Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #160
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, October 3 2000           Volume 01 : Number 160

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

Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 15:28:04 -0700
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Online Voting Begins for ICANN's At Large Members

I just tried to vote.

I got the following:

>                ICANN Error
>
>
>                We are sorry, but we are unable to process your
>request at this time.

Cheers,

Darrell

At 3:19 PM -0700 10/1/00, [email-masked] wrote:

>ONLINE VOTING BEGINS FOR ICANN'S AT LARGE MEMBERS
>
>(1 October 2000 UTC)  The secure online voting site for ICANN's At Large
>membership is now open:  <https://vote.election.com/icann>.  To cast
>your vote, you must provide your member number, password, and PIN number
>-- the same information you used to activate your At Large membership.
>
>Voting will continue through Tuesday, October 10, 2000 (12:00 midnight
>GMT/UTC).
>
>To learn about the nominees and take part in the Question & Answer
>Forum, visit the ICANN At Large website:  <http://members.icann.org/>.
>
>Links:
>
>     - At Large voting site:  <https://vote.election.com/icann>
>     - At Large homepage:  <http://members.icann.org>
>     - Q&A Forum:  <http://members.icann.org/qa.html>
>     - ICANN homepage:  <http://www.icann.org>
>
>   # # #

- -- 

Darrell Greenwood           mailto:[email-masked]
Vancouver, BC               http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/
- --
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, 2 Oct 2000 11:36:09 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] REMINDER: Webcast Today - A Day with the ICANN North American Candidates

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 9:37 AM
To: Webcast Preregistrants - A Day with the ICANN North American Candidates
Subject: REMINDER: Webcast Today - A Day with the ICANN North American
Candidates

Hello Pre-Registrants,

Don't forget to tune into tonight's live webcast discussion, "A Day with the
ICANN North American Candidates," including an informal discussion at 4:20PM
EDT and the Candidate Forum at 7:30PM EDT.  Join us at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/candidateforum> to log in.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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, 2 Oct 2000 11:41:53 -0400
From: "Chris Neal" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Quick Question

Hello Everyone,

With all the discussion centered on the voting of the new board, I thought I
would pose this question as a form of relief.  I was recently forwarded to
the domain, carpetbaggingbitch.com, which is then redirected to another
site.  The two domains are not owned by the same person.  In fact, the
redirected domain is actually a expressing a negative opinion of the
operator of the redirected to domain.  Anyone know of any laws that would
permit the entry of any United States governing authority?

Chris Neal

- --
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, 02 Oct 2000 13:00:45 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Quick Question

Chris Neal wrote:
> 
> Hello Everyone,
> 
> With all the discussion centered on the voting of the new board, I thought I
> would pose this question as a form of relief.  I was recently forwarded to
> the domain, carpetbaggingbitch.com, which is then redirected to another
> site.

http://www.hillary2000.org/

> The two domains are not owned by the same person.  In fact, the
> redirected domain is actually a expressing a negative opinion of the
> operator of the redirected to domain.  Anyone know of any laws that would
> permit the entry of any United States governing authority?
 
Methinks the First Amendement would prevent any gov't intervention. At any
rate, I'd certainly hope so.

Of course, there are slander laws, but I'm inclined to doubt a suit under
them would succeed.

As far as DNS and DNSO are concerned, no issue arises here. We should
only worry about whether the structure works technically, leaving any
legal problems to the courts.

We've chosen (wrongly, in my view) to go beyond that and construct a
dispute mechanism to (partly and poorly, in my view) handle trademark
issues as they relate to DNS. That does not apply here unless Hillary
has trademarked some rather unexpected terms.

Any attempt to use UDRP against carpetbaggingbitch.com should fail
as soon as the adjudicator reads the submission. Of course, the
attack on bodacioustatas.com should also have instantly failed, and
it was upheld.
- --
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, 02 Oct 2000 15:40:50 -0500
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Quick Question/different answer

> I was recently forwarded to
> > the domain, carpetbaggingbitch.com, which is then redirected to another
> > site.
>
> http://www.hillary2000.org/
>
> > The two domains are not owned by the same person.  In fact, the
> > redirected domain is actually a expressing a negative opinion of the
> > operator of the redirected to domain.  Anyone know of any laws that would
> > permit the entry of any United States governing authority?
>
> Methinks the First Amendement would prevent any gov't intervention. At any
> rate, I'd certainly hope so.
>
> Of course, there are slander laws, but I'm inclined to doubt a suit under
> them would succeed.

I find such redirection (mildly) offensive, just as when I am redirected to porn sites.  Such redirection is
not protected speech for several reasons, including the lack of governmental involvement.

"Slander" law might apply if there is a  "knowing" falsehood.  But, it could only be raised by the target of
the slander.

On the other hand, there seems to be a hijacking in progress, taking people where they do not want to go in
order to give them information which they do not want to receive, using facilities the offender does not own.
I don't think that is protected speech.  Nor am I convinced it should be.

There is a qualified right to use "public" facilities which are otherwise open for speech (streets, courthouse
steps and, in some jurisdictions, parts of privately owned malls
<http://www.fplc.edu/civilrights/Spchpriv.htm>), but this is not such a case, imho.

While no one is likely to suffer enough damage to have standing to sue, civilly, such redirection may be a
form of theft of service or other computer crime which would qualify for governmental intervention.  A list of
potentially applicable laws may be found at <http://www.cybercrime.gov/cclaws.html>.   The FBI is jumping all
over complaints of high-tech abuse like a kid playing with a new toy.  This might get someone's attention.

- --
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, 2 Oct 2000 16:09:01 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Quick Question/different answer

At 3:40 pm -0500 10/2/00, Eric Weisberg wrote:
>While no one is likely to suffer enough damage to have standing to sue,
>civilly, such redirection may be a
>form of theft of service or other computer crime which would qualify for
>governmental intervention.

What? Do you need a policeman to hold your hand when you walk across the
street?

Your browser knows it's about to take you to a different location. If it's
not telling you first and you want it to, complain to the browser
manufacturers, or use a different browser.

- -- 
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.domain-owners.org 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, 2 Oct 2000 14:44:40 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Quick Question/different answer

Hello Eric,

Monday, October 02, 2000, 1:40:50 PM, you wrote:
> I find such redirection (mildly) offensive, just as when I am redirected to porn sites.  Such redirection is
> not protected speech for several reasons, including the lack of governmental involvement.

Protected speech is not limited to issues of government involvement.

> On the other hand, there seems to be a hijacking in progress, taking people where they do not want to go in
> order to give them information which they do not want to receive, using facilities the offender does not own.
> I don't think that is protected speech.  Nor am I convinced it should be.

That is not a hijacking.  It would be a hijacking only if it was done
without the consent of the owner of the carpetbaggingbitch.com domain
name.

This is an issue of linking, since that is really all this is.  The
method of linking is slightly different, but to try and make it
appears criminal, Eric, is an error.

The owner of the carpetbaggingbitch.com domain name doesn't even use
"frames" to cloak the site, thus lessening any claim that might
"perceivably" be applied.   In no way does this domain owner try and
imply that the hillary2000.com website is his, or in anyway
responsible for the content of that website.

It's merely a creative way of linking.  Like all the other URL
redirection services that provide this same type of redirection for
millions of websites.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
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, 02 Oct 2000 15:10:15 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Quick Question/different answer

At 03:40 PM 10/2/00 -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote:

>On the other hand, there seems to be a hijacking in progress, taking 
>people where they do not want to go in
>order to give them information which they do not want to receive, using 
>facilities the offender does not own. I don't think that is protected 
>speech.  Nor am I convinced it should be.

[..]

>While no one is likely to suffer enough damage to have standing to sue, 
>civilly, such redirection may be a
>form of theft of service or other computer crime which would qualify for 
>governmental intervention.  A list of
>potentially applicable laws may be found at 
><http://www.cybercrime.gov/cclaws.html>.   The FBI is jumping all
>over complaints of high-tech abuse like a kid playing with a new 
>toy.  This might get someone's attention.

Let me get this straight. If someone obtains and pays for a domain name 
(domain A) which contains a string of characters which could, under the 1st 
Amendment, be used as an alternative description to a different domain name 
(domain B), you are saying that the holder of domain A is committing a 
crime by pointing or redirecting domain name A to domain name B? How can 
theft of service exist if the DNS records and content behind domain B are 
available unhindered and unaltered?

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
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, 3 Oct 2000 00:21:36 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Quick Question/different answer

On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Eric Weisberg wrote:

> > I was recently forwarded to
> > > the domain, carpetbaggingbitch.com, which is then redirected to another
> > > site.
> >
> > http://www.hillary2000.org/
> >
> > > The two domains are not owned by the same person.  In fact, the
> > > redirected domain is actually a expressing a negative opinion of the
> > > operator of the redirected to domain.  Anyone know of any laws that would
> > > permit the entry of any United States governing authority?
> >
> > Methinks the First Amendement would prevent any gov't intervention. At any
> > rate, I'd certainly hope so.
> >
> > Of course, there are slander laws, but I'm inclined to doubt a suit under
> > them would succeed.
> 
> I find such redirection (mildly) offensive, just as when I am
> redirected to porn sites.  Such redirection is not protected speech
> for several reasons, including the lack of governmental involvement.

Well, just do not enter the domain in question into your browser
(again). It is not like the television you turn on and which gives you a
picture you may not want to see without you having a choice.

[...]
> On the other hand, there seems to be a hijacking in progress, taking
> people where they do not want to go in order to give them information
> which they do not want to receive, using facilities the offender does
> not own. I don't think that is protected speech.  Nor am I convinced
> it should be.

What is the problem? If I own a domain I can put up text, pics even noise.
If you visit it, then do not complain, but leave, if you do not like it.
If you visit it and I redirect you what is the difference? If the content
offends you, how is redirecting different from providing the content
immediately? The only problem I can see, is when I use
EricWeisbergIsABastard.COM and redirect it to a dirty pic or something.
But then I could as well put a dirty pic on the site directly. The damage
would be the same.

So, please, explain to me on what the problem is.

[...]
- -- 
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
 Marc Schneiders --- http://bodacious-tatas.org: no not what you think
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*

- --
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, 2 Oct 2000 19:56:39 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: REMINDER: Webcast Now In Progress - ICANN Candidate Forum

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 7:52 PM
To: ICANN Candidate Forum Remote Participants
Subject: REMINDER: Webcast Now In Progress - ICANN Candidate Forum

Pre-registrants,

The ICANN North-American Candidate Forum webcast is now in progress.  Please
join us at <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/candidateforum>.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 10:04 AM
To: ICANN Candidate Forum Remote Participants
Subject: REMINDER: Webcast Today - A Day with the ICANN North American
Candidates

Hello Pre-Registrants,

Don't forget to tune into tonight's live webcast discussion, "A Day with the
ICANN North American Candidates," including an informal discussion at 4:20PM
EDT and the Candidate Forum at 7:30PM EDT.  Join us at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/candidateforum> to log in.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

(You are receiving this message because you registered to participate by
webcast in the A Day with the ICANN North American Candidates discussion.)

- --
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 #160
************************