Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1695
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 14 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1695

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

Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 19:27:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GoDaddy: "We adamantly oppose the WLS as proposed and intend to use any means available to block its implementation"

John I guess this is one of your jokes? I can't put it in such nice words
as the lawyer who wrote this fine text, but what this patent application
describes I was doing already in late Spring 2000. I can't prove it. I
didn't tell other people how to do it. But other people also did do it,
and didn't tell other people how to do it. (The exact time of the release
of expired names wasn't to be found on the net until last year, I think.)
You know why? Because telling others would increase competition. Not
competition for these services, but for good domains. And because it seems
impossible to patent something like this to anyone with a little common
sense, so the only protection available is keeping it silent.

The fact that so many people 'invent' functionally the same scripts at the
same time shows it is not worth a patent. They could try for copyright on
their specific script. If that is still worth anything as such now with
the WLS.

- -- 
[12] This mail is never spam.
http://logoff.org/

On Mon, 12 May 2003, at 12:04 [=GMT-0400], John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> >
> > Other registrars who support competition and innovation should take the
> > time to voice their position on this important appeal.
>
> This exercise becomes entirely moot if SnapNames' two US patent applications
> manage to issue with claims as broad as the ones they are attempting to
> obtain.
>
> These are just a few of the claims from U.S. Published Application No.
> 20020091827.  The "claims" of a patent define the "thing" or "process" that
> is protected by the patent, and which the patentee has the right to exclude
> others from doing:
> ------------
>
> 1. A method for effectuating a succeeding registration of a domain name for
> an interested entity following the expiration of a prior registration of the
> domain name, the method comprising the steps of: receiving from an interested
> entity a request identifying a domain name having a registered status; and
> automatically: determining an expiration date for the status; defining a time
> period for checking the status based on the expiration date; periodically
> checking the status at a predefined frequency within the time period; and
> when the status indicates that the domain name is registrable, requesting
> registration of the domain name for the interested entity.
>
> 2. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of: automatically:
> predicting an earliest moment of registrability for the domain name based on
> the expiration date; and increasing the frequency of said checking, proximate
> to the predicted earliest moment of registrability.
>
> 3. The method of claim 1 wherein said checking includes pinging a registrar.
>
> 4. The method of claim 1 wherein said checking includes substantially
> contemporaneous pinging of multiple registrars.
>
> 5. The method of claim 1 wherein said checking includes pinging a registry.
>
> ---------
>
> Now, this application was filed on November 1, 2001.  If it issues with
> claims this broad, then Dotster, GoDaddy, Enom, et al. are going to have to
> stop their domain snagging systems immediately.  It is very likely that
> SnapNames will contact them when the patent issues to provide notice of the
> patent, and these registrars will then be liable for triple damages and
> attorney's fees if they continue to operate their domain re-registration
> systems.  The base measure of damages can be SnapNames lost profits based on
> the infringement, or the actual profit made by the infringers.
>
> If this patent application issues as a patent, it will not matter whether WLS
> is approved by ICANN or implemented by Verisign.  The objective of
> sole-source provision of expiring domain name services will have been
> reached.
>
> Or will it?  One interesting unlitigated area of patents relating to methods
> implemented on the internet is the inherent territoriality of a U.S. Patent.
> In other areas, a U.S. Patent prevents the export of parts to another country
> which, if assembled here, would otherwise infringe the patent.  Similarly, a
> U.S. Patent can prevent the import of a product made abroad by a process
> which is patented in this country.  "Manipulated bits" have, thus far, not
> been considered as to whether they might constitute an imported product of a
> patented process.  Of course, when you have the opportunity to draft the
> claims, you might consider whether you can write the claims to necessarily
> cover the actions conducted in this country - i.e. writing the claims from
> the registry's perspective.  But SnapNames' patent counsel does not appear to
> have done that.... yet.
>
> Getting back to that November 1, 2001 filing date... You or someone you may
> know might be aware of an article or other publication, or public use of this
> technique which occured prior to November 1, 2000.  If you do, then hang onto
> your evidence of such use, because it will be one of the few ways that the
> patent could be rendered invalid after it issues.
>
> For example, who on earth was this guy:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00235.html
> "We have been offering this service since August 2000"
>
> Googling usenet on this topic is left as an exercise for the reader.
>
> I gather that my previous kettle-banging on the subject of the pending patent
> applications must have been too obscure.  So, if the *real strategy* for
> obtaining sole-source control of expiring domain names is still not apparent,
> let me know if any of the above information needs to be clarified.
>
> John Berryhill
> U.S. Patent Attorney Reg. No. 36,452
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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, 13 May 2003 12:32:50 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy: 

John,

Ditto. I was doing this in 1997 as were others, those who usually beat me to
the punch:(  Can we write the USPTO before this non-sense is issued? It's WAY,
WAY too hard to fight it later.

Does anyone know the assigned examiners name, address, and deadline? This
should be stopped at once due to obviousness, as well as prior art.

Best Regards,

Loren

Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote:
John I guess this is one of your jokes? I can't put it in such nice words
as the lawyer who wrote this fine text, but what this patent application
describes I was doing already in late Spring 2000. I can't prove it. I
didn't tell other people how to do it. But other people also did do it,
and didn't tell other people how to do it. (The exact time of the release
of expired names wasn't to be found on the net until last year, I think.)
You know why? Because telling others would increase competition. Not
competition for these services, but for good domains. And because it seems
impossible to patent something like this to anyone with a little common
sense, so the only protection available is keeping it silent.

The fact that so many people 'invent' functionally the same scripts at the
same time shows it is not worth a patent. They could try for copyright on
their specific script. If that is still worth anything as such now with
the WLS.

- -- 
[12] This mail is never spam.
http://logoff.org/

On Mon, 12 May 2003, at 12:04 [=GMT-0400], John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> >
> > Other registrars who support competition and innovation should take the
> > time to voice their position on this important appeal.
>
> This exercise becomes entirely moot if SnapNames' two US patent
applications
> manage to issue with claims as broad as the ones they are attempting to
> obtain.
>
> These are just a few of the claims from U.S. Published Application No.
> 20020091827.  The "claims" of a patent define the "thing" or "process" that
> is protected by the patent, and which the patentee has the right to exclude
> others from doing:
> ------------
>
> 1. A method for effectuating a succeeding registration of a domain name for
> an interested entity following the expiration of a prior registration of
the
> domain name, the method comprising the steps of: receiving from an
interested
> entity a request identifying a domain name having a registered status; and
> automatically: determining an expiration date for the status; defining a
time
> period for checking the status based on the expiration date; periodically
> checking the status at a predefined frequency within the time period; and
> when the status indicates that the domain name is registrable, requesting
> registration of the domain name for the interested entity.
>
> 2. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of: automatically:
> predicting an earliest moment of registrability for the domain name based
on
> the expiration date; and increasing the frequency of said checking,
proximate
> to the predicted earliest moment of registrability.
>
> 3. The method of claim 1 wherein said checking includes pinging a
registrar.
>
> 4. The method of claim 1 wherein said checking includes substantially
> contemporaneous pinging of multiple registrars.
>
> 5. The method of claim 1 wherein said checking includes pinging a registry.
>
> ---------
>
> Now, this application was filed on November 1, 2001.  If it issues with
> claims this broad, then Dotster, GoDaddy, Enom, et al. are going to have to
> stop their domain snagging systems immediately.  It is very likely that
> SnapNames will contact them when the patent issues to provide notice of the
> patent, and these registrars will then be liable for triple damages and
> attorney's fees if they continue to operate their domain re-registration
> systems.  The base measure of damages can be SnapNames lost profits based
on
> the infringement, or the actual profit made by the infringers.
>
> If this patent application issues as a patent, it will not matter whether
WLS
> is approved by ICANN or implemented by Verisign.  The objective of
> sole-source provision of expiring domain name services will have been
> reached.
>
> Or will it?  One interesting unlitigated area of patents relating to
methods
> implemented on the internet is the inherent territoriality of a U.S.
Patent.
> In other areas, a U.S. Patent prevents the export of parts to another
country
> which, if assembled here, would otherwise infringe the patent.  Similarly,
a
> U.S. Patent can prevent the import of a product made abroad by a process
> which is patented in this country.  "Manipulated bits" have, thus far, not
> been considered as to whether they might constitute an imported product of
a
> patented process.  Of course, when you have the opportunity to draft the
> claims, you might consider whether you can write the claims to necessarily
> cover the actions conducted in this country - i.e. writing the claims from
> the registry's perspective.  But SnapNames' patent counsel does not appear
to
> have done that.... yet.
>
> Getting back to that November 1, 2001 filing date... You or someone you may
> know might be aware of an article or other publication, or public use of
this
> technique which occured prior to November 1, 2000.  If you do, then hang
onto
> your evidence of such use, because it will be one of the few ways that the
> patent could be rendered invalid after it issues.
>
> For example, who on earth was this guy:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00235.html
> "We have been offering this service since August 2000"
>
> Googling usenet on this topic is left as an exercise for the reader.
>
> I gather that my previous kettle-banging on the subject of the pending
patent
> applications must have been too obscure.  So, if the *real strategy* for
> obtaining sole-source control of expiring domain names is still not
apparent,
> let me know if any of the above information needs to be clarified.
>
> John Berryhill
> U.S. Patent Attorney Reg. No. 36,452
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:31:36 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GoDaddy: "We adamantly oppose the WLS as proposed and intend to use any means available to block its implementation"

> John I guess this is one of your jokes?

No joke.  You can read it yourself at uspto.gov.

> describes I was doing already in late Spring 2000. I can't prove it.

You have to beat 1 November 1999.

> I
> didn't tell other people how to do it.

Prior secret use is not a publication, public use or sale.

> But other people also did do it,
> and didn't tell other people how to do it.

Yeah... that's what they all thought...

> You know why? Because telling others would increase competition. Not
> competition for these services, but for good domains. And because it seems
> impossible to patent something like this to anyone with a little common
> sense, so the only protection available is keeping it silent.

I agree with you completely.  That's one of the things that makes the
SnapNames patent applications fun.  There were all sorts of folks running
around doing all sorts of things - but one guy thought of filing a patent
application.

> The fact that so many people 'invent' functionally the same scripts at the
> same time shows it is not worth a patent.

Whether it is worth a patent will be up to the Patent Office.

- --
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, 13 May 2003 16:16:15 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

I believe you can challenge the filing of a patent before it is issued. 
 Consult a patent lawyer, it ought to be a straightforward process.

- --Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Loren Stocker wrote:

>John,
>
>Ditto. I was doing this in 1997 as were others, those who usually beat me to
>the punch:(  Can we write the USPTO before this non-sense is issued? It's WAY,
>WAY too hard to fight it later.
>
>Does anyone know the assigned examiners name, address, and deadline? This
>should be stopped at once due to obviousness, as well as prior art.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Loren
>
>Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote:
>John I guess this is one of your jokes? I can't put it in such nice words
>as the lawyer who wrote this fine text, but what this patent application
>describes I was doing already in late Spring 2000. I can't prove it. I
>didn't tell other people how to do it. But other people also did do it,
>and didn't tell other people how to do it. (The exact time of the release
>of expired names wasn't to be found on the net until last year, I think.)
>You know why? Because telling others would increase competition. Not
>competition for these services, but for good domains. And because it seems
>impossible to patent something like this to anyone with a little common
>sense, so the only protection available is keeping it silent.
>
>The fact that so many people 'invent' functionally the same scripts at the
>same time shows it is not worth a patent. They could try for copyright on
>their specific script. If that is still worth anything as such now with
>the WLS.
>
>  
>

- --
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, 13 May 2003 15:37:01 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/12/22/back.order.domains.idg/ 
index.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, 13 May 2003 15:17:53 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GoDaddy: "We adamantly oppose the WLS as proposed and intend to use any means available to block its implementation"

On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 11:04  AM, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> 3. The method of claim 1 wherein said checking includes pinging a 
> registrar.
>
> 4. The method of claim 1 wherein said checking includes substantially
> contemporaneous pinging of multiple registrars.
>
> 5. The method of claim 1 wherein said checking includes pinging a 
> registry.
>
Have they defined what they mean as "pinging"?

The accepted meaning in the technical world is sending and receiving an 
ICMP message, which does nothing more that confirm that you have a 
route to a host and that host is responding to said ICMP "ping".

You can "ping" a registrar until you're blue in the face, but it won't 
result in any domains being registered.

- --
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: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:14:45 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GoDaddy: "We adamantly oppose the WLS as proposed and intend to use any means available to block its implementation"

From: "Andy Gardner" <[email-masked]>
> >
> Have they defined what they mean as "pinging"?

Words in the claims are to be construed in accordance with however those
words are defined in the specification of the document.  The short answer is,
yes, they describe the process and they call it "pinging".

- --
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: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:16:45 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

>
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/12/22/back.order.domains.idg/
> index.html

That is an announcment of SnapNames own service.  The date to beat here is 1
November 1999.

- --
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, 13 May 2003 16:45:47 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 04:16  PM, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. 
wrote:

>
>
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/12/22/back.order.domains.idg/
>> index.html
>
> That is an announcment of SnapNames own service.  The date to beat 
> here is 1
> November 1999.
>
>

 >"Nobody else is even attempting to do what SnapNames does," says James 
Grady, associate analyst with >Giga Information Group.

How did he know such a thing? Omnipresence?

One other thing, are they describing the method that earned Snapnames a 
slap on the wrist from ICANN (ie the "server utilising Registrars 
connection directly, with no Registrar involvement)?

- --
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, 13 May 2003 17:56:03 -0400
From: "Elliot Noss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

John, are you sure about 12/99? I thought it was 2000 as well. In any event
Loren should demonstrate prior art!

Elliot Noss
Tucows inc.
416-538-5494

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Andy
> Gardner
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 4:37 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:
>
>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/12/22/back.order.domains.idg/
> index.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
>

- --
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, 13 May 2003 17:58:25 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Liability protection for ICANN Volunteers

Karl Auerbach wrote: Monday, May 12, 2003 10:15 PM
> The above is *not* legal advice, these are matters that you
> should discuss
> with your own attorney.
>
> 		--karl--

Where may an ICANN volunteer point their attorney to review the terms and
conditions of ICANN's current Liability Insurance cover? There is nothing in
the Financial Documents section of the ICANN website where one would expect.

While the Non-Com FAQ does say that ICANN carries liability insurance for
volunteers, and Resolution 98.9 suggests a premium of $60,000 or more would
be available annually, the language in Article XIX does not indicate a
commitment to obtain or maintain that insurance by ICANN, neither does
anything I can find provide specific details of coverage that is envisaged
for, say, members of the GNSO GA or ALAC.

How far down the food chain coverage is to be extended is fuzzy and needs to
be clarified, but I count some 750 individuals would be affected, including
Board Directors, members of the ALAC and the GNSO.

I imagine that those who are paid to participate in ICANN are indemnified by
their employers, but others who participate in a personal capacity, as
users, would have to meet any liability exposure personally. If cover is not
obtained by ICANN, or not sufficiently comprehensive, or includes a
deductible amounting to thousands of dollars per claim, then individuals who
do not enjoy corporate protection cannot reasonably be expected to
participate. This adversely affects users and undermines the fundamental
principals of individual participation in the At Large.

Volunteers from all sectors must know about the risks against which they are
to be indemnified by ICANN *in advance* of joining a Supporting Organization
or Advisory Committee, and more important, they must be advised clearly
about risks that will be excluded for whatever reason, for which they must
carry the risk personally.

The overriding consideration in this matter is the high cost of attorney
fees to mount a defense. In New York State at least, the cost of attorney
fees are not awarded to the winner, so even in a frivolous lawsuit, win or
lose, the defendant has lost. Is it the same in California where one assumes
all cases would be heard?

Although we all think we are reasonable people, there really is no way of
knowing whether or not volunteers will find themselves named individually as
well as collectively in a multi-million dollar lawsuit at some point in the
future. If, say, the petitioner were a large US corporation with an army of
attorneys on retainer, which is the likely character of any potential
adversary, then defense costs alone could prove ruinous for those with a
corporate paymaster to cover the cost, regardless of the outcome of the
case.

This is not a trivial matter that can be taken on trust, so I repeat, where
are the current insurance documents posted for review by prospective At
large volunteers and their legal advisors?

Thanks,
Joanna

- --
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, 13 May 2003 15:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Prior Art (was RE: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy)

Hello,

- --- Elliot Noss <[email-masked]> wrote:
> John, are you sure about 12/99? I thought it was 2000 as well. In any
> event
> Loren should demonstrate prior art!

William Walsh (whatever happened to him??) also had some prior art from
EARLY 1999. See:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03190.html

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.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: Tue, 13 May 2003 17:38:00 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Prior Art (was RE: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy)

On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 05:23  PM, George Kirikos wrote:

> William Walsh (whatever happened to him??)

Better go dig up Snapname's back yard! :^)

- --
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, 13 May 2003 18:57:22 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Liability protection for ICANN Volunteers - correction

correction to penultimate paragraph:

/..... defense costs alone could prove ruinous for those WITHOUT a
corporate paymaster to cover the cost, regardless of the outcome of the
case..../

This is a new mistake....:-)

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joanna
> Lane
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 5:58 PM
> To: Touton@Icann. Org
> Cc: Ga@Dnso. Org; Karl Auerbach
> Subject: RE: [ga] Liability protection for ICANN Volunteers
>
>
> Karl Auerbach wrote: Monday, May 12, 2003 10:15 PM
> > The above is *not* legal advice, these are matters that you
> > should discuss
> > with your own attorney.
> >
> > 		--karl--
>
> Where may an ICANN volunteer point their attorney to review the terms and
> conditions of ICANN's current Liability Insurance cover? There is
> nothing in
> the Financial Documents section of the ICANN website where one
> would expect.
>
> While the Non-Com FAQ does say that ICANN carries liability insurance for
> volunteers, and Resolution 98.9 suggests a premium of $60,000 or
> more would
> be available annually, the language in Article XIX does not indicate a
> commitment to obtain or maintain that insurance by ICANN, neither does
> anything I can find provide specific details of coverage that is envisaged
> for, say, members of the GNSO GA or ALAC.
>
> How far down the food chain coverage is to be extended is fuzzy
> and needs to
> be clarified, but I count some 750 individuals would be affected,
> including
> Board Directors, members of the ALAC and the GNSO.
>
> I imagine that those who are paid to participate in ICANN are
> indemnified by
> their employers, but others who participate in a personal capacity, as
> users, would have to meet any liability exposure personally. If
> cover is not
> obtained by ICANN, or not sufficiently comprehensive, or includes a
> deductible amounting to thousands of dollars per claim, then
> individuals who
> do not enjoy corporate protection cannot reasonably be expected to
> participate. This adversely affects users and undermines the fundamental
> principals of individual participation in the At Large.
>
> Volunteers from all sectors must know about the risks against
> which they are
> to be indemnified by ICANN *in advance* of joining a Supporting
> Organization
> or Advisory Committee, and more important, they must be advised clearly
> about risks that will be excluded for whatever reason, for which they must
> carry the risk personally.
>
> The overriding consideration in this matter is the high cost of attorney
> fees to mount a defense. In New York State at least, the cost of attorney
> fees are not awarded to the winner, so even in a frivolous lawsuit, win or
> lose, the defendant has lost. Is it the same in California where
> one assumes
> all cases would be heard?
>
> Although we all think we are reasonable people, there really is no way of
> knowing whether or not volunteers will find themselves named
> individually as
> well as collectively in a multi-million dollar lawsuit at some
> point in the
> future. If, say, the petitioner were a large US corporation with
> an army of
> attorneys on retainer, which is the likely character of any potential
> adversary, then defense costs alone could prove ruinous for those with a
> corporate paymaster to cover the cost, regardless of the outcome of the
> case.
>
> This is not a trivial matter that can be taken on trust, so I
> repeat, where
> are the current insurance documents posted for review by prospective At
> large volunteers and their legal advisors?
>
> Thanks,
> Joanna
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 14 May 2003 03:31:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GoDaddy: "We adamantly oppose the WLS as proposed and intend to use any means available to block its implementation"

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, at 15:31 [=GMT-0500], John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > I
> > didn't tell other people how to do it.
>
> Prior secret use is not a publication, public use or sale.

So it would be hard to show prior art against a patent on making babies?

> That's one of the things that makes the SnapNames patent applications
> fun.  There were all sorts of folks running around doing all sorts of
> things - but one guy thought of filing a patent application.

So it would be hard to fight a thief who wants a patent on smashing a
shopwindow with a hammer and grab what he can grab? "Method for
redistributing luxury goods".

- --
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: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:48:03 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [council] Staff-Prepared Issues Report on Privacy Issues Related to Whois (from: [email-masked])

- ----- Forwarded message from Louis Touton <[email-masked]> -----

From: Louis Touton <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 23:37:13 -0700
Subject: [council] Staff-Prepared Issues Report on Privacy Issues Related to Whois
X-Spam-Level: 

Tothe GNSO Council:

As requested by the GNSO Council at its 25 March 2003 meeting, the staff 
 has prepared an "Issues Report on Privacy Issues Related to Whois". 
It is posted at 
<http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/whois-privacy-report-13may03.htm>. 
   Discussion of this document appears as item 6 of the agenda for the 
22 May 2003 Board meeting, as circulated by the GNSO Secretariat on 7 
May 2003.

Best regards,

Louis Touton

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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: Wed, 14 May 2003 11:29:58 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Even Handed Application of The Rules (Yes or No? - We shall see) (was Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 	days).

On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 11:39:45PM -0700,
 Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 30 lines which said:

> I am opposed to any formalized censorship. 

Suppressing posting rights is not censorship. Censorship is when a
power (the government, a corporation, the mob) tries to suppress *any*
speech from an individual or an organization. When you tell someone to
shut up in a meeting (may be because he talks too much and off-topic),
it is not censorship, when you actively try to prevent him from
speaking anywhere, it is censorship.

People in countries with a long history of freedom of speech speak too
lightly about censorship.

> In the kind of warm discussion that arises out of social and political
> matters (as opposed to the calmer, less emotional discussions that occur
> in the ietf regarding technical matters)

Less emotional? I assume that you are actually a member of some IETF
working groups. If so, you do not have the same experience that I
have. Read the "namedroppers/DNSext" archives, for instance.

> Censorship is not foreign to ICANN - ICANN has tried to censor me, for
> example, by refusing to publish any of my papers on its web site, 

It is bad policy and it speaks negatively about ICANN but censorship
is when you cannot even post what you want on your personal home page.

- --
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: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:44:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Even Handed Application of The Rules (Yes or No? - We shall see) (was Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14  days).

If it's on my homepage, or on ICANNWatch, and not part of ICANN's official
record, ICANN official position is that it doesn't exist.  This is part of
how it claims 'consensus' for its various unpopular actions.

ICANN is an agent of the US federal government.  As such it seems
reasonable to label its acts of silencing commentators as a form of
censorship.  Or, if you prefer, it is a semi-official body with
ever-greater dominance by an international panel of government 'advisors'.
In either formulation, it makes policy, a traditional governmental
function however much dressed up in the rhetoric of private action.

I quite agree that in the grand scheme of things this is nothing like
torturing dissidents, but it's a form of limiting debate nonetheless.

On Wed, 14 May 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 11:39:45PM -0700,
>  Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]> wrote 
>  a message of 30 lines which said:
> 
> > I am opposed to any formalized censorship. 
> 
> Suppressing posting rights is not censorship. Censorship is when a
> power (the government, a corporation, the mob) tries to suppress *any*
> speech from an individual or an organization. When you tell someone to
> shut up in a meeting (may be because he talks too much and off-topic),
> it is not censorship, when you actively try to prevent him from
> speaking anywhere, it is censorship.
> 
> People in countries with a long history of freedom of speech speak too
> lightly about censorship.
> 
> > In the kind of warm discussion that arises out of social and political
> > matters (as opposed to the calmer, less emotional discussions that occur
> > in the ietf regarding technical matters)
> 
> Less emotional? I assume that you are actually a member of some IETF
> working groups. If so, you do not have the same experience that I
> have. Read the "namedroppers/DNSext" archives, for instance.
> 
> > Censorship is not foreign to ICANN - ICANN has tried to censor me, for
> > example, by refusing to publish any of my papers on its web site, 
> 
> It is bad policy and it speaks negatively about ICANN but censorship
> is when you cannot even post what you want on your personal home page.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 hot 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1695
*************************