Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1524
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Tuesday, December 10 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1524

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 08:05:07 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, andsystemintegrity

To know that giving trademarks superior rights into a domain name is bad
idea you only have to read following MDRP decision.

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/114371.htm
http://sex.shop.steinle.biz (with links to evidences)
http://www.steinle.law.pro (for PacifcRoot users with links to evidences)

Not anyone is that stupid to tell the public that he is only registering a
trademark to grab the corresponding domain name. And you can't find details
about anyones size of business (proxy business to legitimate trademark
application) online.
If I would not have found this information I most likely would have lost my
domain name.

You may also check the STOP case regarding sex.biz to know that giving
trademarks superior rights into a domain name is bad idea.

Regards,
Simon

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>;
"Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>; "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails,
andsystemintegrity

> Marilyn and all assembly members,
>
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > I'm not focused at all on "short catchy" names, Michael, UNLESS they are
trademarked...
>
>   Well this is good to hear.  I can only suspect or surmise that this
would also
> include that "Short Catchy" name, AT&T or ATT as well?  >;)
>
> >
> >
> > maybe that helps?
>
>   Not really.  Nice spin though...  >;)
>
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> > [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 3:52 PM
> > To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> > Cc: Karl Auerbach; George Kirikos; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails,
> > andsystemintegrity
> >
> > I note that you are changing the subject rather than responding.  Why is
> > that?  Is it because I'm right?  You may know my views on things, but I
> > certainly don't know how you can make the first and third sentences of
> > the post I responded to both seem accurate at the same time.  I think
they
> > are contradictory.
> >
> > But, since you ask about these new things....
> >
> > On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> >
> > > Michael, I know your views, but I've never heard your views on how the
> > > rights of the individual might be put at risk when they unknowingly
> > > infringe... and therefore can't use a name because they blundered into
> > > a territory where someone has rights..
> >
> > I don't understand the hypo.  If the individual use is non-commercial,
the
> > indivdual is not an infringer, so there is no issue: their use is legal.
> > Those are the interests, oft trampeled on, that I care most about.
> >
> > If the use is commercial, the use is not infringing unless the name is
> > very famous (subject to correction in the pending Victoria's Secret
case)
> > or the use is in the same line of goods in the relevant
> > jurisdiction/terriotry. In neither of those cases am I overyly
sympathetic
> > to the poor small business person who should have done a trademark
search.
> > Those are the rules of the game.  I am concerned about claims that many
> > marks should be seen as famous enought to command federal dilution
> > protection -- that is a trap for the unwary.
> >
> > >
> > > .... the purpose of putting up a site is USUALLY to communicate with
> > > the public.  what advantage is it to the user when they register a
> > > name which someone disputes and they are tied up in a UDRP or a court
> > > action...
> >
> > If their use is legal, then other people shouldn't bring frivolous
cases;
> > if they do they should pay.  I support requiring a bond for UDRP
> > complainants to be lost if the case is deemed to be frivolous.
> >
> > >
> > > .... MOST users want to move quickly to getting a name, getting a web
> > > site, and doing "business/communications"... and getting delayed is a
> > > problem to them.
> >
> > The implicit suggestion that people should thererfore cede all short
> > catchy names (all of which are trademarked for SOMETHING) to the
> > commercial sector is to me quite revolting as an attack on our common
> > language.
> >
> > >
> > > I know, I know,.... as an academic, you want to and need to also
> > > protect all other possible avenues/perspectives, etc.
> >
> > Let's consider the fate of the English language.  Just about every noun
> > and adjective is trademarked for something.  I think I have a right to
> > those words too.
> >
> > >
> > > but consider the "average" user... wanting to merely get to work, so
> > > to speak... I've never heard you on that topic... only on the
> > > adversarial side of the equation.
> >
> > Again, I'm not sure what you mean.  if you mean that 'average' users
> > should be counseled to avoid all the nice catchy names because someone,
> > somewhere, has a trademark on it for something, we don't live on the
same
> > mental, legal or political planet.  But perhaps you meant something
else?
> >
> > >
> > > It's interesting, but perhaps someone else might speak on the aspect
> > > of those who want to avoid conflicts and merely know that they can
> > > register a name, use it, and not have to fight over it...
> >
> > Nope, that's what you mean.  No thanks.
> >
> > >
> > > Probably depends on the agenda of the registrant, of course.  :0)
> > >
> >
> > Actually, it depends more on the rapacity of the trademark bar.
> >
> > > I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate conflicts. That is why we
> > > supported the UDRP. It might not be prefect, but it offered a lower
> > > cost solution for the disputed names for individuals and small
> > > organizations/entities, not just corporations.
> >
> > The UDRP has enormous built-in problems, including the intellectual
> > dishonesty of a *small but vocal* fraction of the arbitrator pool, the
> > unwillingness of the providers to accept a balanced panel of arbitrators
> > (WIPO, for example, won't have me as an arbitrator), and many many
> > procedural flaws discussed at some length in
> > http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> > > [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:40 PM
> > > To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> > > Cc: Karl Auerbach; George Kirikos; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails,
> > > andsystemintegrity
> > >
> > >
> > > Your first and third sentences below contradict each other.  I believe
the
> > > first is correct and the third is not: ICANN does not "rely on
existing
> > > trademark law".  Instead, it gives TM holders considerable extra-legal
> > > protection -- more than the law requires, e.g. in the 'landrush'
rules.
> > >
> > > In adopting plans "developed outside of ICANN" ICANN consciously
> > > discriminates against everyone without a trademark for the benefit of
> > > those who lobbied for those advantages. There is a good case to be
made
> > > that this lobbying of a private corporation (ICANN) by private firms
to,
> > > in effect, rig the market is an anti-trust violation, and that the
firms
> > > who lobbied ICANN for it are guilty of a combination in restraint of
> > > trade.
> > >
> > > Firms who employ persons engaged in such lobbying may wish to consult
> > > counsel, and may wish to reconsider the wisdom of using ICANN to
secure
> > > market advantages. Cf.
> > > http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf
> > >
> > > A revised version of the article will be published in the Illinois Law
> > > Review early in 2003.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > >
> > > > Karl, In this post, you are misinterpreting ICANN's ADOPTION of
> > > > trademark protection developed OUTSIDE of ICANN, WITH ICANN
DEVELOPING
> > > > NEW IP LAWS. I am not a lawyer, but I was there through all of this
> > > > debate, and played a rather visible and central role in developing
the
> > > > concept. ICANN relies on existing trademark law.
> > > >
> > > > I am disappointed in this attribution. It's "interesting" but
> > > > flawed... and not like you.
> > > >
> > > > Marilyn
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 4:03 PM
> > > > To: George Kirikos
> > > > Cc: [email-masked]
> > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails,
and
> > > > systemintegrity
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, George Kirikos wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The domain industry needs to have some stronger and explicit ICANN
> > > > > policies (and not just "registry policies that do not disagree
with
> > > > > ICANN policies")...
> > > > ...
> > > > > It shouldn't have to be "caveat emptor", etc....we need stronger
> > > > > protections, like real estate.
> > > >
> > > > ICANN is not a legislature, neither is it a sheriff nor is it a
judge and
> > > > jury.
> > > >
> > > > The efforts of the trademark industry to turn ICANN into all of
those have
> > > > resulted in many of ICANN's problems.
> > > >
> > > > We should be shrinking ICANN's role, rather than increasing it.
> > > >
> > > > If you look for the protection of rights and if you feel that you
have an
> > > > unequal bargaining power to enter into contracts that protect your
> > > > interests, then the place to go is a legislature, not ICANN.
> > > >
> > > >             --karl--
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> >                         -->It's warm here.<--
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:54:45 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, andsystemintegrity

From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>

> I'm not focused at all on "short catchy" names, Michael, UNLESS they are
trademarked...

Then quit being a hypocrite and stop using this one:

Word Mark: CADE'S

Registration Number 1453657

Registration Date August 18, 1987

Owner (REGISTRANT) HOSTS OF AMERICA INC. CORPORATION WASHINGTON 4838 N.E.
SANDY BLVD. PORTLAND OREGON 97213

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:22:30 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, and system integrity

- --part1_127.1c826ca7.2b264776_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en

In a message dated 7/12/02 03:42:25 GMT Standard Time, [email-masked]=20
writes:

> There are many who think that our Internet situation is somehow new and
> unique.  It is not. The internet is not the first situation in which
> people have had to deal with cross jurisdictional protection of perceived
> rights.  In fact, issues such as these have been around since the time of
> Columbus.  And solutions have existed since time time of the Medicis.
>=20
>=20

Thanks Karl -- I found the recent report reflecting on your thoughts helpful=
.=20
With regard to the above, colleagues (particularly those who have read=20
Michael's commentary on the WIPO report) will recognise the following:

=E2=80=9CTheDomain Name System (DNS) has presented a set of problems for int=
ellectual=20
property policy, as well as a set of opportunities, that are perhaps unique=20
inthe historical development of the intellectual property system.  The=20
problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of a technical addressing=20
systemto functions and purposes beyond those for which it was=20
originallydesigned.  In addition to providing a human friendly, reliable and=
=20
stablerooting system, the DNS has given rise to identifiers that are used=20
forcommercial, cultural, governmental, political and social purposes, both o=
n=20
theInternet itself and in similar contexts beyond the Internet. =20
Theopportunities arise from the hierarchical design of the DNS=20
and the set of contractual relations that bind ICANN, registries, registrars=
=20
and domain nameholders in various relationships, thereby providing a means=20
for implementingcommon terms of policy in those relationships.=E2=80=9D

Would I be right in inferring from your general view both on this email list=
=20
and recent account of your thoughts in the newspaper article that we now hav=
e:

(i) dissonance between theory and practice (ie ad hoc jurisprudence or in=20
your words "amateur" rulings)

(ii) governance policy being informed by pragmatism rather than established=20
"theoretical" arguments; consequently the "first come first served" rule=20
becoming captured by the rent seeking conglomerates?

Some clarification would be helpful.

Joseph Savirimuthu

Liverpool Law School

- --part1_127.1c826ca7.2b264776_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  COLOR=3D"#0080ff" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=
=3D"SERIF" FACE=3D"Bookman Old Style" LANG=3D"0"><B>In a message dated 7/12/=
02 03:42:25 GMT Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Ar=
ial" LANG=3D"0"></B>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-=
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">There are many who think th=
at our Internet situation is somehow new and
<BR>unique. &nbsp;It is not. The internet is not the first situation in whic=
h
<BR>people have had to deal with cross jurisdictional protection of perceive=
d
<BR>rights. &nbsp;In fact, issues such as these have been around since the t=
ime of
<BR>Columbus. &nbsp;And solutions have existed since time time of the Medici=
s.
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Ar=
ial" LANG=3D"0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#0080ff" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF" FACE=3D"Bookma=
n Old Style" LANG=3D"0"><B><BR>Thanks Karl -- I found the recent report refl=
ecting on your thoughts helpful. With regard to the above, colleagues (parti=
cularly those who have read Michael's commentary on the WIPO report) will re=
cognise the following:<BR>=E2=80=9CTheDomain Name System (DNS) has presented=
 a set of problems for intellectual property policy, as well as a set of opp=
ortunities, that are perhaps unique inthe historical development of the inte=
llectual property system. &nbsp;The problems arise from the spontaneous adap=
tation of a technical addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond thos=
e for which it was originallydesigned. &nbsp;In addition to providing a huma=
n friendly, reliable and stablerooting system, the DNS has given rise to ide=
ntifiers that are used forcommercial, cultural, governmental, political and=20=
social purposes, both on theInternet itself and in similar contexts beyond t=
he Internet. &nbsp;Theopportunities arise from the hierarchical design of th=
e DNS and the set of contractual relations that bind ICANN, registries, regi=
strars and domain nameholders in various relationships, thereby providing a=20=
means for implementingcommon terms of policy in those relationships.=E2=80=
=9D<BR><BR><BR>Would I be right in inferring from your general view both on=20=
this email list and recent account of your thoughts in the newspaper article=
 that we now have:<BR>(i) dissonance between theory and practice (ie ad hoc=20=
jurisprudence or in your words "amateur" rulings)<BR>(ii) governance policy=20=
being informed by pragmatism rather than established "theoretical" arguments=
; consequently the "first come first served" rule becoming captured by the r=
ent seeking conglomerates?<BR><BR>Some clarification would be helpful.<BR><B=
R>Joseph Savirimuthu<BR>Liverpool Law School</B></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_127.1c826ca7.2b264776_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:07:58 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, andsystemintegrity

You know that I have nothing to do with that registration, John. 

but it was rather clever of you. :-)

- -----Original Message-----
From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:55 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Cc: Karl Auerbach; George Kirikos; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails,
andsystemintegrity

From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>

> I'm not focused at all on "short catchy" names, Michael, UNLESS they are
trademarked...

Then quit being a hypocrite and stop using this one:

Word Mark: CADE'S

Registration Number 1453657

Registration Date August 18, 1987

Owner (REGISTRANT) HOSTS OF AMERICA INC. CORPORATION WASHINGTON 4838 N.E.
SANDY BLVD. PORTLAND OREGON 97213

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:21:48 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, andsystemintegrity

At 4:07 PM -0500 12/9/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>You know that I have nothing to do with that registration, John.

So your continued use of the name Cade would be violating that TM owners
rights?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 23:55:08 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, and system integrity

- --=======1A2330CE=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-774F2192; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 20:22 09/12/02, [email-masked] said:
>The problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of a technical 
>addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond those for which it was 
>originallydesigned.

I am sorry to object. The problems arise from the lack of analysis by IAB 
and USG of what a network system is. That lack of analysis is general and 
creates as much problems at TM level as at technology level.

Let try to make it quickly. When you turn a key in a lock, the hardware 
logic says closed/open. That logic has been used in hardware system up to 
the Versailles Great Waters, or mid-XX century cashiers.

The lamps and then transistors came and millions of electronic lockers 
started supporting software. And we developed applications. You facing the 
application on your screen.  We build big applications. Then they went 
remote and computers were accessed though a "network". That network was a 
computer access network, hardware and software (the Internet), 
interconnecting access and broadcast technologies. That lead to the use of 
the "information" word which is quite the old "informatique" word in Latin 
languages.

This hide the extension. Progressively millions of brains started using (no 
more only watching) the same application through the network. This awaken 
the "noosphere" (a word coined by Teilhard de Chardin in the 30s) and 
developed the Cybernetics (by Wiener and in here more Coufignal in the 
40s). the science of the feed back. TV has no feed back and is no "cyber". 
What apply in there is the "brainware". The way all the users' brain 
consider the system - never mind if they are mistaken (like in their belief 
the root is important) - what counts is what they believe and will do out 
of this belief.

Now let come back to TM. TMs are commercial mnemonics for a class and a 
county. As mnemonics they are in/from your brain. Now, your brain has been 
induced a brainware rule : "the mnemonic IBM will probably make a good 
candidate for ibm.com on the Internet, if not try ibm.net then depending on 
your country try ibm.fr or ibm.uk and if it does not work use Goggle".

That brainware resolution is a totally separate task from the DNS 
resolution into an IP address. Of real different essence. Such brainware 
resolution uses a mnemonic which is protected by TM rules. Confusing the 
layers make the DN affected by the TM laws what is absurd (the same as if 
the printer was sued to have printed a TM label for a customer).and totally 
inapplicable as in violation of many TM rules (I note that Michael is only 
considering the US registrations, what about the Iraqi registrations, or 
the French or the Andorran?).

Putting the problem back into its proper perspective permits to understand 
what applies to what. One does not sue a newspaper because it reported on a 
famous or non famous TM. Internet is like a news paper : it is a way to 
access information. Only a medium. The confusion beween information 
(software) and content (brainware) inhérited from the confusion and lack of 
proper English wording above make believe that the Internet is a media and 
is responsible. It is not. Your brain is resposible, not your voice.

When DNs are "misused", it only is because the mnemonic is misused.
jfc

- --=======1A2330CE=======--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 18:16:44 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails,andsystemintegrity

Are we wasting air time, intelligence, and efforts by some who want to find endeavors of "good will" even when disagrements exist? So that progress can be made?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Andy Gardner [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 4:22 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit
trails,andsystemintegrity

At 4:07 PM -0500 12/9/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>You know that I have nothing to do with that registration, John.

So your continued use of the name Cade would be violating that TM owners
rights?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 20:17:31 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails,andsystemintegrity

At 6:16 PM -0500 12/9/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>Are we wasting air time, intelligence, and efforts by some who want to
>find endeavors of "good will" even when disagrements exist? So that
>progress can be made?

Read: "I'll work to ensure TM holders rights eclipse private citizens
within the ICANN system (because that's what I'm being paid to do), but
will ignore the fact that I'm a violator myself.

I'll just try and make out the people that expose me are "wasting air time
and intelligence" because I have no real answer to their argument and would
like this conversation to go away before I really embarrass myself."

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Gardner [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 4:22 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit
>trails,andsystemintegrity
>
>
>At 4:07 PM -0500 12/9/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>>You know that I have nothing to do with that registration, John.
>
>So your continued use of the name Cade would be violating that TM owners
>rights?
>
>
>--
>Andrew P. Gardner
>barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
>We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
>Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 21:08:06 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, andsystemintegrity

John and all assembly members,

  Good satire here John.  Well done!  ROFLMAO!  I also wonder if the
holder of the "Cade" Mark has been contacted about Mailyn's use and
whether they have granted some limited rights for her to use it?  >;)

  Than again what about http://www.cade.org/?  >;)  Seems Marilyn may
also be infringing there perhaps.  A UDRP filing in order perhaps?

  I can only hope that Cade Thacker, the owner of this site won't be
too offended nor will the TM holder you listed below, John.  >;)

  Than there is  http://www.cades.com .   Very interesting here, as
that one also seem to be one of those "Short Catchy" DN's as well
that happens to be a Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, A Limited Liability Law
Corporation web site.  I wonder also if they might not be particularly
irritated at Marilyn or anyone that might be passing off of their use
of "Cades".  But I understand that they are rebranding themselves.
See: http://www.cades.com/FirmNews/News.cfm?id=4 in particular,
"The most noticeable change will be shortening the firm’s 10-word
name (four partner names, some legal mumbo jumbo and an
ampersand) to “Cades Schutte” and incorporating it into a logo."

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
>
> > I'm not focused at all on "short catchy" names, Michael, UNLESS they are
> trademarked...
>
> Then quit being a hypocrite and stop using this one:
>
> Word Mark: CADE'S
>
> Registration Number 1453657
>
> Registration Date August 18, 1987
>
> Owner (REGISTRANT) HOSTS OF AMERICA INC. CORPORATION WASHINGTON 4838 N.E.
> SANDY BLVD. PORTLAND OREGON 97213
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 21:21:20 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails,andsystemintegrity

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  The progress that can and should be made or already have been made
that some of this joking is trying to point out to you and the BC/IPC
constituencies is that Domain Names and TM names, do not and cannot
be associated legally speaking and still have a stable, usable and
adequately addressable DNS and internet

 Or,

  Change you last name Marilyn, and than your E-Mail address to meet the
standard that you, the BC and the IPC seem to be insisting upon, if you,
the BC and the IPC are serious regarding those "Short Catchy" DN's...

  How long, and in how many different direct or indirect ways, does this
need to be pointed out to the BC, IPC, yourself, and now ICANN before
you "Get it"?

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Are we wasting air time, intelligence, and efforts by some who want to find endeavors of "good will" even when disagrements exist? So that progress can be made?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Gardner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 4:22 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit
> trails,andsystemintegrity
>
> At 4:07 PM -0500 12/9/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> >You know that I have nothing to do with that registration, John.
>
> So your continued use of the name Cade would be violating that TM owners
> rights?
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:54:29 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FC: What's so bad about Total Information Awareness? by Ben Brunk

All assembly members,

  This might be of some interest with respect to the
Whois and privacy concerns related to Homeland Security
Department...

 Very good questions possed here...

================  From Politech follows ================
- ---

Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 22:34:13 -0500
From: Ben Brunk <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Debunking TIA

Declan,

I'm in the middle of writing a dissertation relating to online privacy,
but 
I have been completely sidetracked by the recent discussion over the
Total 
Information Awareness program authorized by the Homeland Security bill
that 
just passed into law.  All I've seen so far are a lot of reactionary 
editorials written by people who haven't put an ounce of effort into 
analyzing the proposed system.  They seem infatuated with the TIA logo,
its 
slogan, and Poindexter.  I have read, with avid fascination, all the
dire 
predictions and scary stories about a new Big Brother system spearheaded
by 
a felon who managed to avoid accountability.  What I have yet to see is
a 
rational analysis of the idea itself from someone who knows something
about 
computers, databases and statistics. I hope to fill in that gap as best
I 
can, though I'm sure there are experts out there with even better 
background in the appropriate research fields.

 From what I have been able to find out about the TIA program, it is 
supposed to be a massive computerized dragnet that culls information
from 
dozens of different sources and is intended to locate potential
terrorists 
so that government agents can scrutinize them more closely.  This system 
will draw data from sources such as credit reports, bank records,
airline 
reservation systems, police records, gun purchase records, and many
others.

Many of these sources of information are private databases owned and 
maintained by the corporations that rely on them.  Even if they were all 
implemented in say, Oracle, it would be difficult to match up records to 
any reliable degree.  Who knows if the John Poindexter in one database
is 
the same as Jon Pointdexter in another?  The social security number,
which 
is apparently the holy grail of database keys, is not necessarily going
to 
help since many of these companies did not collect it or use it as a
key. 
Name and address might make a good cross referencing key, but people
move 
all the time, and I get three catalogs from a company that I purchased 
items from three times-even their internal database is not sophisticated 
enough to detect slight differences in spacing or my apartment number
using 
a '#' instead of  'apt' or 'apartment'.  This is just inside one 
organization; we're not even trying to connect any dots yet.  It will be 
easier to match records kept by the government, especially if they
include 
SSNs and fingerprints.  However, errors in government databases are well 
documented (although not readily admitted to). Those systems contain
large 
numbers of errors, and even when errors are located and fixed, they have
a 
nasty tendency of recurring when data is shared or re-shared.  If you
fix 
an error in your Experian credit report, but not TRW, often times, the 
Experian error will reappear.  Many people play this sort of "whack a
mole" 
game for years.

Another matter that no journalist has touched on, and the one I think is 
the biggest nail in TIA's coffin, is the matter of database error are 
several orders of magnitude higher than the number of terrorists in the 
world.  All databases contain errors.  Data culled from multiple, 
heterogeneous sources is going to have lots of errors.  I don't have 
current estimates on the average expected error rate in a database, but 
let's suppose it is 5%.  That means that in any given database, 95% of
the 
data is right and 5% of it is junk.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Errors
such 
as misspellings, flipped bits, juxtaposed numbers, and transaction
entries 
that never took place or were unintentionally duplicated or omitted. 
Five 
percent isn't a big deal until you look at it on the scale of what TIA
is 
proposing.  There are approximately 300 million people in the United 
States.  Those 300 million people are very busy consumers, and their
paper 
trail is enormous.  There are trillions of transaction records, log 
entries, and records that TIA would have to amass, standardize, and then 
examine.  Even if the government buys all the necessary computing power
and 
the very best staff, the government can't do anything about randomness.
The 
5% expected error rate is the monkey wrench in the works.  5% of 300 
million is 15,000,000.  Multiply that number by however many data points 
will be looked at.  Say 500 data points for each person.  Now we are 
looking at 300 million times 500, or 150,000,000,000 data points. 5% of 
that number leaves us with 7,500,000,000.  Seven and one half billion
data 
points if they want to look at every American.  Worse, this is not a 
one-time scan.  For any hope of success, they would have to look 
longitudinally.  That is, every year, month, day, hour, whatever.  Some 
indications of terrorism are very subtle:  People who plan terror don't 
just run out and buy their entire list of bomb making ingredients in one 
day and then book a flight.  Terrorists are slow and methodical.  They
plan 
over months and years.  So what we're looking at here is 7.5 billion
data 
points examined day in and day out for years and years.  With a 5% error 
rate, the number of false positives is outrageous, no matter what
analysis 
technique used (and any analysis technique will have its own error
rate). 
There is not enough manpower in the entire federal government to
possibly 
track down every lead generated, even if much of that work is automated. 
With each passing day, homeland security will drown a little more in a 
hopeless pile of randomly generated false leads that grow even on
weekends 
and holidays.

Let's suppose there are 1,000 terrorists hiding out in the USA, waiting
to 
strike, which I personally think is a greatly exaggerated number.  We
know 
from the actions taken on 9/11 that these people are fairly cunning. 
They 
know how to hide from the system and how to hide in plain sight.  They
pay 
in cash, or they buy what they need by proxy, and they don't act any 
different than anyone else.  Like the millions of illegal immigrants in
the 
US, terrorist operatives are good at using social networks to "fly below 
the radar" and subvert the system.  One thousand people is a lot, but
1,000 
out of 300 million is 3.33 * 10^-6, or .000033%.  In other words, TIA
would 
be looking for a miniscule fraction of 1% of the population in their 
database, the exact people who are going out of their way to escape 
detection.  With an error rate of even 1%, detecting such a tiny
fraction 
would be impossible.  You would not be able to separate the signal from
the 
noise, no matter what techniques were used.  Pollsters run into this 
problem every election season when the 'margin of error' rises to a
level 
greater than the projected differential between the candidates.  3%
margin 
of error in a race where the candidates differ by 1% is "too close to 
call."  The same problem exists for scanning all airport baggage, but
that 
is fodder for another day.  The only way TIA would work is if some high 
percentage of Americans were terrorists-20%, 50%, whatever.  Only then 
could there be enough comparison data in both sets to draw testable 
conclusions from and be assured that those conclusions were not just
random 
error phenomena.

Let's look at this on a much smaller scale:  Suppose the system worked
well 
enough each day to render a list of 10,000 people, one (1) of which is
an 
actual terrorist (unbelievably good odds for the government).  The 
government has a .0001% probability of successfully picking the
terrorist 
each day (using this system alone).  Could the FBI/CIA/NSA/whatever even 
investigate 10,000 people with other techniques carefully enough each
day 
to locate the one terrorist?  Could they do it in a month or a year?  I 
suppose the government could err on the side of caution and detain large 
numbers of people, place them in custody, and hold them indefinitely 
without due process until certain that they weren't terrorists.  But
that 
action presents nightmarish logistical and humanitarian prospects.  The
US 
prison population is bursting at the seams with an all time high of two 
million.  There would have to be enormous concentration camps for the 
millions of suspected terrorists who would be detained until their 
innocence is proven.  That begs the question:  Is it even possible to
prove 
you are innocent in the current legal climate?  The Red Scare (and the
more 
recent FBI watch lists) has already taught us the folly of black lists
and 
unsubstantiated accusations.

Lastly, data mining as a useful technique has been thoroughly debunked. 
It 
never lived up to its promises.  This is why you don't hear much about
data 
mining in the CS and IS literature these days; what of it that is left
has 
morphed into the more esoteric "knowledge management" or KD.  Like AI,
it 
turned out to be quite a bit more difficult to do than expected and has 
been largely abandoned.  Had anyone in the government actually bothered
to 
read any of the literature, they would already know this.

All in all, I can't see how TIA will do anything except harm innocent 
people and create new jobs for bureaucrats.  Any numerate person who
spends 
five minutes thinking about what is proposed will come to the same 
conclusion.  If our system is going to become this arbitrary, there are 
going to be an awful lot of lives ruined in this country.  I fail to see 
how the TIA approach could do anything positive for the war on terror or 
for America in general.  It will eat up resources better spent on more 
proven and acceptable approaches.  In fact, such a data-drive approach 
might actually be more successful if it simply took a random sampling of 
the population each day.

My hope is that this editorial will awaken those who are even more
skilled 
in computer science, statistics, game theory, etc. and that they find
the 
courage to speak up so we can put the brakes on the wasteful and 
destructive blind alley called TIA.

Benjamin Brunk

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1524
*************************