Once we are dealing from a common set of facts, maybe we can find a means to
protect the consumer while addressing the privacy concerns you
express.<BR><BR>Palmer<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx><BR>To:
gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx><BR>CC:
gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Sun May 13
13:38:00 2007<BR>Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Dutch Govcert
procedure<BR><BR>Palmer and all,<BR><BR> Of course I didn't name my
bank(s) for privacy reasons. I believe this to personal<BR>policy to be a
good, reasonable and effective one as well as one recomended by<BR>the US
FTC.<BR><BR> Secondly, deregulation of the financial industry in the
early 90's changed how<BR>financial institutions can treat and otherwise use
data which in the case of<BR>any financial institution having blanket and/or
carte blance access and use thereof<BR>of registrants data in Whois as a third
party, a significant and very potentially<BR>dangerous consideration. I
am not saying that these dangers cannot be overcome<BR>if specific rules which
have significant penilities in place by which misuse is<BR>defined as it
applies to the use of Whois data. But to say any financial
institution<BR>"does the leg work for LEA's" is simply false and as my banks
stated,
laughable.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR> From:
Palmer Hamilton<BR> Sent: May 13,
2007 8:33 AM<BR> To:
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR> Subject:
Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Dutch Govcert
procedure<BR> <BR> <BR><BR>
Let me see if I can explain this area os the law in hopes it will clarify
things.<BR> <BR>
Since the 1970s, banks have been prohibited from releasing customer
information to LEAs without a subpoena. This was done as a measure to
protect the privacy of bank customers from overreach by
LEAs.<BR> <BR>
Obviously, I was not suggesting banks were handling over such information when
I said they did the leg work for law enforcement. I was speaking of their
checking the WHOIS data which is available to anyone and using that information
to prevent consumer
fraud.<BR> <BR>
So, your discussions with the unnamed banks related to the wrong
question. I certainly concur that banks can't hand over customer
information without a
subpoena.<BR> <BR>
But this isn't the leg work at issue in our emails. What we are talking
about is leg work using the WHOIS data, and I am not aware of a single sizeable
bank that does not do this leg work for
LEAs.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR> From:
owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
<owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx><BR>
To: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
<gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx><BR>
CC: gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
<gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR>
Sent: Sun May 13 00:53:37 2007<BR>
Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Dutch Govcert
procedure<BR> <BR>
Palmer and
all,<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>
My statement was carefully chosen. LEA's do not have blanket or
carte
blance<BR> <BR>
access to customers or non customers data from banks without
due<BR> <BR>
process/subphoena. I checked with the security folks at all 8 of
the<BR> <BR>
banks I do and have done business with and they all laughed at
them<BR> <BR>
"doing leg work" for LEA's without a unchallenged subphoena
unless<BR> <BR>
they are acting in a very unsatisfactory manner towards their
customers.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>
In fact not more than 9 months ago one of my banks called me and ask
me<BR> <BR>
if I would agree to allow the release of my financial data to them from
a<BR> <BR>
unnamed LEA. My answer was definately not. They did not do so as
two<BR> <BR>
days later that LEA called upon me at my place of business and ask me
why<BR> <BR>
I refused them access, and why I filed a motion to squash their
subphoena.<BR> <BR>
I not so politely and very bluntly told them because I believed it was a
violation<BR> <BR>
of my financial privacy rights and given the unclear reasons stated in
the<BR> <BR>
text of the subphoena, their request was nonsensical. They ceased
to<BR> <BR>
push for the access they were seeking any
further.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>
-----Original
Message-----<BR>
From: Palmer
Hamilton<BR>
Sent: May 11, 2007 11:01
PM<BR>
To:
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>
Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] RE:
[gnso-whois-wg] Dutch Govcert
procedure<BR>
<BR>
<BR> <BR>
Jeff,<BR>
<BR>
My earlier email was simply a
statement of fact. Law enforcement relies on banks to do the legwork on
cases involving internet fraud through fraudulent websites purporting to be
bank websites. I am baffled by your statement that "very few" law
enforcement agencies rely on bank legwork. What is your specific evidence
for this contention? It is at complete variance with our banks'
experience. On what do you base your
statement?<BR>
<BR>
You state law enforcement "cannot
rely on banks" to do its legwork. I presume by this you mean they should
not rely on baks, since it is incontrovertible that they do rely on banks to do
this work.<BR>
<BR>
This being the case, I would
suggest that we deal with the reality of the situation, not what we might wish
were the case.. This is the way law enforcement works, and, as I
indicated in a prior email, this reality is not going to
change.<BR>
<BR>
If we ignore this reality, we put
consumers at risk. While we might wish reality were different, it is
not. So, we need to deal with this
fact.<BR>
<BR>
ICANN is not a law enforcement
agency. Nobody is suggesting that it is. This does not mean,
however, that ICANN does not have a duty to the internet community to take
reasonable steps to protect internet users from being victims of fraud.
The WHOIS data is indispensable to banks in allowing them to protect internet
users and consumers.<BR>
<BR>
Your suggestion of using "warrants"
(by which I presume you mean subpoenas) ignores the critical timing issues
involved.. The delay attendant with your suggestion would entail losses
of millions, including losses of life
savings.<BR>
<BR>
Don't you think these consumers
deserve better from ICANN? If the use of WHOIS data can protect
consumers, AND privacy protections can be built into this access, shouldn't
ICANN preserve these tools needed to protect the
consumer?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original
Message-----<BR>
From: owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
<owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx><BR>
To: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
<gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx><BR>
CC: gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
<gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR>
Sent: Fri May 11 21:10:05
2007<BR>
Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] RE:
[gnso-whois-wg] Dutch Govcert
procedure<BR>
<BR>
Dan, Palmer and
all,<BR>
<BR>
Palmers comments and/or
observations regarding Banks are
not<BR>
accurate nor appropriate for Whois
data. Law enforcment cannot<BR>
rely on banks to do their "Leg Work"
so to speak, and very few<BR>
do. Law enforcment do use some
bank data on customers for<BR>
financial investigative evidance
with a warrant as required<BR>
by law in most US states and federal
statute.<BR>
<BR>
Dan's remarks have
merit from where I sit as to
ICANN<BR>
acting as a law enforcment or
investigative agent for same.<BR>
ICANN is not suited for such a
function in regards to Whois<BR>
data, nor should it be.
Incidently the Whois was never<BR>
intended as a law enforcment tool,
and should not be used<BR>
as such other than
incidentally. However law
enforcment<BR>
in the course of an investigation
should be able to obtain<BR>
"Any" Whois data via jurisdictional
due process. Ergo<BR>
a search and sezier warrant or an
equivalent dependant on<BR>
nation of origin, resaprocity,
ect..<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
<BR>
Jeffrey A.
Williams<BR>
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over
134k members/stakeholders
strong!)<BR>
"Obedience of the law is the
greatest freedom" -<BR>
Abraham
Lincoln<BR>
<BR>
"Credit should go with the
performance of duty and not with what is
very<BR>
often the accident of glory" -
Theodore Roosevelt<BR>
<BR>
"If the probability be called P;
the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability<BR>
depends upon whether B is less than
L multiplied by<BR>
P: i.e., whether B is less than
PL."<BR>
United States v. Carroll
Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]<BR>
===============================================================<BR>
Updated
1/26/04<BR>
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR.
Eng. Network data security IDNS. div.
of<BR>
Information Network Eng. INEG.
INC.<BR>
ABA member in good standing member
ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original
Message-----<BR>
>From: Dan Krimm
<dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>
>Sent: May 11, 2007 7:32
PM<BR>
>To:
gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx<BR>
>Cc:
gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR>
>Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] RE:
[gnso-whois-wg] Dutch Govcert
procedure<BR>
><BR>
>I'll let Eric speak for himself
with regard to the email he receives,
but<BR>
>the phishing scams I get are
easily recognized and discarded. (The
first<BR>
>one I ever got -- before it had
become prevalent, and before there was
a<BR>
>word coined for it -- I was
temporarily confused, but I was alert enough
to<BR>
>check out the domain before
supplying any info. I have been
personally<BR>
>immune ever
since.)<BR>
><BR>
>While I opt-out of all uses of
my info by financial institutions that I
can<BR>
>(and in California I can opt out
of more than in other states or
countries,<BR>
>because of consumer-friendly
state regulation), I am still troubled
by<BR>
>information collected by credit
reporting agencies and other sources that
I<BR>
>do not know about. I
refuse to allow DoubleClick to place cookies on
my<BR>
>browsers. And still I know
this is not enough to be secure in
the<BR>
>knowledge that data about me is
not being used against my
interests,<BR>
>usually by private entities out
to make a buck.<BR>
><BR>
>Banks already get a lot of
personal information from their
immediate<BR>
>customers. There is no
reason to give them unsupervised blanket access
to<BR>
>all information in the Whois
database about millions upon millions
of<BR>
>people who are not their direct
customers.<BR>
><BR>
>Information used for legitimate
anti-fraud efforts needs to be<BR>
>well-targeted as much as
possible, and checks and balances need to be
in<BR>
>place to assure appropriateness
of access as a rule, since recourse is
not<BR>
>always available in the case of
abuse (and thus deterrence may be<BR>
>ineffective).<BR>
><BR>
>If ICANN is not in position to
become a fully-functional public
law<BR>
>enforcement entity in and of
itself, with all of the due process
and<BR>
>accountability that such a role
calls for (and it seems pretty clear
that<BR>
>it is not), then that dynamic
needs to be in the system somewhere,
somehow,<BR>
>and it needs to be designed with
some serious effectiveness, not just as
a<BR>
>cosmetic
ruse.<BR>
><BR>
>Dan<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>At 5:54 PM -0500 5/11/07,
Hope.Mehlman@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:<BR>
>>Those 20 or so spam emails
are likely phishing emails or scams. Banks
do<BR>
>>not send spam emails. These
emails you are referring to are not
legitmate<BR>
>>emails, and this is exactly
what banks are trying to prevent in order
to<BR>
>>protect consumers from
identity theft and fraud. Your email
highlights<BR>
>>how significant and
prevalent this problem is.<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>
>> From: Hugh Dierker
[hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx]<BR>
>> Sent: 05/11/2007
03:26 PM MST<BR>
>> To:
gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx<BR>
>> Cc:
gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR>
>> Subject: RE:
[gnso-acc-sgb] RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Dutch Govcert
procedure<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>>This really assumes
alot. Hypothetical "who done its". Does not
justify<BR>
>>giving out confidential
information to banks. I get 20 or so spams a
day<BR>
>>from Banks. Junk mail
another 5 a day- credit cards
galore.<BR>
>>I do not buy that "banks"
want my info for purely secure
reasons.<BR>
>><BR>
>>Eric<BR>
>><BR>
>>Palmer Hamilton
<PalmerHamilton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>>Dan,<BR>
>><BR>
>>The problem is a practical
one. Law enforcement has limited
resources.<BR>
>>We might wish that were not
the case, but it is, and, realistically,
it<BR>
>>will always be the case. Law
enforcement, as I set out in my
earlier<BR>
>>emails to Milton, expects
banks to do the legwork before it will
act.<BR>
>>Maybe it should be
otherwise, but this is not the case nor will it
ever<BR>
>>be the case. In various
roles, both in government and working on
the<BR>
>>side of government, I have
spent years working on the side of
law<BR>
>>enforcement. I think it is
fair to say that law enforcement's
approach<BR>
>>is virtually an immutable
law of nature. And frankly from
law<BR>
>>enforcement's standpoint, it
must set priorities given its
limited<BR>
>>resources.<BR>
>><BR>
>>If banks do not have access
to the necessary information, internet
users<BR>
>>and consumers will be put at
much greater risk. It would be nice
to<BR>
>>think that banks and
consumers could simply lodge a complaint and
that<BR>
>>the complaint would be
immediately acted upon. But this will
never<BR>
>>happen. Law enforcement has
too much on its plate. My banks can
give<BR>
>>you page after page of
examples to corroborate this. And remember
for<BR>
>>every hour that passes,
millions can be lost, including life
savings.<BR>
>><BR>
>>Please take another look at
the example in my email to Milton
involving<BR>
>>the local police in a
foreign jurisdiction that finally agreed to
act,<BR>
>>but only after the bank had
exhausted all avenues and done all
the<BR>
>>legwork. Realistically,
absent bank access to the local address, it
is<BR>
>>unknown how many innocent
consumers would have suffered losses
before<BR>
>>this fraudulent website was
ever closed down.<BR>
>><BR>
>>You are right that this is a
question of balance. And I would
argue<BR>
>>that consumer protection
needs to be prominently considered,
not<BR>
>>dismissed as unfortunate
collateral damage.<BR>
>><BR>
>>Banks are closely regulated
and monitored entities with
public<BR>
>>responsibilities. Those
responsibilities are examined regularly by
bank<BR>
>>examiners. As a result, I
would submit, consumer protection ought
to<BR>
>>prevail in light of the
protections from a privacy standpoint in
the<BR>
>>existing regulatory
structure.<BR>
>><BR>
>>Palmer<BR>
>><BR>
>>-----Original
Message-----<BR>
>>From:
owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx [<A href="mailto:owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx";
target=_BLANK>mailto:owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx</A>]<BR>
>>On Behalf Of Dan
Krimm<BR>
>>Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007
3:43 PM<BR>
>>To:
gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx<BR>
>>Cc:
gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR>
>>Subject: [gnso-acc-sgb] RE:
[gnso-whois-wg] Dutch Govcert
procedure<BR>
>><BR>
>>Palmer,<BR>
>><BR>
>>If I may step in here (and
shift this discussion over to the Subgroup
B<BR>
>>list where it properly
belongs):<BR>
>><BR>
>>At 1:44 PM -0500 5/11/07,
Palmer Hamilton wrote:<BR>
>><BR>
>>>Just having the IP
address and registrar is not sufficient.
For<BR>
>>>example, one of my banks
had a case in which it had to use local
police<BR>
>><BR>
>>>in a foreign country to
visit the physical address of the website
owner<BR>
>><BR>
>>>to get the site taken
down. The bank had tried to get the registrar
to<BR>
>><BR>
>>>shut it down without
success. The bank had also tried to stop the
site<BR>
>><BR>
>>>with the administrative
contact, the technical contact, the
abuse<BR>
>>>contact, and the website
owner, all with no success. The registrar
was<BR>
>><BR>
>>>also not interested in
working with the local police, but the
local<BR>
>>>police agreed to assist
AFTED the bank provided the police the
full<BR>
>>>WHOIS information plus a
synopsis of its takedown efforts.<BR>
>><BR>
>>So the question here is,
when the bank is involved in valid efforts
that<BR>
>>require access to Whois data
that is designated as private
there<BR>
>>certainly should be a
process for that data to be engaged in
the<BR>
>>process, so what should that
process be? No one is suggesting that
the<BR>
>>bank never get any such
information whatsoever. But some of us
are<BR>
>>suggesting that private
entities should not get direct access to
the<BR>
>>Whois data, but rather get
information from formally accountable
LEAs<BR>
>>who have direct
access.<BR>
>><BR>
>>It doesn't mean that private
agents cannot contribute to the<BR>
>>investigation process, but
that private agents need only be given
what<BR>
>>they need in a particular
context rather than being given the full
range<BR>
>>of powers granted to
publicly-accountable law enforcement. And,
that<BR>
>>LEAs be responsible for
providing appropriate information to
private<BR>
>>agents that are
participating in investigation processes. Once such
a<BR>
>>policy is well-defined, it
is possible to build technological
systems<BR>
>>that adhere to those
policies and operate efficiently
without<BR>
>>unnecessary human
intervention.<BR>
>><BR>
>>And if ICANN jurisdiction is
insufficient to resolve all
structure<BR>
>>issues, that still may not
be ICANN's responsibility to
solve.<BR>
>><BR>
>>At some point public law
enforcement must step up to the plate to
do<BR>
>>what needs to be done. ICANN
cannot solve all the world's
public<BR>
>>problems on its own, or even
those problems that may relate
tangentially<BR>
>>to the technical operation
of the Internet. ICANN is not a proper
venue<BR>
>>to determine and conduct
public governance activities, or to
authorize<BR>
>>private execution of public
governance.<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>>>Having said this, the
Dutch model could ultimately help fill a void
on<BR>
>>>the international level
by leveraging international pressure
on<BR>
>>>recalcitrant
governments. But again, this is not really an
alternative<BR>
>><BR>
>>>to what we are doing in
Subgroup B, as I understand it.<BR>
>><BR>
>>What exactly are we doing in
subgroup B as you understand it?<BR>
>><BR>
>>As I understand it, we are
trying to reach some consensus on what
GNSO<BR>
>>should recommend to the
ICANN Board with regard to determining to
whom<BR>
>>and how direct access to
private Whois data under the OPoC
paradigm<BR>
>>should be granted (by
registries and/or registrars). This does
not<BR>
>>speak to indirect access
through authorized/certified
LEAs.<BR>
>><BR>
>>I have no expectation (or
illusion) that what we come up with here
will<BR>
>>create a perfect world. It
will certainly continue to be
systematically<BR>
>>imperfect from a privacy
protection standpoint. If you are hoping
to<BR>
>>find perfection, then that
is undoubtedly beyond the scope of this WG
or<BR>
>>Subgroup
B.<BR>
>><BR>
>>We are not in a position to
dictate a comprehensive and
airtight<BR>
>>resolution to the full
complexity of issues here. So at least *that*
is<BR>
>>*not* what we are doing
here.<BR>
>><BR>
>>Dan<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>>Need Mail
bonding?<BR>
>>Go to
the<BR>
>><<A
href="http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&sid=396546091";
target=_BLANK>http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&sid=396546091</A>>Yahoo!<BR>
>>Mail Q&A
for<BR>
>><<A
href="http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&sid=396546091";
target=_BLANK>http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&sid=396546091</A>>great<BR>
>>tips from Yahoo! Answers
users.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR> <BR> <BR><BR>
Regards,<BR> <BR>
Jeffrey A. Williams<BR> Spokesman
for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders
strong!)<BR> "Obedience of the law is
the greatest freedom" -<BR>
Abraham
Lincoln<BR> <BR>
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very<BR> often the accident of glory"
- Theodore
Roosevelt<BR> <BR>
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability<BR> depends upon whether B
is less than L multiplied by<BR> P:
i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]<BR>
===============================================================<BR>
Updated 1/26/04<BR> CSO/DIR.
Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div.
of<BR> Information Network Eng.
INEG. INC.<BR> ABA member in good
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR> Registered
Email addr with the USPS Contact Number:
214-244-4827<BR> <BR><BR></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>Regards,<BR><BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup
LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the
greatest freedom" -<BR> Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go
with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of
glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury,
L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L
multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v.
Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated
1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of<BR>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Registered Email
addr with the USPS Contact Number:
214-244-4827<BR><BR>
</FONT></P></ZZZBODY></ZZZHTML></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|