Pretty much all domain name registries will hold copyright in their whois database Do a lookup on any ccTLD domain name and you'll see this

The point is that nobody holds a copyright on a set of facts such as whois registration data. People just put these banner notices without any thought to whether they have legal authority to do so or whether they make sense at all. They may have some rights but it is not under copyright law. I did not contact .ro but I have contacted others about their whois policies. RIPE gave evasive answers and ARIN will not give any kind of answer other than to point to their posted policies (when I asked for clarification they won't answer). It is generally a waste of time to contact whois operators about these issues because you will get some techie who thinks he knows it all and who thinks his technical knowledge gives him a free pass to disregard the law. When you point out things that don't make sense they just don't answer. it is like this group, you ask that the minutes be fixed so people can understand it you get excuses and/or no response. This is just arrogance of techies who want to shut out the users.

The minutes are not a children's introduction to the world. They are a transcript of what has been said and done at the meeting.

Minutes are not transcripts. see http://www.robertsrules.com/ for more information. The postings are meant to allow the entire Internet community to see and understand what is going on. Right now they are cryptic and they do not identify the actual issues at hand and don't achieve the goal of allowing people the opportunity to see what is going on. It may be used by "experts" such as yourself or someone who may not know as much as you and never attended a meeting. You want to take a radical view by claiming an extreme by saying a "childrens introduction to the world." What you really mean is that you want to exclude everybody except your small group of buddies and you want to tell the rest of the world (or "children" as you see it) what to do. If all these issues were posted somewhere else and the minutes were a little cryptic I could see that but the information is not posted anywhere else and every report, summary, framework, etc. is so vague people have to exert an extensive effort just to understand what is going on.

Peter, On Thursday, 2012-06-14 08:54:53 +0200, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 06:11:45PM -0400, lists@help.org wrote:

...

understand what is going on. Right now they are cryptic and they do not identify the actual issues at hand and don't achieve the goal of allowing people the opportunity to see what is going on.

I disagree with this assessment. The minutes are detailed and, to my reading, reflect the session well. They list statements, facts, and actions. Minutes do not provide conclusions or speculation, therefore I'd appreciate if you took the time to re-read and clearly state the deficiencies you perceive instead of using terms like "cryptic" without substantiation. And for that matter, approval of the minutes does not imply happiness with either the content or the result of the meeting.

This is spot-on. (Although I wasn't at the meeting this time and haven't reviewed the streaming feed, so I am talking about form, and can't confirm the content!) Most actual issues are discussed on this list before the meetings, although of course not all. Some come from the wider world, and some are brought to the attention of the working group at the RIPE meeting itself. If one wants to know the background of what is being discussed in a RIPE working group, then one should simply follow the mailing list for a while, and either attend a RIPE meeting or watch the live streams. It takes time, but most things worth doing do! An alternate strategy may be to ask someone involved in the group (like one of the working group chairs) for some of their time, and they may be willing to explain their view of the current status of the work. Also any actual policy proposals are on the policy development page: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/current-proposals Cheers, -- Shane

Hi, On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 08:43:01AM -0400, lists@help.org wrote:

In other words, the world does not revolve around you.

Amen. Have you looked into a mirror recently? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

This is a working group, the word 'working' implying that some effort is expected of active participants.

Not all people are active participants. The vast majority of people affected are not active participants and some people just want to see what is going on.

Non-participants who find the terminology difficult to understand are better served by less specific information.

I am glad you have decided for all those millions of Internet users what is best for them. Basically you are admitting there is no consensus process and that few people get to decide what everyone else gets to know. I have already submitted a list of issues several times to this group and RIPE and nobody wants to describe these issues on the information that is provided to the Internet community. I am compiling that information at http://WhoisSecurity.com. I still have more work to do and I will be adding information as I get it but you are free to take any information there and add it to your various reports. A couple here people have sent me suggestions of things to look into and I am getting to it. I am hoping to hear back from ARIN, CIRA, and the US Department of Commerce (.us) about their whois policies and their enforcement as it relates to the information being harvested, repackaged and sold in whois history reports and the legal authority behind those banner notices. I don't expect I will get any solid answers from those entities but I have made the inquiries.

Do you believe in consensus? If you do than the consensus of this WG is very clear. The pace is very slow but atleast in forward direction. Only IMO

There is no "consensus" because you shut people out. the people who claim there is one are not truthful

Secondly, I requested you humbly to compile a list of real issues with real work examples

I have already done that for the issues I raised. of course many other people raised issued and I would like to see how the group interpreted those comments and turned them into issue. Right now the minutes say that there was some decision about some unnamed issues so the minutes are not valid as it stands.

Sorry, I don't want to visit the site you mentioned to gather any information. I went there once and saw loads of google ads and I dont want to be part of any revenue stream.

That is not a legitmate or credible response. I am sure you visit Google all the time. On top of that you sent me an e-mail from a Gmail account so it seems you are pretty deep into the Google revenue stream. Why don't stop wasting time with your petty, childish, idiotic responses, You are just throwing a temper tantrum because I pointed how your little group is not operating in a legitimate manner. Why don't you just admit there is no "consensus" and that a small group shuts everyone else out and tells them what to do?

This is not the kind of language we will accept on this list, no matter how controversial and tough the discussion is.

Save your petty little personal attacks and temper tantrums for someone else. The fact is people on this list harass and intimate people to the people no longer want to post. A number of people personally attack me but you only complain when I respond in kind. The fact is the posts speak for themselves. The people running this group have shown that their intent is to cut out most of the Internet and make the decisions themselves. Then they lie about it and claim a "consensus." Several people have contacted me off list and indicated they agree to a certain extent with what I have been saying, However, the people running this group have created an atmosphere where these people don't want to post publicly because they will be harassed and ridiculed. It all boils down to this group is a bunch of bullies who are now throwing a temper tantrums because I am standing up to the group. Just go back and look at some of the posts of how you are all arguing NOT to make it clear what the issue are that you are discussing. It all boild down to simple concept, if someone reads minutes of a meeting they should be able to tell what was done at the meeting and what issues were discussed and voted upon and possibly why the vote was made. In this case the minutes just reference some unnamed issues that aren't written down anywhere and it is not explained why they were deemed not important enough for some specific action to be taken. (this is probably the number one complaint about ICANN and ICANN_related processes). Then you all go around claiming a community "consensus." You have turned this process into a joke.

no one is accepting ur baseless cries.

People involved with a tiny group think that they are the whole world. That is delusional thinking. You will often see this in local politics where people can't understand how a candidate lost because "everybody" (meaning their tiny group of friends) supported the person. I don't know about the so-called abuse reputation services in Europe but I am familiar with the US ones such as Microsoft Frontbridge and Cisco Ironport. When businesses complain they were put on a blacklist or given a poor reputation score by mistake they are often given no recourse. Even when the problem is fixed there are many reports the staffs of these companies are accusatory, rude, threatening, and have a know-it-all attitude. This is how abuse groups are. They keep in close knit groups, hardly interact with the rest of the world, and they have disdain for regular users who don't live up to their technical expectations. They also they think they are above the law. This is how they caught up lawsuits like the guy who had to pay damages to a spammer and that lawsuit with e360 that spun out of control. The same thing happened years ago with the credit reporting agencies. They went out of control with these reputation scores that were often wrong and impossible to fix and it led to a bunch of regulatory laws. But of course everybody who complained was probably a deadbeat so we should probably just disregard their complaints ...

Tobias Knecht

I see, you took this position so you can advertise your RIPE position to try to sell your anti-abuse services: http://abusix.com/partners/organizations You run blacklist and reputation services. I wonder if you coordinate these activities with the client's posted privacy policies and various privacy laws ... or if you completely ignore these issues because you feel abuse issues trump everything else?

clearly state the deficiencies you perceive instead of using terms like "cryptic" without substantiation.

It references issues brought up on the mailing list without listing those issues. Someone would have to read through all the e-mails to understand what the issues are and even then many people will have different perspectives of what the issues actually are. The issues need to be listed somewhere. Maybe they shouldn't be in the the minutes, maybe a summary of the issues posted somewhere and a link provided in the minutes. In any case the issues should be spelled out somewhere in a summary of what the task force is trying to do.

On 13 Jun 2012, at 23:11, lists@help.org wrote:

Minutes are not transcripts. see http://www.robertsrules.com/ for more information.

The postings are meant to allow the entire Internet community to see and understand what is going on.

Roberts Rules are a useful resource for organisations setting up their own rules, but they're not authoritative. Minutes are made in order to help the organisation to have a memory for what has occurred at meetings. They need to record actions that have been decided upon, and they may also need to record reasons for those decisions. They don't need to be comprehensible to anyone but (a) those that attended the meeting, (b) those who have to implement the actions, and (c) anyone to whom that meeting may be responsible (in a legal sense). It's (c) that is at issue here: the claim seems to be that the AAWG is responsible to the general public. Perhaps it is in a moral sense. If the meeting is responsible to the general public, then clearly plain English is required. And, since the public here is the entire world, translations into every global language. There's a limit to how far you can go here. In general (my experience is with social housing and local government), the task of interpreting minutes of meetings for the general public falls to journalists, and in politics to spin doctors. I do think that the AAWG might usefully publish some sort of glossary, and perhaps a primer, that makes it easier to understand the AAWG. Perhaps it already does this. And, I also think that when anyone is writing anything, it helps if some effort is put into using simpler language. -- Ian Eiloart Postmaster, University of Sussex +44 (0) 1273 87-3148