- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5
by Dean Anderson 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

Tim Salo just pointed out to me some flaws in my reading of Karls NSF letter, and some history I was unaware of or at least forgotten: The key being that it was SRI who actually created the database under contract from NSF. Meaning the database might not be subject to the FOIA or Privacy acts, and in fact might be property of SRI/NSI. He points out that NSF *probably* directed the SRI to give the database to NSI, and so the NSF in fact may never have actually handled the database at all. Of course, the NSF letter to Karl still claims that the DB was created by NSI, which still isn't correct. In light of that, I suppose one can still argue that if the NSF directed the SRI to give the database to NSI, then the database wasn't property of the SRI, and that its creation was part of the contract. So it would still be property of the NSF. On the otherhand, I suppose that SRI could state it originally owned the DB, and gave it to NSI under private arrangements not related to NSF.... So perhaps one should look for such a directive from the NSF to the SRI, and whether SRI thought the database belonged to it or to the NSF. It seems to me that given these rules, a federal agency could trivially avoid both the FOIA and Privacy Act merely by outsourcing the creation and administration of its records. I don't think that it was the intention for either of these acts to allow that, so perhaps that might be an argument, too. --Dean At 02:14 PM 9/3/98 -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: >>o Is focused on whether the whois database is within the purview of >> the Privacy Act of 1974, but doesn't directly address the ownership >> of the whois database; >> >>o Doesn't discuss the relevance of the FARs, which explicitly talk >> about the ownership rights of government contractors; and >> >>o Says that the NSF asserts that NSI owns the whois database. > >Actually, I just read Karls page. The NSF just says it doesn't maintain the >database and that the database Karl refers to is maintained by NSI, and >therefore NSF isn't subject to or can't respond to Privacy Act requests on >this particular database. (The implication here being that NSI might still >be) Perhaps that is true. > >But where the NSF says the database is created by NSI I think is factually >incorrect. "The so-called domain name database to which you refer consists >of information collected, maintained and used by NSI pursuant to that >cooperative.." NSI did not collect or create the database. It was >transferred to them from the NSF, which formerly maintained the database. >According the NSF letter, there apparently weren't any domain registrations >prior to the formation of NSI, which we know is incorrect. > >Indeed, as the NSF states "the FOIA applies to records which have been in >fact obtained...". The database, having been created by the NSF, was "in >fact obtained" by the NSF. > >Perhaps what Karl should do is write another letter to ask if on say, >December 1st, 1989, did the NSF maintain such a database, and did his name >appear in it. > >I suspect the answer to that question would be in the affirmative, or at >least to the effect that "NSF did maintain such a database at that time, >but we can't determine if your name appeared..." > >Then he should ask NSI the same question, since while the FOIA and privacy >act wouldn't apply to databases CREATED by NSI, it would apply to databases >RECEIVED from the NSF, and subsequently maintained by NSI. And see what >their answer is. I think he could also point out that the database would >be given back to the NSF in the event of contract termination, or to >another subcontractor if the contract were re-assigned to someone else, so >the database is really "materials belonging the the NSF", and subject to >the Privacy and FOIA Acts. > > --Dean >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com > LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-010 | Update on Whois
by Dean Anderson 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

You are saying that "pummelling the database resources" for marketing info is bad. I presume by pummeling, you mean doing whois queries. Of course, if the database is sold on a CDRom by NSI, then there is no wasted network resources, and hence no "pummeling" While I agree that network whois queries to NSI for marketing information may not be appropriate or at the least, the best use of resources, I don't see that using the information (after appropriately obtaining it) for marketing purposes is wrong. Culling contact information for marketing products is no different than getting conference attendee lists for marketing purposes. Thats just how the system works. You need the marketing information on new products as badly as the companies need to distribute information on their products to make sales. I think the problem of whois database ownership is important because of the potential for unfairness on the part of NSI. Everyone should have equal access to the information. If ESnet gets the whole database in a day, and smaller providers get partial access in a say, a week, or not at all, that is a big source of unfair competitive advantage. That should not be allowed to happen. --Dean At 02:55 PM 9/2/98 -0500, Andy Walden wrote: >> >Yes. Thats not the intent of the whois database in my opinion. Marketing >> >and general greed causes the most problems on the Internet and generates >> >the most instances of someone trying to exploit something for the almighty >> >dollar. >> >> for, or rarely the admin contact), but for others it is the company name. >> What makes their use "WRONG" and mine "RIGHT"? > >Your not doing it for profit's sake, en mass, without consideration for >resources. You manually do a whois when you need a piece of information >about a domain that probably has to do with some technical issue. A >marketing leech would just find a tech guy to write him a program that >would pummel the database so he could use that information to make himself >a profit. That wasn't the intention of the database. What about querying >other database's for marketing information. Such as public court documents >(i'm not sure what the intended market would be), but thats just not the >intended use of the information provided. People exploiting the situation. >Yeah, I know welcome to the real world and such...just stating.. > > >-andy > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

Ameritech must be talking to the PA PUC
by Steven J. Sobol 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

"Late news" - Crains Cleveland Business 8/31/98 [Note: How was it determined that these were Internet calls? Well, until recently, ICG did not provide dialtone in Cleveland to anyone except ISP's.] Ameritech Loses Regulatory Dispute The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio last week ended a long battle between Denver-based ICG Communications INC. and Ameritech Corp. over fees charged to connect Internet calls. The PUCO ruled in favor of ICG, which contended that Ameritech owed it $4 million for connecting Ameritech customers' calls to Internet service providers. Ameritech previously refused to pay the charges, arguing that Internet calls are long-distance calls, not local calls, and thus weren't subject to the mandated connection fees. Ameritech spokesman Kim Norris said Ameritech has not decided whether to appeal the ruling. -- "You know, I've decided lizards aren't too smart." --Me, to "Junior", one of my iguanas

2 2

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-010 | Update on Whois
by David H. Holtzman 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

I'd like to add some amplifying information : Two companies are responsible for over 30% of the hits coming into Whois. They are not major ISPs. This is almost three times as much as ALL AOL users combined. What we are talking about here is abuse of a needed service and as such should not be confused with peripheral business issues. David H. Holtzman Sr VP Engineering, Network Solutions dholtz(a)internic.net

3 2

Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5
by Jim Fleming 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Dean Anderson <dean(a)av8.com> To: Tim Salo <salo(a)networkcs.com> Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 1:41 PM Subject: Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5 >>o Is focused on whether the whois database is within the purview of >> the Privacy Act of 1974, but doesn't directly address the ownership >> of the whois database; >> >>o Doesn't discuss the relevance of the FARs, which explicitly talk >> about the ownership rights of government contractors; and >> >>o Says that the NSF asserts that NSI owns the whois database. > >Actually, I just read Karls page. The NSF just says it doesn't maintain the >database and that the database Karl refers to is maintained by NSI, and >therefore NSF isn't subject to or can't respond to Privacy Act requests on >this particular database. (The implication here being that NSI might still >be) Perhaps that is true. > I would think that all people interested in the legal issues of the Registry Industry would want to study these documents closely. http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/ In my opinion, the declaration by George Strawn of the NSF is very misleading. He spends a lot of time pointing out minutia, fails to mention significant history, and then draws conclusions based on technical FUD. Some of the other letters from Don Mitchell of the NSF are also critical to the history here. Don Mitchell works at the NSF for George Strawn. He has been the Program Manager for the InterNIC contracts. It is clear that he has been one of the primary people responsible for the delays in adding new TLDs to the legacy Root Name Servers. Don Mitchell has been responsible for a variety of actions which favor NSI. For example, at one point NSI took over the IS tasks of the InterNIC from General Atomics. Part of that activity was the Network Scout. When NSI needed to divest itself of the costs of the Network Scout to prepare for their IPO, Don Mitchell approved a $3,000,000 NSF grant on the day that the Network Scout was terminated. It remained on the InterNIC web site. This was essentially an indirect $3M grant to NSI which did not have to show up on the books of NSI as additional funding. http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showaward?award=9712163 http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showaward?award=9218749 The NSF has an annual budget of over $3.8 BILLION dollars. With that amount of money they can easily manipulate industries that depend on intellectual property. The Congress continues to allow them to do this with apparently no concern about the negative impacts on society. Apparently, members of Congress do not understand the fragile nature of intellectual property or the service and software based economy that we now have. If they did, they would not allow the 900 lb. NSF gorrilla to run free in these fragile industries. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com

1 0

Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5
by Dean Anderson 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

>o Is focused on whether the whois database is within the purview of > the Privacy Act of 1974, but doesn't directly address the ownership > of the whois database; > >o Doesn't discuss the relevance of the FARs, which explicitly talk > about the ownership rights of government contractors; and > >o Says that the NSF asserts that NSI owns the whois database. Actually, I just read Karls page. The NSF just says it doesn't maintain the database and that the database Karl refers to is maintained by NSI, and therefore NSF isn't subject to or can't respond to Privacy Act requests on this particular database. (The implication here being that NSI might still be) Perhaps that is true. But where the NSF says the database is created by NSI I think is factually incorrect. "The so-called domain name database to which you refer consists of information collected, maintained and used by NSI pursuant to that cooperative.." NSI did not collect or create the database. It was transferred to them from the NSF, which formerly maintained the database. According the NSF letter, there apparently weren't any domain registrations prior to the formation of NSI, which we know is incorrect. Indeed, as the NSF states "the FOIA applies to records which have been in fact obtained...". The database, having been created by the NSF, was "in fact obtained" by the NSF. Perhaps what Karl should do is write another letter to ask if on say, December 1st, 1989, did the NSF maintain such a database, and did his name appear in it. I suspect the answer to that question would be in the affirmative, or at least to the effect that "NSF did maintain such a database at that time, but we can't determine if your name appeared..." Then he should ask NSI the same question, since while the FOIA and privacy act wouldn't apply to databases CREATED by NSI, it would apply to databases RECEIVED from the NSF, and subsequently maintained by NSI. And see what their answer is. I think he could also point out that the database would be given back to the NSF in the event of contract termination, or to another subcontractor if the contract were re-assigned to someone else, so the database is really "materials belonging the the NSF", and subject to the Privacy and FOIA Acts. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

Re: Crazy flying netbios packets
by Paul Thornton 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Pete Ashdown wrote: > Has anyone done any estimates on how much net-wide traffic is useless > netbios udp? Are there any suggestions for cutting large chunks of this > out of my network without punishing SAMBA and other users who need it? On the subject of Windows generated useless traffic, I have been woking with RIPE to look at how many queries to k.root-servers.net are for dud TLDs - the majority of which are caused by Windows using the DNS to look up the local NT domain name - requests of the form "FOO." The results are somewhat scary - it seems that around 20% of all queries are generated by this behaviour. I can't give you any more info at present, as we are still working on the data - it is literally something I am in the middle of doing at the moment, but wanted to give a quick heads up to folks in the light of this thread. Paul -- Paul Thornton Office Tel: +44 1733 705000 London Internet Exchange www.linx.net Mobile: +44 467 372205

2 1

b.root-servers
by jamie＠dilbert.ais.net 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

Is it me, or does b.root-servers.net look hosered? Since about 6:45 am (cdt) ? -jamie -- jamie rishaw (efnet:gavroche) American Information Systems, Inc. Tel:312.425.7140, FAX:312.425.7240 Help stop spam! router(config)#no ip routing thirty thousand feet above the earth..youre a beautiful thing..

3 2

Re: Crazy flying netbios packets
by jprovo＠ma.ultranet.com 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

[snip] > My fear (uneducated on the matter) is that it is not WebTrends but > Microsoft's gethostbyaddr() call which would mean that this type of > crazy 137/udp WINS resolution traffic is more commonly mis-used than > we think. There's probably something to this; since the advent of '95, I've seen windoze users trying to hit the classful broadcast of the netblock of their IP address. using /16s across sites makes this sort of stuff obvious. I've taken to squashing it at PoP-egress, and not trying to change the customers, as it is undoubtably just some as-shipped default. Joe -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 508.229.8400 x3006 Commercial Internet Services Group Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc., an RCN Company <jprovo(a)ultra.net>

1 0

Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

> > And, what makes you think that NSI doesn't have intellectual property > rights to the whois database. Again, please frame your answer in the > context of the applicable Federal law and regulations, probably the > FARs and the contract or cooperative agreement between NSI and the NSF. > Under both common law and various federal regulations, NSI has posession of that data because of a federal contract supported and (previously) paid for by taxpayers. As such, at least that much of the data is, by law, in the public domain. Additionally, it is not hard to draw a parallel between NSI using that data for competitive advantage or marketing purposes and the DMV selling off the information on drivers licenses and vehicle registrations. At least in most state with which I am familiar, this is not permitted. In fact, worst case, it would be like the DMV simply using the database as a contact list for a mail-order or other business. This, too, is not permitted under law in most states. > And, even if NSI doesn't "own" rights (either copyright or trade secret) to > the whois database, what makes you think that NSI must provide the > database to anyone else? And, if NSI is obligated to provide the database > to another party, (e.g., the U.S. Government), what makes you think that > that party is permitted or obligated to provide it to another party? > Not having read the particular cooperative agreement, and not knowing what the current agreement between NSI and the IANA/IAB/IETF/whoever is, I don't know what obligations are actually spelled out. What I do know is this: If the people who contracted with NSI had half a clue, the document should have been written such that all DNS and WHOIS information was to be treated as a work for hire, and that copyright and title should rest with the public trust of the internet, either in the form of the IANA/IAB/IETF/... or in the public domain. > I don't know that the answers are to these questions, but I haven't met > anyone who I thought had a clue either. > I welcome your judgements. > -tjs > Owen

1 0