Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #161
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, October 3 2000           Volume 01 : Number 161

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

Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:44:27 -0400
From: NFT Services <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Quick Question/different answer

Me thinks william is correct here, the only way there could be any involvement by the government (or anyone else)
would be if the redirection is taking place without the consent of the first site.  (and while occassionally this
has been heard of.....) Otherwise I think it's a rather interesting form of redirection (promotion).

george kougias
- ---------------
<snip>

> 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.

<snip>

- --
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, 03 Oct 2000 08:40:21 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Quick Question/different answer

Eric,
IMHO you go too far. This is only a short-cut.

Let suppose the carpet--.com owner added a few HTML lines to
his HTML page, so the rerouting link to Hillary's site would be
after the display of an offensive page, you would say freedom of
speech.

Also, would any random access be hijacking from your point of
view?
Jefsey

At 22:40 02/10/00, 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.
>
>"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

- --
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 09:24:29 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Review

Good morning.

The current status of the DNSO review process is that the Task Force has
 agreed on a set of questions to be asked to all participants 
(Constituencies + GA).
The answers arriving before 2000-10-09 will be incorporated by the NC in
 its report to ICANN, due 2000-10-13, but the discussion will continue 
for a final report, due one week before the ICANN meeting.

For the record, the NC has excluded, for the time being, to create a 
formal WG on the subject. I am personally not happy about this, but 
anyway there's nothing that prevents us to make the GA list the forum, 
and even to vote on a final GA document if GA members feel so.
May I suggest to concentrate on the answers to the questions: we need to
 have the contents of the message going through, rather than focus on 
the form.

I will adopt the same format YJ is using for the NonCom Constituency, 
and split the set of questions in homogeneous groups, which I believe 
will facilitate the discussion.

Please find below the introduction to the Task Force report.
The sets of questions will be in follow-up messages.

Regards
Roberto

*******************************************************************

All NC Review and NC members,

Please find below the DNSO review 2.0 to be forwarded to all 
constituencies.
Constituency representatives are responsible for forwarding this to 
their constituencies, and ensuring that any constituency comments are 
forwarded to the NC Review committee. Instructions on comments is in the
 document below under 'Instructions for responding'.

Responses by October 9th would be most useful, and will be included in 
what is forwarded to the ICANN Board by October 13th. Later responses 
will also be incorporated in the report with conclusions and 
recommendations from the NC to the Board one week prior to the Los 
Angeles meeting.

Comments from the GA are included in this outreach, and all can 
participate in that forum as well (i.e., this is a working group of the 
whole). Roberto is the point of contact, and together with Harald, 
should provide to the review committee comments from the GA.

Specific for Constituency and GA representatives: In addition to 
collecting comments on the document below, we also need to include 
information on the growth and development of the DNSO. This information 
will be collected specifically in coordination with the respective 
constituencies, GA, and secretariat. Please provide as constituency 
representatives the responses for your respective constituencies, and/or
 where relevant.

How have the membership of constituencies grown over the past year?

How has the GA grown?

How has contribution to ICANN and NC secretariat increased in past year?

How many new countries added to membership in past year?

How many countries are not represented in DNSO?

*******************************************************************
- --
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 09:30:00 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Review - Foreword

*******************************************************************

DNSO Review 2.0 --

Outline for the DNSO Review

Status of Draft: This document is the result of several drafts (1.1-1.3)
 discussed in the NC review, and NC, to formulate a document with 
questions that would provide a basis for constituencies to comment and 
review the DNSO. Document 2.0 was prepared following the NC 
teleconference September 21, 2000 and comments received following 
circulation after the call.

Instructions for responding:

Document 2.0 (which is Draft 1.3 with last NC comments) must be 
forwarded by each NC-Review Representative to the respective 
constituency for comment and input. Comments are to be compiled by the 
respective NC-Review Representatives, and forwarded to the NC-Review 
committee. The GA Chair will be responsible for overseeing the continued
 GA input to this working progress.

In responses please provide concrete examples and the basis for 
conclusions, rather than just conclusory statements. Please also make 
clear from whom (not the person's name, but what interest(s) they 
represent) the comments are coming from. Please also offer specific 
suggestions; either that specific DNSO things are working well or that 
they are not; and if they are not how we think they can be improved.

Time for Comments: Comments and responses to questions in document 2.0 
received by October 9th would be useful and can be included in what is 
forwarded to the ICANN Board by October 13th. Later responses will also,
 of course, be incorporated in the report containing conclusions and 
recommendations from the NC prior to the Los Angeles meeting.

I. Introduction:

The DNSO is a Supporting Organization of ICANN, with the responsibility 
of advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy issues relating to 
the domain name system. The DNSO has the primary responsibility for 
developing and recommending substantive policies regarding to the domain
 name system.
Additionally, the Board can refer proposals for substantive policies 
regarding the domain name system to the DNSO for initial consideration 
and recommendation to the Board. Subject to the provision of Article III
, Section 3, of the ICANN bylaws, the Board shall accept the 
recommendations of the DNSO if it finds that the recommended policy (1) 
furthers the purposes of, and is in the best interest of, ICANN; (2) is 
consistent with ICANN’s articles of incorporation and bylaws; (3) was 
arrived at through fair and open processes (including participation by 
representatives of other Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4)
 is not reasonably opposed by the ASO or PSO.

II. Background:

The DNSO was formally established in March 1999 as one of ICANN’s three 
SOs.
It was formed following extensive global discussions and communications,
 with the intent of trying to establish an SO that represented the 
stakeholders in ICANN necessary for developing and recommending 
substantive polices regarding the domain name system. Since its 
establishment, it has made three recommendations for policies to the 
ICANN Board involving dispute resolution, new top-level domains, and 
famous trademarks and the operation of the domain-name system.  During 
this period it has also chosen four directors to the ICANN Board through
 two sets of elections. With this experience with the DNSO’s actual 
performance, it is now appropriate to review the DNSO to determine 
whether it is fulfilling its commitments, and whether it needs to be 
adjusted in order to better fulfill them.

III. Review:

The objectives of the DNSO Review Committee are:

·	To review the DNSO’s responsibilities and its work.
·	To recommend making DNSO function as designed.
·	To review and discuss this with the respective constituencies, and 
general assembly of the DNSO.

Outlined below are sections addressing the structure of the DNSO, and 
specific questions on the responsibilities of the organization, and the 
structure. This draft attempts to consolidate comments received on draft
 1.0, which was circulated to the NC-Review.

The review will conclude with recommendations, if any, on how to better 
improve the fulfillment of the responsibilities of the organization, and
 whether any improvements require structural changes. The Initial Self-
Assessment of the DNSO Review is due October 13th.

*******************************************************************
- --
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 09:31:39 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Review - Questions on DNSO Responsibilities

*******************************************************************

III. DNSO Responsibilities:

The DNSO is responsible for advising the ICANN Board with respect to 
policy issues relating to the domain name system. The DNSO’s primary 
responsibility is to develop and recommend substantive policies 
regarding to the domain name system. Additionally, the Board can refer 
substantive policies regarding the domain name system to the DNSO for 
initial consideration and recommendation to the Board.

To date, the DNSO has been tasked with the following responsibilities:

A. Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP): Working Group A, Names 
Council’s review of Working Group A report, followed by the Names 
Council recommendation based on the Working Group A’s report to the 
Board and the final adoption by the ICANN Board.

B. new generic Top Level Domains (new gTLDs): Working Group B and C, 
Names Council review of Working Group B and C’s reports, followed by its
 recommendations to the Board.

C. DNSO ICANN Board Elections: Two elections held: 1) October 1999, 
choosing three ICANN Board members for 3, 2, 1 years respectively; 2) 
September 2000, filling the three year seat for the 1 year expired seat.

·	To what extent has the DNSO fulfilled the responsibilities in A, B and
 C?

·	Have the policies recommended by the DNSO represented an adequate 
consensus of the affected stakeholders?  Have the 	viewpoints of all 
stakeholders been considered?

·	Have the recommendations been well defined, useful in terms of being 
timely and being structured with a degree of specificity/flexibility 
appropriate to allow practical implementation?

·	To the extent the recommendations have been adopted as policies, have 
they received the support of those being asked to implement them?

·	Has the DNSO failed to address problems that have been called to its 
attention through the Names Council?

·	Does the DNSO performance require improvement, and if so, how?

·	Are the responsibilities of the components (NC, Constituencies, GA) 
and the relationship among them well defined?

·	How can the DNSO minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the 
amount of objective consensus building, with its current structure? With
 a different structure?

·	Has the DNSO process brought expertise to the issues it has addressed?
  If not, how can the degree of expertise be 	enhanced?

*******************************************************************
- --
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 09:33:03 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Review - Questions on NC

*******************************************************************

V. Structure:

The structure of the DNSO is as follows: The NC, Seven constituencies, 
and the General Assembly.

A. Names Council:

Under the ICANN bylaws, the Names Council is responsible for the 
management of the consensus-building process of the DNSO. The NC 
consists of representatives selected by each of seven constituencies.  
The NC functions via a list serve, regular teleconference calls, and 
physical meetings in conjunction with ICANN quarterly meetings. There 
have been concerns that the DNSO Names Council has evolved into a 
generalist body. Questions below aim to address the role of the NC, and 
how to improve it.

·	Is the Names Council fulfilling its responsibility to steer and manage
 the DNSO consensus process, or can this be improved?

·	What are the proper expectations for the Names Council, and what is 
its proper role in relation to the DNSO and the ICANN Board?

·	Should the NC take a more active role in managing the consensus-
development process, for example by giving working groups more defined 
charters and more frequently reviewing the state of their work?

·	How can the NC enhance the level of technical or other expertise 
employed in the consensus-development process?

·	How much or little should the NC be involved in the detailed 
management of ICANN?

·	Does the NC manage the policy-development process so that 
recommendations are reached in a timely manner?

·	Does the existing structure work to generate consensus recommendations
 on domain name matters?

·	Does the Names Council give appropriate level of consideration to the 
views of all affected stakeholders?

·	The NC recommendations have been criticized as often being ‘weak’, or 
merely reflecting the outcome of the respective working groups. How can 
the NC interpret the outcome of the working groups, and formulate a 
better defined and stronger recommendations consistent with the 
consensus process?

·	Do the NC representatives adequately communicate with their respective
 constituencies? Do the constituencies communicate with their NC 
representatives?

·	Does the NC adequately communicate with the ICANN staff and Board?

·	Does the NC adequately communicate with other SO Councils?

·	After consulting ICANN staff to address details which require legal 
and technical expertise, does the NC review whether or not such input is
 sufficient?

·	How can the NC improve the role of the DNSO under ICANN, and improve 
its ability to provide advice and input to the ICANN Board on domain 
name policy issues?

*******************************************************************
- --
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 09:33:58 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Review - Questions on Constituencies

*******************************************************************

B. Constituencies:

·	Are the constituencies a correct division? Are all DNSO interests 
adequately represented in the existing constituency groups? Do the 
current divisions aggregate individuals or entities with closely aligned
 interests and permit the development of focused positions?

·	Should the constituencies be reformulated by combining user 
constituencies?  By combining provider constituencies?  In some other 
way?

·	Is it up to each constituency to define its relationship with NC 
representatives or should the DNSO/ICANN have some minimal mandatory 
requirements for all?

·	What happens if an elected NC rep does not attend NC meetings, ignores
 constituency members? Is this up to the constituency to address, or 
should it be brought to the attention of the NC?

·	Are the constituencies fulfilling their role as open and transparent 
channels of dialogue and discussion toward the development of community 
consensus? Do they allow effective development of collective positions 
of those with similar interests?  Does this process promote the 
development of overall community consensus?

·	Does the current constituency division minimize the effectiveness of 
the DNSO and NC?

·	Are the constituencies adequately representing the intended members?  
Or are there important parts of the Internet Community that may need 
better representation?

·	Should there be a constituency for individuals, and if so, how should 
its membership be constituted?

·	How do you ensure that individuals who choose to form an individual 
constituency represent the vast interests of individuals ?

·	No constituencies have been added since the original seven 
constituencies were recognized (provisionally) in May 1999.  What should
 be the ongoing process for assessing whether the constituencies serving
 the goal of providing appropriate forums for affected stakeholder 
groups?

*******************************************************************
- --
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 09:34:39 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Review - Questions on GA

*******************************************************************

C. General Assembly (GA):

·	What should the future role of the GA be?

·	Is the function of the GA properly defined?

·	How can the level of participation by constituency members in the GA 
be improved?

·	How can the level of participation by GA members in the GA be 
improved?

·	If changes are made in the constituency structures, and possibly an 
individual constituency added, should the GA continue to exist?

*******************************************************************
- --
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 09:36:35 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Review - Questions on the WGs

*******************************************************************

D. Working Groups:

·	Are the working groups an appropriate mechanisms to foster consensus 
in the DNSO?

·	If the NC can’t find consensus in a working group report, what should 
be the next step?

·	Are there mechanisms other than working groups that the NC should 
employ in managing the consensus-development process? 	For example, 
assigned task forces?

*******************************************************************
- --
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 09:37:45 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Review - Questions on the Secretariat

*******************************************************************

E. Secretariat:

·	What is the relationship between the ICANN Secretariat, the DNSO 
secretariat, and the Constituency secretariats?

*******************************************************************
- --
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 09:38:35 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Review - miscellaneous questions

*******************************************************************

VI. Other Review Questions:

·	Have the DNSO recommendations furthered the ICANN work consistent with
 the provision in Article VI, Section 2(e), of the ICANN Bylaws, that 
the ICANN Board shall accept recommendations of the DNSO if the Board 
finds that the recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of, and is 
in the best interest of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent with the 
Articles and Bylaws; (3) was arrived at through fair and open processes 
(including participation by representatives of other Supporting 
Organizations if requested); and (4) isn't reasonably opposed by any 
other Supporting Organization.

*******************************************************************
- --
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 00:56:51 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Review

Hello Roberto,

Tuesday, October 03, 2000, 12:24:29 AM, you wrote:

> For the record, the NC has excluded, for the time being, to create a 
> formal WG on the subject. I am personally not happy about this, but 

Then the Names Council is in violation of an order from the Board and
should be immediately disbanded by the ICANN Board.

- -- 
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: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:58:38 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Review

Hello Roberto,

Tuesday, October 03, 2000, 12:24:29 AM, you wrote:

> For the record, the NC has excluded, for the time being, to create a 
> formal WG on the subject. I am personally not happy about this, but 

I suggest that all GA members boycott this process and do not submit
comments.  To do so would sanction the Names Council's ignoring of a
direction of the ICANN board on how to proceed regarding this matter.

- -- 
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: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:00:51 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Roberto: your mail is bouncing

Sorry for posting this to the list, but direct email is bouncing.

Roberto: might want to fix this:

This is the Postfix program at host smtp2.minitel.net.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.

For further assistance, please contact <[email-masked]>

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the message returned below.

                        The Postfix program

<[email-masked]>: local configuration error. Command output: 554
    Service unavailable... (Service indisponible)

- -- 
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: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:22:25 -0700 
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Review

William,

For the sake of thouroughness, can you post the URL where the ICANN BoD
ordered this WG?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 12:59 AM
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Review
> 
> 
> Hello Roberto,
> 
> Tuesday, October 03, 2000, 12:24:29 AM, you wrote:
> 
> > For the record, the NC has excluded, for the time being, to 
> create a 
> > formal WG on the subject. I am personally not happy about this, but 
> 
> I suggest that all GA members boycott this process and do not submit
> comments.  To do so would sanction the Names Council's ignoring of a
> direction of the ICANN board on how to proceed regarding this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
- --
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, 03 Oct 2000 09:12:31 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Quick Question/different answer

NFT Services wrote:

> Me thinks william is correct here, the only way there could be any involvement by the government (or anyone else)
> would be if the redirection is taking place without the consent of the first site.  (and while occassionally this
> has been heard of.....) Otherwise I think it's a rather interesting form of redirection (promotion).
>
> george kougias
> ---------------
> <snip>
>
> > 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.
>
> <snip>
>

I agree.

I was reacting to the First Amendment issue [the Supreme Court has backed off its 1948? decision in Shelly v. Kramer
which prevented courts from assisting private parties' limit other people's rights (that case forbad courts from
enforcing racially restrictive deeds)] and to the inference that the "searcher" was allegedly "hijacked" from the
site she was seeking to one she was not and then to one with an opposing view (suggesting that one or more domain
names were somehow "misappropriated" in the process).  The courts would probably reach a different result if that was
not the case.

<Personally, I favor extending the First Amendment protection of speech to the non-governmental context and would
extend Shelly to cases in which private parties seek court assistance in limiting speech.  However, one must
recognize the Supreme Court's reluctance to do so.>

Merely "misrepresenting" what the searcher will find at a site presents subtle questions I did not address.

- --
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 07:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Legal Expenses

I just wanted to see how folks felt about this, from
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-30aug00.htm

Payment for Legal Services

Whereas, the Corporation has received an invoice from Jones, Day, Reavis &
Pogue for $110,670.96 in connection with legal services provided to the
Corporation during the month of June 2000;

- -rick

- --
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, 03 Oct 2000 10:31:29 -0700
From: Kristy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Quick Question/different answer

We have been calling this type of redirection a Marketing Arm since 1995 
because it does work VERY well for getting people to your site and for 
keeping your site posted in the top five always...

At 09:44 PM 10/2/2000, NFT Services wrote:
>Me thinks william is correct here, the only way there could be any 
>involvement by the government (or anyone else)
>would be if the redirection is taking place without the consent of the 
>first site.  (and while occassionally this
>has been heard of.....) Otherwise I think it's a rather interesting form 
>of redirection (promotion).
>
>george kougias
>---------------
><snip>
>
> > 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.
>
><snip>
>
>--
>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: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:59:59 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Intake Committee announcement. Agenda for 14 November 2000 NC meeting.

[ To: as listed below ]

[ from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001114.NC-IC-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

                              Intake Committee
                   Preparation of agendas for NC meetings

Preparation of agendas for NC meetings
- --------------------------------------

3 October 2000.

At its 21 September meeting the DNSO Names Council (NC) requested the Intake
Committee (IC) to assist it with the preparation of agendas for NC meetings.

The IC invites suggestions for agenda items from the following groups:

   * members of the Names Council
   * the Names Council Secretariat
   * the ICANN Board
   * members of the ICANN Board
   * the ICANN Officers and Staff
   * the GA Chair
   * members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the
     [email-masked], [email-masked] or the GA voting register.
   * subscribers to an active DNSO ad hoc working group (currently D and E).

Agenda suggestions may be submitted to [email-masked]

In order to give sufficient notice to NC members and to allow time for
consultation within Constituencies items must be submitted 21 days before
the date of the meeting.

Agenda for 14 November 2000 NC meeting
- --------------------------------------

We welcome your input now and up to 24 October 2000 for the Names Council
meeting of 14 November 2000. Other dates and time limits will be announced
once the schedule of meetings is fixed.

Names Council Intake Committee

Philip Sheppard, Caroline Chicoine, Paul Kane, Y J Park, Michael Schneider.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

- --
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 20:25:17 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Warns Pre-Registration of Speculative New Domain Names Is Premature

  [ To: [email-masked] ]
  [ To: [email-masked], [email-masked], subscribers to GA voting register ]

  [ from http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr29sep00.htm ]

   DNSO Announcement
   29 September 2000

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

   ICANN Update - Names Council Warns Pre-Registration of Speculative New
                         Domain Names Is Premature

  September 29, 2000 -- Commenting on the process for establishing new
  top-level domain names (TLDs) the Names Council of the Domain Name
  Supporting Organization (DNSO) emphasizes that no new TLDs have been
  selected as of this date and no one is authorized to pre-register
  names.

  Noting that some companies are claiming to offer pre-registration
  services to consumers who may wish to register in the new TLDs, the
  Names Council has issued the following statement. "The Names Council
  feels it is premature for companies to offer pre-registration services
  for domain names in speculative new TLDs. To date, no new TLDs have
  been selected and there is no guarantee that any particular
  organization will be authorized to take registrations for any
  particular TLD. The registration of names in new TLDs will be done on a
  fair basis, and the practice of pre-registration should not be
  encouraged."

  The Names Council statement was made following its meeting on the 21
  September 2000, at which the Council welcomed ICANN's initiative to
  invite proposals for new top level domains. With the application
  process well under way the Names Council considers it may be helpful to
  the Internet community to outline the process and its associated time
  line.

  Timeline for new TLDs

  At its meeting in July 2000 in Yokohama, Japan, the Board of the
  Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) adopted a
  plan to receive and evaluate proposals to operate or sponsor new TLDs.
  These names will complement existing TLDs such as ".com". No selections
  of any new TLD strings have yet been made, nor has any decision been
  made regarding the number that will be introduced. The application
  process will close on 2 October 2000 and ICANN will publish (via its
  web site http://www.icann.org) all applications soon afterward. Members
  of the Internet community will have at least a two-week period to
  comment on the proposals. ICANN then expects to enter into dialogue
  with a short-list of applicants to ensure that the growth of the
  Internet is undertaken in a stable and controlled manner.

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

- --
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 #161
************************