Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #768
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, October 1 2001           Volume 01 : Number 768

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

Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:11:16 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Review Task Force report

Sunday, Sunday, September 30, 2001, 8:32:15 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Replacing an elected Chair with an appointed one at this time would be an 
> extremely undiplomatic gesture by the NC, serving only to inflame the 
> situation more and hastening its own demise.

> If there is any replacing to be done, it should come from the bottom up.
> Unfortunately, the GA lacks the procedure for it.

The only procedure is for the NC to call for a new one.  I'm assuming
that would also mean a new vote for nomination to the NC to ratify.
Or perhaps the NC will use the dismal failure of this chair to justify
not letting the GA select their own.

I'd say our current chair has done more harm to the credibility of the
GA than the things he constantly rails himself against.  I wouldn't
blame the NC if they decided not to listen to the GA's nomination next
time around.  I would be disappointed, but I wouldn't blame them.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

Milton,

how much does a room cost?

- -rick

On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> I believe the passivity is a sign of total demoralization.
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Milton Mueller wrote:
>

> > The only direct control by the President I can see
> > comes from the corporation's reservation and support
> > for the rooms. So let us, if necessary, raise the
> > required money to reserve our own rooms. But before
> > doing that, let's at least show that we have SOME
> > backbone and request of ICANN that it make room for
> > a GA meeting on the 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: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:33:16 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

|> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:09 PM

|> In principle I would support such a move, one that would 
|> bring back the 
|> Working Groups, but once again, can such WG's get moral 
|> authority and an 
|> incentive to do the work, when nobody gives them (top down) 
|> real authority?

Hello Joop,

This is, IMHO, the fundimental question. We have now had a few years of lack
of authority. There are many easy rationalizations whereby authority can
continue to be withheld (Lord knows, there is enough evidence in the
archives). Expect that no amount of counter evidence will lead to the
assignation of such authority. It is simply not in the interest of the
current power clique. The fact that the GA exists at all is a testiment to
the power we have all brought here from the IFWP process. However, that was
a censession that was grudgingly given. They will not give the DNSO anymore
power than they absolutely have to.
- --
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, 01 Oct 2001 03:29:18 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

RIck and all assembly members,

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> Milton,
>
> how much does a room cost?

  Good question.  Follow-up questions:
1.) Is there an ICANN BoD and staff tax on the room rental?  >:)
2.) Does the rental include at least chairs? Number limitation?
3.) Will there be some sort of recording equipment included in the room
rental?
4.) If no on #3, whom will be providing this needed equipment?

>
>
> -rick
>
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>
> > I believe the passivity is a sign of total demoralization.
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
>
> > > The only direct control by the President I can see
> > > comes from the corporation's reservation and support
> > > for the rooms. So let us, if necessary, raise the
> > > required money to reserve our own rooms. But before
> > > doing that, let's at least show that we have SOME
> > > backbone and request of ICANN that it make room for
> > > a GA meeting on the 13th.
>
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
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, 1 Oct 2001 12:06:49 +0200
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

Dear Ross and assembly members,

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:07:53AM -0400, Ross Wm. Rader took time to write:
> >
> > This is true. But it is not symbolic for us : owner name can NOT be
> changed
> > online by any contact of the domain. This makes sure that in case of
> > disputes, the owner stay exactly the same.
> >
> > If the owner comes to us asking
> > to change the contacts of *its* domain name (dispute with its hosting
> > company, etc...), we change them.
> >
> > Experience has shown that cases like that happen.
> >
> > With some other Registrars owner name can be changed online by any
> > contact in 2 minutes. This make the notion of ``ownership'' a little
> > blurry in our eyes, and that is why we do not do it.
> >
> 
> Something I've always wanted to ask - how can Gandi confer ownership when in
> fact, it is not yours to confer? What I mean is, ICANN and the registries
> deal with "Registered Name Holders" and not "owners" - what does Gandi do
> that allows them to confer ownership of the domain upon the registrant?

Like it had already been said ``ownership'' is a difficult concept
to describe, even for real life cases.

It is true that ICANN and Registries do not use this term, probably
because it is next to impossible to really explain what it would
mean, even more when other points of agreements say something to the
line of : domain names can be cancelled, destroyed, transfered,
etc... to correct mistakes of Registry/Registrars, etc...

For us (Gandi), we used this term because we wanted to stress out two
things :

- - we are only a technical provider, we do not interfere in any way to
the handling of the domain. For example if some big companies come to
us telling us about a fraudulent domain names they should had, etc...
we will not do anything under their pressure, and strictly adhere to
UDRP decisions and/or court orders.
Recent cases in France have shown that some Registrars will delete a
domain name just because some big company come to them threatening
them. Telling the customer he is the owner means for us also that he is
responible for the choice and the use of its domain name. If
complaints come to us, we redirect them to the customer/holder and do
not do anything besides this.

- - when disputes arrive between contacts/registrant/etc... the final
word for us comes always from the owner (registrant). Contacts for us
are mandated by the owner and acting on its behalf. This is also why
contacts should not be able to change the registrant information, and
this is what we implement.

Regards,
Patrick.
Gandi.
- --
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, 1 Oct 2001 07:50:25 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

Regarding the ASO and PSO, in addition to Danny's comment suggesting that
the ASO and PSO have been functioning well, the ALSC also made a similar
statement in their draft report.  I would suggest that we really don't know
whether they are functioning well in the ICANN world because they have never
been tested.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 8:28 PM
To: 'Jefsey Morfin'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

I would suggest a re-evaluation of the degree of representation on the
ICANN board (ASO and PSO), especially vis-a-vis the financial
contribution level, and the relative contributions to global Internet
(political) policy.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jefsey
Morfin
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 5:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

On 19:06 30/09/01, [email-masked] said:
>We agree with the assessment of the ALSC that the ASO and PSO, in 
>general, seem to be functioning well, and submit that there would be no

>apparent justification for any changes either in their structure or in 
>their degree of representation on the Board.

I am afraid, Danny, that I absolutely oppose that. PSO should only tell 
people the nr of the line their protocol has been recorded in. But
mission 
creep is here instead of cross-fertilization catalysis as we observe it.
We 
can say that the Internet protocols do not match the Internet
architecture 
in term of user autonomy and security. IRT ASO, the lack of education, 
concern and involvement of the Global Internet Community through @large
or 
a ASO/GA will probably result in a dramatic situation for real of
several 
magnitudes more important that the fake DNS debate. Billions of cost for

centuries, blocking of the Network, multiple BigBrothers, major
innovation 
delays, ...

So what we can say is that @large presence at SO through a GA is of the 
essence. An SO must be conceived as a governance structure with 
participating constituencies, council, GA, Secretariat, MLs, site,
etc...

Jefsey

- --
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
- --
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, 1 Oct 2001 09:46:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

	I'm probably not going to be able to come to MdR, but I'll chip in
$50 towards whatever the room rental is.

Jon

On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> Milton,
> how much does a room cost?
> -rick
> 
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> > I believe the passivity is a sign of total demoralization.
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > > The only direct control by the President I can see
> > > comes from the corporation's reservation and support
> > > for the rooms. So let us, if necessary, raise the
> > > required money to reserve our own rooms. But before
> > > doing that, let's at least show that we have SOME
> > > backbone and request of ICANN that it make room for
> > > a GA meeting on the 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: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:53:08 -0400
From: "Ladi" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] UDRP News

Perhaps of interest from today's BNA's Internet Law News:

UDRP DECISION CHEAPENS MEANING OF CONFUSING SIMILARITY
A recent ICANN UDRP decision rendered by a CPR panelist provides some
surprising (non)analysis of the meaning of confusing similarity.  The
entire confusing similarity discussion is "Complainant alleges that the
domain name CHEAPER.COM is identical or confusingly similar to
Complainant's trademark, which applies to goods, services, communication
services, telecommunication, long distance and call back service,
Internet provider services, as well as telephone calling card services.
I therefore conclude that the registered domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to Complainant's protected mark."  Decision at
http://www.cpradr.org/ICANNDecisionCPR0110-010823.htm

- --
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, 01 Oct 2001 17:02:27 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

On 06:10 01/10/01, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law said:
>I believe the passivity is a sign of total demoralization.

Dear Michael,
you want the ICANN to survive to protect your business :-) !!! Could we see 
that another way?

The internet is a distributed system. As such it is extemely resilient. It 
has only one weakness: that many people are not yet fully able to think in 
terms of interconnections and have still to think in term of connections. I 
say many still think "net" while others "inter" conceptualize (Joe Sims 
still dreams bilateral contracts).

Such a weakness translates into the DNS root theories (there is actually no 
root but a TLD registry service directory). It translates into the ICANN 
which is a condemned attempt at dominance rather than a shared governance. 
It is the ALSC restrictive and politicized report instead of an help to the 
@lagre Network Association to develop. etc... Victor Hugo had a word for 
that: "small".

Stuart's proposition is absurd and people feel or realize that. MdR will 
make plain that the ICANN is the Internet security weakness: it will be the 
conclusion of the debate if it is professionnal, it will be the conclusion 
of the attendees and of the press if the debate is amateurish. People on 
this GA know that, even those who are religious about the ICANN (Dave 
Crocker wrote probably the most intelligent things on security these days). 
So they let ICANN hang itself: the joke had to be over sometime.

Now, there are real issues we can discuss - and we are starting doing it:

- - urgent term solution about root servers: testing of a duplicate root 
server galaxies for ccTLDs - serious coordination of the value 
added/extended inclusive roots services - action against TLD squatting, 
etc...  We cannot continue having 6 root servers out of 13 on the most 
dangerous spot of the planet toghether with  25.000.000 DNs on the same 
name server system and backup.

- - short term solution: the end of the root concept and a more stable and 
open resolver system for all as per the 1978 international public service 
naming plan. The root is updated once a month even less; everyone can have 
it on his computer, and protecting oneself from any mad hacking or bombnig. 
Every site may have aliases on different open TLDs or ccTLDs in case of 
.com problem.

- - medium term solution: IPv6. The security weakness here is lack of 
education and of debate.

Some time down the road there will be a dramatic revamp of the ICANN: Joe 
Sims will have to quit. I have nothing personal against Joe - execept that 
I sent him a polite and documented letter he never cared to respond. But 
his conceptions are so outdated that it is time for him to retire.

This is no demoralization but good news for all.
Jefsey

- --
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, 1 Oct 2001 09:22:25 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

|> From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 8:02 AM
|> 
|> On 06:10 01/10/01, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law said:
|> >I believe the passivity is a sign of total demoralization.

Add exhaustion to that and I will agree. The ICANN power-clique is getting
pretty good at wearing out its opposition (those whom are not in that
power-clique).

|> Dear Michael,
|> you want the ICANN to survive to protect your business :-) 
|> !!! Could we see that another way?

ICANN threatens my business and that of my friends, rather than protect. The
trust isn't there.

|> Stuart's proposition is absurd and people feel or realize 
|> that. MdR will make plain that the ICANN is the Internet
|> security weakness: 

Only in that, they seek to bring under central authority, what should be
decentralized. The reason that the Internet was designed the way it is, is
precisely because that threat has always existed. A design that promotes
decentralization and eliminates as many potential choke-points as possible,
is the only means to combat that tendency. In that, the original designers
succeeded, very well. It helped that many, of my generation, were rabid
libertarians at the time. Alas, people change. At the time, people generally
didn't trust large central authorities, IMHO they still shouldn't. The
opportunities , for large scale abuse, are too great and varied. The current
generation is more complacent. 

Multiple decentralized and competing authorities are slightly more chaotic,
but better, in that, they keep each other honest by mutual policing. It
would be most excellent if they didn't trust each other any more then they
had to. If each country ran its own registry, independent of the others,
that would be a general improvement over the ICANN, IMHO. We would also
start seeing some meaningful dialog.

|> Now, there are real issues we can discuss - and we are 
|> starting doing it:
|> 
|> - urgent term solution about root servers:
|>   testing of a duplicate root server galaxies for ccTLDs

That is already being done, outside of ICANN. ICANN may not like it, but
that's life. It's the registry system that is the larger, non-trivial,
problem. Root zone server/cluster systems are only a delivery mechanism.

|> - serious coordination of the value 
|>   added/extended inclusive roots services

Long overdue and what, I thought, ICANN would do.

|> - action against TLD squatting, etc...  
|>   We cannot continue having 6 root servers out of 13 
|>   on the most dangerous spot of the planet toghether
|>   with  25.000.000 DNs on the same name server system
|>   and backup.

Not counting the official root-servers.net constellation, there is the
root-service.net constellation and others. Just one of them comprises many
more than 13 hosts.

|> - short term solution: the end of the root concept and a 
|>   more stable and open resolver system for all as per the
|>   1978 international public service naming plan.

Could you please mention URL's and document listing when you mention these
sorts of things? Are you refering to X.500?

|>   The root is updated once a month even less; 

I do this with my constellations now. It's a 100% automated process, using
out of band updating, via ssh/scp transfers. I publish 5 different root-zone
files, because each client has different local/private TLD zones.

|> - medium term solution: IPv6. The security weakness here is lack of 
|>   education and of debate.

There is even more weakness in that, IPv6 does not yet have a routing
solution. DNS wasn't developed until *after* the routing problems were
solved. On a theoretical basis, nameing and routing may no longer be
entirely seperable, but that still remains to be seen. Thus, far IPv4
mechansims have the traction. But, everyone knows that we need something
better. "Better" doesn't yet exist. IMHO, IPv6 isn't ready for prime-time
yet.

- --
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, 1 Oct 2001 10:32:03 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

Milton

I concur. From XTNS's perspective, the meeting in November will be the first
we will attend, our not having been able to arrange to attend Montevideo as
it came in the midst of our company launch.

This is likely to be the best attended meeting of the year, with many very
important issues to address. And with widespread concern that issues are not
being addressed swiftly enough, to put 6 months between meetings that would
address them seems difficult to defend.

What has happened is terrible, and to add a session devoted to security
makes excellent sense. Even giving the topic a greater than time compared to
other issues makes sense too. But the ball surely needs to be kept in play
on all the other burning issues as well.

If hiring your own rooms is a way to resolve this, then tell us how we can
help. We are based locally here to the meeting in the Los Angeles area, as
you know.

Tim

Dr. Tim Langdell
CEO
XTNS

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

> I am surprised at how passive you all are being
> about the MdR agenda.
>
> It is exceedingly interesting that those who know
> the most about security (e.g., Rick Wesson) seem
> to be least swayed by the demand to drop everything
> else and focus on it at an ICANN meeting.
>
> By all means, add it to the agenda. But we need
> a full day of constituency meetings and another,
> separate full day for GA and Names Council meetings.
> Danny, I would ask you to rescind your request
> for a November 12 GA meeting, because it would
> conflict with the ability of ICANN participants to
> attend and work in constituency meetings.
>
> Let the Nov 13 GA meeting add some discussion
> of security to its agenda. Probably a two hour
> block will be sufficient.
>
> Let me remind you all that under ICANN's structure,
> the President of the Corporation does not have any
> control over the agenda of Supporting Organizations.
> The Board can ask the DNSO to make policy on things,
> and it can pass or not pass policies given to it
> by the DNSO, but there is simply no way that the
> Board, let alone the President, can tell us when
> we can meet and what we can discuss at our meetings.
> The constituencies, the GA, and the Names Council
> can all set their own agendas.
>
> The only direct control by the President I can see
> comes from the corporation's reservation and support
> for the rooms. So let us, if necessary, raise the
> required money to reserve our own rooms. But before
> doing that, let's at least show that we have SOME
> backbone and request of ICANN that it make room for
> a GA meeting on the 13th.
>
> --MM
> --
> 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, 01 Oct 2001 14:19:58 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Interesting ICANN related info - Bytes in brief...

All assembly members,

  I thought some of this might be of interest considering the security
related
issues being discussed and the upcoming MDR ICANN meeting.

==============  From "Bytes In Brief" Follows ==============
BYTES IN BRIEF

OCTOBER 2001
**************************************************************
BYTES IN BRIEF® is a joint publication of Sensei Enterprises,
Inc., an information technology consulting firm and Nelson &
Wolfe, a business and technology law firm. The "designer"
version of "Bytes" may be found at http://www.senseient.com

Editors: Sharon D. Nelson, Esq. and John W. Simek
Editor Emeritus: G.V. Nelson

9400+ subscribers worldwide
(c) 2001 Sensei Enterprises, Inc./Nelson & Wolfe
**************************************************************

ANTITERRORISM ACT OF 2001 CRAFTED

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been circulating
drafts of the Antiterrorism Act of 2001 to Congressional
lawmakers, seeking to beef up the right of law enforcement
authorities to engage in electronic surveillance. The Act
would allow officials to obtain wiretap authority for an
individual rather than a phone number, and permit wider
seizure of voice mail messages and the interception of
"computer trespasser" communications.  The measure would also
require that an Internet Service Provider be compelled to make
disclosures of its customers' electronic communications "if
the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving
immediate danger of death or serious physical injury of any
person requires disclosure." As we go to press, multiple
versions of the bill are floating around and negotiators are
meeting to determine what portions of the legislation may be
removed or altered. Some members of Congress are attempting to
draft an alternative to the Act, one which is less extreme,
and which particularly alters the Act's view of "hacking as
terrorism."  One version of the Act may be found at
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/20010919_ata_bill_draf
t.html

NEW COALITION URGES CONGRESS TO CONSIDER PRIVACY INTERESTS

A new privacy coalition has formed in the wake of the
terrorist attacks against the U.S. Called In Defense of
Freedom, it consists of about 150 organizations, including the
American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and
Americans for Tax Reform. This highly disparate group held a
press conference on September 20th, making clear that the first
item on their agenda is to challenge portions of the
Antiterrorism Act of 2001, as proposed by the FBI.
Somewhat humorously, the group asked lawmakers to pledge, at a
minimum, that they would not vote for a bill they had not
actually read. The group is specifically concerned about the
expansion of wiretapping and electronic surveillance powers,
new immigration laws designed to make it easier to detain
suspects, and provisions which make it easier for authorities
to obtain warrants for and information about suspects. The
bill would essentially treat low-level computer trespass as
hacking and would allow the U.S. government to utilize
information illegally collected by foreign authorities. The
group has released a 10-point statement of principles that it
asks Congress to consider before enacting laws in the wake of
the recent terrorist attacks. Specifically, the group would
like the bill de-aggregated, so that its provisions may be
debated and acted upon separately. The Act may be found at
http://www.cdt.org/security/010911response.shtml. In Defense
of Freedom, and its 10-point statement of principles, may be
found at http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org

LEGAL TECHAID FORMED TO AID N.Y. DISPLACED LAWYERS

According to the New York State Bar Association, 14,000
lawyers were displaced by the destruction of the World Trade
Center. In response, Ross Kodner, the President of MicroLaw,
founded Legal TechAid, a group of legal IT professionals
willing to offer pro bono assistance to displaced attorneys in
New York City. MicroLaw's LegalAid site provides a wealth of
listings to help affected attorneys, including a list of all
those legal IT professionals who have volunteered to assist,
with their contact information and their areas of expertise.
The site may be found at
http://www.microlaw.com/nyrelief/index.htm#listserve. Further
assistance may also be found through the New York State Bar at
http://www.nysba2.org/wtc

FEAR OF CYBERATTACKS GROWS

A special Congressional Commission, The Advisory Panel to
Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving
Weapons of Mass Destruction, has warned that future terrorist
attacks against the U.S. might occur in conjunction with
cyberattacks meant to maximize the impact of physical
weaponry. Disruption of communications is believed to be a
particular emphasis of Osama bin Laden. The Commission is
planning to speed up the release of its third report,
originally due in December, to include proposals to help
address its concerns in light of the September 11th attack.
Further information may be found at
http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/

DISASTER RELATED SCAMS PROLIFERATE ON NET

The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (CAUCE) and
the SpamCon Foundation have issued warnings that con artists
are concocting online frauds to profit from the terrorist
attacks on September 11th. Most of the scams arrive through
spam or postings in community forums soliciting donations for
victims and survivors of the attacks. A typical message claims
to be part of an "Express Relief Fund" or "Victims Survivor
Fund." Another widespread e-mail solicited donations for the
Red Cross, but the link leads to a web site unconnected with
the Red Cross. The agencies caution would-be donors to verify
the solicitor's identity through another medium such as the
telephone before donating money through credit cards or
sending checks. Donors should also be wary of official-looking
web sites that may be posturing as genuine charities. Further
information may be found at http://www.cauce.org

DOJ WON'T PURSUE MICROSOFT BREAKUP

On September 6th, the Department of Justice did a complete
"about face" and said it would no longer seek a breakup of
Microsoft, but would instead seek to establish regulations
governing Microsoft's conduct. The DOJ also announced that it
would not pursue its claim that Microsoft had violated
antitrust law by tying its browser to the Windows operating
system. The government is expected to seek restrictions which
would prohibit Microsoft from giving discounts to hardware or
software developers in exchange for promoting or distributing
other Microsoft products. Microsoft would also have to monitor
and report on all alterations to Windows which slow or degrade
the performance of third party applications such as browsers,
e-mail clients, multimedia software, instant messaging
software and voice recognition software. Though some of state
attorneys general involved in case indicated that they would
follow the DOJ's lead, the attorneys general from New York and
California have indicated that they might pursue their own
sanctions if they are dissatisfied with the DOJ's ultimate
outcome. Specifically, they want the DOJ to consider the
implications of the new Windows XP operating system as part of
the current case. Microsoft has been working on a settlement
proposal, which is expected to be combative about the need for
conduct restrictions.

On September 12th, Microsoft filed another brief with the U.S.
Supreme Court, asking it to reverse the decision of the
appellate court, arguing that the entire case had been tainted
by the misconduct of trial judge Thomas Penfield Jackson.
Jackson gave secret interviews to journalists before issuing
his ruling disparaging Microsoft and comparing its executives
to common criminals. Microsoft said that the appeals court's
decision to uphold portions of Jackson's ruling "cannot be
reconciled with the decisions of other (courts) that have
ordered new trials for far less egregious violations . . ."
The Department of Justice, in an August 31st brief, urged the
Supreme Court to reject Microsoft's appeal and said that the
company's argument "rests squarely on a mischaracterization of
the court of appeals' ruling."

On September 20th, the Justice Department, 18 states and
Microsoft filed a joint status report with U.S. District Judge
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly at her request. Though there were some
areas of agreement, there were more areas of disagreement. The
parties could not come to an agreement on a proposed schedule.
The government would like to have the remedy hearing begin on
February 4, 2002 with discovery proceeding until then.
Microsoft argued that it "is premature to attempt to establish
a schedule for discovery and other procedures leading up to a
remedy hearing until the (trial) court has
determined what types of relief can be considered in light of
the Court of Appeals' decision." Legal experts expect that
Microsoft will try to delay proceedings as much as possible in
order to get Windows XP established in the marketplace.

On September 28th, Judge Kollar-Kotelly told the parties in a
status hearing that settlement talks should proceed 24 hours a
day, seven days a week until the November 2nd deadline. If the
parties have not settled by October 12th, the judge said she
would appoint a mediator to expedite settlement. If there is
no settlement by November 2nd, Kollar-Kotelly said she expects
hearings to begin in March to determine what sanctions should
apply to prevent future violations of antitrust law by
Microsoft. Pleadings in the case may be found at
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legalnews.asp

JUDGE HALTS USE OF RED LIGHT CAMERAS

On September 4th, San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald Styn
threw out 300 tickets for running a red light, saying that the
evidence provided by the cameras used was "so untrustworthy
and unreliable, it should not be admitted." Approximately 60
cities and counties in the U.S. utilize similar cameras. Styn
called the San Diego program flawed because it allows the
private company that operates the red light cameras to collect
a part of the $271 fine for each ticket issued. The company
receives about $70 for each ticket. Because the company
decides whether a motorist should be ticketed, the judge found
there was a conflict of interest. Specifically, he held that
the program violates a state law that does not allow such law
enforcement programs to be operated by private companies. He
did, however, rule that using a camera to gather evidence is
not unconstitutional. Further information may be found at
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001-09-05-judge-
nixes-red-light-cams.htm

HUSBAND CHARGED WITH COMPUTER TRESPASS

Divorce attorneys have been warning that criminal charges
would begin appearing in divorce cases involving computer
trespass between spouses, and a Michigan husband has in fact
been charged because he installed surveillance software called
eBlaster on his wife's computer to permit him to track her
computer usage and to read all of her e-mail and messages.
Steven Paul Brown was charged with installing an eavesdropping
device, eavesdropping, using a computer to commit a crime and
having unauthorized computer access. He faces possible jail
time of up to five years. Further information may be found at
http://www.latimes.com/technology/wire/sns-ap-hackers-
charged0906sep06.story

EBAY VINDICATED IN COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASE

On September 6th, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Kelleher
issued a summary judgment in favor of eBay in a case involving
the sale of bootlegged copies of a Charles Manson documentary
called "Manson." Robert Hendrickson, the co-director and co-
producer of the documentary, filed suit against eBay, alleging
that the auction site failed to prevent the sale of illegal
DVD copies of his film. Kelleher ruled that eBay had abided by
its responsibilities under the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA) to guard against infringement. The DMCA requires
auction sites to shut down auctions of infringing materials
once they have notice from a copyright or trademark owner of
the infringement. Hendrickson had never provided eBay with
notice of the infringement. Further information may be found
at http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/ccarch/2001/09/13/sinrod
.htm

MAFIABOY SENTENCED TO EIGHT MONTHS

'Mafiaboy,' the Canadian teenager who wreaked havoc for a week
in February of 2000, shutting down many major Internet sites,
will spend the next eight months in a juvenile detention
center. Judge Gilled Ouellet, who presided over the trial in
Quebec's Youth Court, sentenced him on September 12th.
Mafiaboy will also serve one year of probation after his
release from the detention center. During his probation, he
will be allowed to attend school and have a part-time job. He
was also ordered by Ouellet to donate $250 to charity. Further
information may be found at http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-
200-7141694.html

ICANN PROTECTS COUNTRY DOMAIN NAMES

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers voted
on September 10th to prevent the domain names of countries from
being given to cybersquatters using fraudulent applications to
claim them during the pre-registration period for trademark
holders who want to lock up the .info domain. The .info domain
became available on September 19th, the first time an
unrestricted domain has been added to the Internet since 1985.
Its implementation has been controversial as 10 to 25 percent
of the 53,000 names registered thus far appear to be based on
questionable trademarks. Afilias, the company sponsoring .info
has said it will challenge all questionable registrations in
December. ICANN board members voted 11-7 to prevent any more
country names from being registered by outsiders, and to
require Afilias to hand over recovered domain names to the
countries involved. Country names will be taken from an
official list established by the International Organization
for Standardization. ICANN's ban will expire in March of next
year. The board also voted to approve plans for the dot-aero,
dot-coop and dot-museum domains, allowing managers of those
domains to bring them online when they are ready. Further
information is available at
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-10sep01.htm

LUCK WAS A LADY, TOO MUCH SO

Oh, those hackers. CryptoLogic, Inc. a Canadian software
company that develops online casinos, admitted in early
September that a hacker had cracked one of its gaming servers,
altering the craps and video slot games so that players
consistently won. The hack occurred in late August, and
allowed 140 gamblers to win $1.9 million. Every roll of the
dice in craps came up doubles and the slots showed cherries
across the board. The attack affected two of CryptoLogic's 19
casino operating licensees. The winners were permitted to keep
the money since they were believed to be innocent of any
wrongdoing. CryptoLogic believes that the intrusion was
probably someone with inside knowledge of its systems and is
cooperating with investigators. CryptoLogic will absorb
$600,000 of the misappropriated winnings, and a $1.3 million
insurance claim will cover the remainder. CryptoLogic's web
site may be found at http://www.cryptologic.com

EUROPE WARNS AGAINST ECHELON

Times have certainly changed quickly, but on September 5th, the
European Union voted 367-159, with 34 abstentions, to adopt 44
recommendations designed to counter Echelon, the worldwide spy
network led by the United States. Though the U.S. has denied
the existence of Echelon, the EU accepted a 140-page report
confirming Echelon's existence and reporting that it operates
in cooperation with Britain, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand. The purpose of Echelon, according to the report, is
primarily to monitor private and commercial communications,
not military communications. The report calls for closer
European cooperation in setting up a joint encryption and
intelligence-gathering system. It also recommends that
sensitive information sent by e-mail be encrypted. Also
included is a recommendation that the EU and the U.S. draw up
rules strengthening international laws on data and privacy
protection. Further information may be found at
http://www.europarl.eu.int/committees/echelon_home.htm

FEDERAL JUDGES AND EMPLOYEES WILL BE MONITORED

On September 19th, the Judicial Conference approved a
compromise measure that permits some tracking of the Internet
use by judges and court employees, such as the downloading of
pornography and music. A previous provision that would have
permitted the monitoring of e-mail was abandoned. Prior to
this, there had been no policy governing computer use for the
30,000 federal court employees, including about 1,800 judges.
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Court in Washington will
oversee monitoring. Supervisors would be notified of suspicious
activity such as lengthy downloading times. Employees could be
disciplined for downloading pornography or music, gambling
online or using their computers for personal matters during
work. Some sites, including Napster, will simply be blocked.
The Conference also recommended that courts begin placing all
civil cases online, with certain personal identifiers removed.
Within two years, the Conference will revisit the issue of
placing criminal cases online. Further information may be found
at http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/jc901a.pdf

APPEALS COURT REBUFFS NAPSTER/PARTIAL SETTLEMENT

A three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused
to continue its temporary stay of a District Court order
issued on July 11th that demanded 100% compliance with an
earlier copyright infringement prohibition. The panel refused
to examine the various prohibitions defined by the trial court
in a preliminary injunction against the music file swapping
service issued on March 5th. The September 17th ruling also
orders both sides to stop peppering the court with briefs. The
parties were sternly instructed to "refrain from filing any
further papers in the office of the clerk of this court"
related to the appeals, unless those documents relate to
future orders of the court or are citations of relevant cases
that could be kept to a single page. Napster announced on
September 24th that it had partially settled the case and made
a deal with major music publishers. As part of the deal,
Napster has agreed to pay $26 million to settle its ongoing
legal disputes with music publishers and songwriters. Record
labels are continuing with their own litigation, which means
Napster is still faced with possible substantial legal
damages. According to the terms of the deal, the owners of
music-publishing rights will receive one-third of the
royalties that Napster will pay content owners, leaving two-
thirds of those royalties for record labels. It is not clear
exactly how much money that will be, or what proportion of
Napster's revenues that figure might represent. Napster has
said it would pay an advance of $10 million against future
licensing fees. Legal documents in the case may be found at
http://www.napster.com/pressroom/legal.html

CDA HELD TO PROTECT AMAZON.COM

A Washington state appeals court ruled on September 17th that
the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunizes Amazon.com from
liability for possibly defamatory comments posted on its web
site by customers attacking an author. Author Jerome Schneider
attempted to hold Amazon.com responsible for the posts,
alleging defamation and tortious interference with a business
expectancy. One of the posts suggested that Schneider, whose
books often discuss tax avoidance methods, is a felon. After
Amazon.com raised the CDA defense, the complaint was revised
to drop the defamation claim and allege negligent
misrepresentation and breach of contract, arguing that
Amazon.com had decision making authority over the content. The
CDA says that an "interactive computer service provider" can
escape being judged as the "publisher or speaker of any
information provided by another information content provider."
Schneider's lawyers argued that Amazon.com isn't an ISP like
America Online, whose service actually connects people to the
Internet. The appellate judges said that they saw little
difference between AOL's role as a bulletin board host and
Amazon.com's provision of a free-for-all book review service.

VOYEURDORM WINS COURT BATTLE

VoyeurDorm, the rampagingly successful soft-core porn site,
has won its legal battle against the city of Tampa, Florida,
which was trying to close its Internet doors. Tampa lawyers
argued that the VoyeurDorm home, based in the residential
neighborhood of Wellswood, was an adult business, and
therefore in violation of city zoning regulations. But the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, and overturned the lower
court's decision on September 21st finding that because the
public does not and cannot attend the actual activities of
VoyeurDorm, it does not fall afoul of the city ordinance.
About 80,000 VoyeurDorm members pay $34.95 per month to watch
the "real life" activities of 13 young women observed by 55
continuously operating webcasting cameras. Further information
may be found at
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,47104,00.html

NIMDA: A WORM WITH A TWIST

NIMDA, a virulent new worm/virus hybrid (Admin spelled
backwards to tweak system administrators) took the world by
storm. First appearing on September 18th, the worm could be
spread by visiting infected web sites or via e-mail, even when
the attachment was not opened. If Code Red had previously
infected your server, the worm could spread by exploiting the
back door that Code Red left behind. The worm/virus exploits
multiple vulnerabilities of various Microsoft products and can
cause systems to overload and crash with the constant self-
replication activity. Anti-virus companies scrambled to write
a fix and Microsoft hustled to offer patches. Microsoft's
information on NIMDA, preventing it and combating it, may be
found at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?
url=/technet/security/topics/Nimda.asp

*****************************************************
If you are interested in licensing "Bytes in Brief" for
retransmission to your clients under your firm's name,
please e-mail [email-masked]
...........................................................
Sensei Enterprises, Inc. is an information technology
consulting firm, located in Fairfax, Virginia, with
particular expertise in providing technological solutions for
law firms, courts, and other legal entities.
Phone: 703-359-0700
Fax: 703-359-8434
E-mail: [email-masked]
Web site: http://www.senseient.com

Nelson & Wolfe is a business and technology law firm located
in Fairfax, Virginia.
Phone: 703-359-9889
Fax: 703-359-8434
E-mail: [email-masked]
Web site: http://www.nelsonwolfe.com

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #768
************************