From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 13:44:11 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A65721B97; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:44:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18927; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:44:13 -0500 Sender: jl@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <385E7BD3.93CEE37B@cptech.org> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:56:19 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecommerce , Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ecommerce] White Memorandum on Electronic Government THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release December 17, 1999 December 17, 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES SUBJECT: Electronic Government My Administration has put a wealth of information online. However, when it comes to most Federal services, it can still take a paper form and weeks of processing for something as simple as a change of address. While Government agencies have created "one-stop-shopping" access to information on their agency web sites, these efforts have not uniformally been as helpful as they could be to the average citizen, who first has to know which agency provides the service he or she needs. There has not been sufficient effort to provide Government information by category of information and service -- rather than by agency -- in a way that meets people's needs. Moreover, as public awareness and Internet usage increase, the demand for online Government interaction and simplified, standardized ways to access Government information and services becomes increasingly important. At the same time, the public must have confidence that their online communications with the Government are secure and their privacy protected. Therefore, to help our citizens gain one-stop access to existing Government information and services, and to provide better, more efficient, Government services and increased Government accountability to its citizens, I hereby direct the officials in this memorandum, in conjunction with the private sector as appropriate, to take the following actions: 1. The Administrator of General Services, in coordination with the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, the Chief Information Officers' Council, the Government Information Technology Services Board, and other appropriate agencies shall promote access to Government information organized not by agency, but by the type of service or information that people may be seeking; the data should be identified and organized in a way that makes it easier for the public to find the information it seeks. 2. The heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the maximum extent possible, make available online, by December 2000, the forms needed for the top 500 Government services used by the public. Under the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, where appropriate, by October 2003, transactions with the Federal Government should be available online for online processing of services. To achieve this goal, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall oversee agency development of responsible strategies to make transactions available online. 3. The heads of agencies shall promote the use of electronic commerce, where appropriate, for faster, cheaper ordering on Federal procurements that will result in savings to the taxpayer. 4. The heads of agencies shall continue to build good privacy practices into their web sites by posting privacy policies as directed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and by adopting and implementing information policies to protect children's information on web sites that are directed at children. 5. The head of each agency shall permit greater access to its officials by creating a public electronic mail address through which citizens can contact the agency with questions, comments, or concerns. The heads of each agency shall also provide disability access on Federal web sites. 6. The Director of the National Science Foundation, working with appropriate Federal agencies, shall conduct a 1-year study examining the feasibility of online voting. 7. The Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Agriculture, the Commissioner of Social Security, and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, working closely with other Federal agencies that provide benefit assistance to citizens, shall make a broad range of benefits and services available though private and secure electronic use of the Internet. 8. The Administrator of General Services, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the Government Information Technology Services Board, the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, and other appropriate agencies and organizations, shall assist agencies in the development of private, secure, and effective communication across agencies and with the public, through the use of public key technology. In light of this goal, agencies are encouraged to issue, in coordination with the General Services Administration, a Government-wide minimum of 100,000 digital signature certificates by December 2000. 9. The heads of agencies shall develop a strategy for upgrading their respective agency's capacity for using the Internet to become more open, efficient, and responsive, and to more effectively carry out the agency's mission. At a minimum, this strategy should involve: (a) expanded training of Federal employees, including employees with policy and senior management responsibility; (b) identification and adoption of "best practices" implemented by leading public and private sector organizations; (c) recognition for Federal employees who suggest new and innovative agency applications of the Internet; (d) partnerships with the research community for experimentation with advanced applications; and (e) mechanisms for collecting input from the agency's stakeholders regarding agency use of the Internet. 10. Items 1-8 of this memorandum and my July 1, 1997, and November 30, 1998, memoranda shall be conducted subject to the availability of appropriations and consistent with agencies' priorities and my budget, and to the extent permitted by law. 11. The Vice President shall continue his leadership in coordinating the United States Government's electronic commerce strategy. Further, I direct that the heads of executive departments and agencies report to the Vice President and to me on their progress in meeting the terms of this memorandum, through the Electronic Commerce Working Group in its annual report. WILLIAM J. CLINTON # # # -- James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176 From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 18:39:43 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6CA21DAB; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:39:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05827; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:39:48 -0500 Sender: jl@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <38601D7F.40CF5A5F@cptech.org> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:38:23 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list , ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ecommerce] Ralph Nader on Consumer Harm in Microsoft case This is part of a talk that Ralph Nader gave to a recent Open Source event in NYC. Jamie Love (http://www.cptech.org/ms/harm.html) Consumer Harm in the Microsoft Case by Ralph Nader Address to The Bazaar - An Open Source Software Event New York, New York December 15, 1999 Every time the Microsoft antitrust case moves forward, one observes a new wave of "where is the harm?" opinion articles in daily newspapers, presenting Microsoft's anticompetitive practices as harmful to competitors but not consumers. Judge Jackson's 206 page findings of fact addressed the issue of consumer harm in ways that resonated with many computer experts. While Judge Jackson mentioned that Microsoft had considerable leeway in terms of pricing Microsoft Windows, citing an internal Microsoft memorandum comparing the benefits of a $49 or $89 price for an upgrade price for Windows 98, the findings of fact devoted considerable attention to the non-price issues, such as those relating to innovation, choice and software quality, that are key to the Microsoft case. However, Judge Jackson's findings of fact are limited by the scope of the government lawsuit against Microsoft, both in terms of the types of anticompetitive conduct and the harm to consumers, and therefore understates the harm of Microsoft's monopoly to consumers. The US Department of Justice and State Attorney Generals have decided to prosecute a relatively narrow case against Microsoft, largely ignoring a plethora of issues relating to Microsoft's huge power in the desktop applications area, including the components of Microsoft Office, or the impact of its anticompetitive enterprise licensing strategies. We often hear from consumers who say they are harmed by Microsoft's monopoly abuses. Here are some of the complaints. Because this is a meeting about Linux, a free operating system, I will begin with the pricing issues. Pricing Issues Windows is too expensive. The price for Microsoft Windows depends upon how you buy it. A license for Windows is often bundled with a new PC. That doesn't mean it is free -- only that the OEM has paid for the license. When people talk about software prices, they sometimes forget that typically new technologies begin with high prices. Television sets, compact disk recorders and personal computers are only a few examples of this. Automobiles were very expensive when they were first introduced, costing around $10,000, or nearly $200,000 in today's dollars. More efficient mass production was followed by much lower prices. The Ford Model T, which was produced from 1908 to 1927, at one point sold for less than $260. As prices for personal computers, scanners, printers and other computing devices have fallen, Microsoft has been able to charge high prices for many of its products. For example, the OEM prices for Windows licenses have increased, making this license an ever larger share of the cost of a new computer. Microsoft charges consumers a list price of $109 for an upgrade of Windows 98, which is discounted by retailers to $89 -- but to get this price you must already own Windows 95, so it is like a maintenance fee. The list price for a new version of Windows 98 is $209. Yahoo.com sells Windows 98 at a discount for $181.92, nearly half the price of buying a new low end PC, and more than three times the $49.99 price for the well reviewed BeOS. BeOS is a technologically superior operating system that suffers from a paucity of third party applications, illustrating the significance of the consumer lock-in with Windows. In addition, Microsoft is steadily tightening the conditions on licenses. Many OEM licenses for Windows are tied to a single machine, and cannot be sold or transferred to another machine, even by the original owner. Business users are facing restrictions on the use of concurrent licenses, requiring them to purchase more copies than before. And for most models of PCs that consumers buy, the OEM has to purchase the license, even if the end user doesn't want the software. The "required to buy" Windows problem is a particular galling issue for Linux users who are often actively trying to avoid using Microsoft products. After our own efforts in 1998 to push the major OEMs to give consumers the chance to buy PCs without a Windows license, we have seem some modest improvement, as Dell and other PC manufacturers offer a limited number of PC models with Linux pre- installed. But it is still the case that nearly all of the PC models sold by major OEMs, including Dell, require purchase of a Windows license. A consumer who has been using computers since 1995 may have already purchased a half dozen or more Windows licenses. You might have begun with Windows 95a, but bought Windows 95b so you could better use the large hard drives. And then purchased one or more upgrade computers, with new Windows licenses. Then one has to consider the number of computers that need licenses. Often a person may have separate PCs for work and home, plus a laptop for travel. So it isn't simply the price of Windows, it's the number of licenses for Windows that you end up buying, and how often you have to pay upgrade fees. Microsoft forces upgrades of the operating system by introducing, even between official revisions, significant changes in the OS, including the important support for third party device drivers. Indeed, Windows 98 is already on its "second edition." To get what are essentially bug fixes, Microsoft charges Windows 98 users $19.95, plus shipping and handling, for the second edition of the same product. (Creating yet another opportunity to charge consumers more money so its products will function properly). Any given version of Windows becomes obsolete within a few years, because it will no longer support the latest innovations in hardware. This is intentional, because Microsoft's biggest "competitor" in the OS market is its installed base of users who have already purchased Windows. Microsoft forces consumers to buy what is essentially the same product again and again. In 1997, analysts said that Microsoft had a ninety-five percent share of global revenues for sales of office suites. Microsoft Office has become the global standard for word processing, spreadsheets and other desktop productivity applications. The pricing for MS Office is high. Microsoft's Office 2000 "standard" edition lists for $499, with a "street" price of $399. Even an upgrade to Office 2000 Standard has a list price of $249, and a discounted price of $195 - and this assumes you have already purchased the Microsoft Office before. The "premium" version of MS Office is now priced at $799, or $449 for an upgrade version. These prices are much higher than the prices for Corel's Office 200 suite, which features WordPerfect. For example, the list price for an upgrade of Corel's Standard Office 2000 suite lists for $99, about 40 percent of the Microsoft list price. (And discounts for about $79, about 40 percent of the Microsoft discounted price). Microsoft can command hefty prices for its Office Suite because consumers are often forced to upgrade - simply to read documents they receive from others. Microsoft is constantly changing document formats so that owners of older versions of Microsoft Office cannot read the newer documents. Again, Microsoft's main competitor is its own base of installed users. And, here too Microsoft is a tough adversary, using interoperability and compatibility as weapons, to force upgrades and generate more earnings for Microsoft. Millions of computer users who have perfectly functional copies of Microsoft Office 95 found it impossible to read documents prepared in Office 97, and one anticipates a new round of compatibility issues with Office 2000. Microsoft knows that most consumers have little use for the endless expansion of word processor features, particularly as the world has come to rely upon the much simpler formats for information used in electronic mail. Moreover, the newer versions nearly always contain new bugs, and necessitate more learning, and spark new predatory attacks on non-Microsoft products. Plus, as MS Office and Windows become ever larger, they require huge increases in computing resources. For consumers this often means a costly and time consuming hardware upgrade -- an event highly correlated with losses of user data. But for Microsoft, a hardware upgrade is usually just another source of revenue -- as nearly every new PC ships with a new license for Windows and other Microsoft software. One feature of Microsoft's pricing is the huge difference between its list prices and the prices paid by large buyers, including OEMs, big corporations, governments or universities. Microsoft knows that these large buyers need licenses to Microsoft products, and that they don't want to pay the high list prices. All of these large buyers get Microsoft products at significant discounts. However, for many big users, Microsoft insists on "enterprise" type licenses, which effectively force big organizations to buy licenses for many products for all employees (or students). When Microsoft gives an organization a blanket license for Windows and Office, they make it next to impossible for rivals to compete, since the organization has already paid Microsoft a license fee for all the computer users. Microsoft's pricing strategies are designed to give organizations no realistic options, if they want to avoid sky high list prices for Microsoft Office and Windows. This is also an issue for the OEMs, since the price of software is a significant component of cost in the highly competitive PC market. Microsoft can use the threat of higher prices for OEM licenses -- for Windows or Office -- to discipline OEMs, and reduce opportunities for Microsoft competitors. Non-Pricing Issues While the pricing issues are an important measure of the cost of the Microsoft monopoly, we hear more often from consumers about non- price issues, including many of the non-price issues raised by Judge Jackson. The most common complaint is that Microsoft crashes. "At least once a day," according to many Microsoft Windows users. We also hear countless complaints that Microsoft attacks non-Microsoft products, so they don't work. For example, when Microsoft released its Windows Media player, as a competitor against the RealAudio player, consumers wrote to say it disabled dozens of third party multimedia software programs. Little wonder that people call Microsoft's Internet Explorer, the "Internet Exploder," because it attacks and disables an unpredictable number of non-Microsoft applications. The documents in the Microsoft trial shed new light on the seemingly endless compatibility and interoperability problems with Windows and Microsoft Office. When Microsoft executives proposed making "running any other browser . . . a jolting experience," they were simply adding yet another example of the "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run," corporate legacy. Microsoft could never have succeeded as a software company if its intentions to sabotage third party products were known earlier, before consumers and third party developers invested billions of dollars and countless hours around the Windows platform. Even before you consider issues surrounding deliberate hostility to users, you have the typical problem of a monopoly that can get away with poor products. Because it is so costly and difficult to migrate to a new platform, Microsoft can succeed even when its core products suffer hugely from poor stability, limited interoperabilty, and endless security problems. The fact that millions of users tolerate daily crashes of Windows says volumes about the costs of migration away from Windows. But, as Judge Jackson points out, and as most computer experts know, not all of the quality problems are innocent. In its internal emails and by countless examples, Microsoft has demonstrated that it believes it benefits when consumers cannot make competitor's products work correctly. Microsoft has a range of methods to undermine its competitor's products. When it does not use deliberate sabotage, it can withhold important technical information or refuse to license technology to its competitors, such as when it refused to permit Netscape to distribute a utility to log-on to Internet Service Providers, or when it withholds or unexpectedly changes applications programming interfaces and data file formats. Microsoft can also destroy the quality of rival software by using predatory business practices, such as the enterprise licensing of Windows and MS Office, exclusionary OEM and ISP licensing, or bundling of products with "must have" Windows and Office products. When Netscape cannot effectively distribute its browser through ISP or OEM channels, and when Microsoft's Internet Explorer product is bundled in with Windows and MS Office, Netscape can no longer justify continued R&D in the product. This harms consumers who prefer Netscape. When Microsoft bundles Outlook Express, its personal information manager and email client, into Windows, millions of users who relied upon rival products, like ECCO Pro, were stranded when their products were abandoned by publishers who could not compete with a bundled product having a zero marginal cost to consumers. And there are countless other examples of this in the software market. Despite the colossal sums of money being invested in ecommerce ventures, there is very little investment for desktop productivity software. And while the stock market seems crazy about some Linux stocks, and with all due respect to this gathering, and in light on the fact that we are using Linux extensively in our offices, Linux is still primarily a server technology, without significant penetration in the PC "client" space. For this to change, there will have to be considerable improvements in Linux documentation and in Linux desktop applications. For most PC users, there is a steadily shrinking number of choices for a growing number of important applications. Microsoft is squeezing the life out of markets for word processors, spreadsheets, desktop database software, presentation graphics, personal information managers, email clients and Internet browsers -- the applications that most computer users need. Some observers, such as Robert J. Samuelson, seem to think that Microsoft has provided a public service. By eliminating competitors, Microsoft gives everyone a common standard, and making life simpler has benefits, Samuelson says. I think most people here see the poverty of this analysis. There are, of course, alternative methods of setting standards than relying upon a private monopoly. The Internet is a powerful and relevant example of how a non-monopolistic standard can facilitate enormous innovation. And, as pointed out in Judge Jackson's findings of fact, Microsoft has sought to crush third party technologies, such as Java, that create cross platform standards that Microsoft does not control. The free software movement actively embraces a more open approach to software development. A distribution of Linux isn't the creation of a single firm. It is a collection of hundreds of programs developed by different individuals and groups, that work together. The disclosure of the source code is designed to make it easier to design software programs that work together, to solve user problems. There is competition among distributions of Linux, and users can choose alternative graphical user interfaces, programming tools, utilities and applications. As described in the so called Halloween memorandums, Microsoft's response to the popularity of Linux is to seek ways to cripple interoperability, by deploying proprietary and patented software interfaces. And so far, Microsoft has resisted efforts by OEMs to ship computers ready to dual boot Windows and Linux or Windows and BeOS. There are, of course, huge costs associated with forcing everyone into a software monoculture. Some of the issues concern security. Microsoft's security breach of the week wouldn't be such a huge problem if its software wasn't so ubiquitous. But this is only one of many issues. There are also large costs associated with the disappearance of the products that Microsoft crushes. In the beginning, Microsoft had a tiny presence in desktop applications, and businesses and individuals invested money and time around non-Microsoft products. The forced migration to Microsoft's Johnny-come-lately imitations is costly. Consumers value choice, about a wide range of software characteristics. WordPerfect and Microsoft Word have different approaches to document management. Netscape Navigator, Microsoft Explorer and Opera appeal to differ users. Every software product has its own fans and its own critics. Robert Samuelson seems to think of this as an inefficiency, but the contrary is true. A "one size fits all" world harms consumers, and lowers productivity. Competition among software products leads to innovation and improvements in software quality. This competition moves the industry to solve the problems consumers face, and leads to more productive and reliable products. Indeed, perhaps the most important consideration is that Microsoft is not a leader in product development -- it is an imitator, and this is the most significant harm to consumers -- the stifling of innovations that we never see. As pointed out by Judge Jackson, even Intel, the other half of Wintel, was forced by Microsoft to stop development of a promising new multimedia technology. We recognize that in software markets, there may be cases where the market coalesces around a single product with a large market share. But it is one thing for that decision to be made on the basis of competition for consumer satisfaction, based upon product quality and price, and something else when consumers are forced to pick Microsoft, by an endless array of underhanded, coercive and non- meritorious tactics. Consumers are harmed when there is no real choice, except to succumb to the Microsoft Borg. Thank you. For more information, see http://www.cptech.org/ms Contact Ralph Nader at ralph@essential.org -- James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176 From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 22:49:52 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E6D21B3A; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:49:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (ppp-6.essential.org [216.0.125.6]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03750; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:49:57 -0500 Sender: jamie@milan.essential.org Message-ID: <386049D2.EEBBBD3D@cptech.org> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:47:30 -0500 From: James Love X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecommerce , Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Cc: creuss@bluewin.ch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ecommerce] Microsoft: defrag utility and Scientology firm This is from a pointer provided by Christoph Reuss . Apparently Microsoft is in a controversy in Germany over potential security risks from a defrag utility created by a firm with close Scientology links. Jamie ---------------------------------- http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/25/058/ Windows 2000 in Danger of beeing Banned Scientology participation Critizised by Church Representatives An integrated component of Windows 2000 is made by a Scientology company. The connection between the psycho sect and the software giant is annoying representatives of the major churches in Germany. Microsoft risks a boycott of its flagship product by churches and government agencies. Windows 2000, the successor of Windows NT shipping in February, contains a defragmentation program called Diskeeper. The manufacturer is the company Executive Software Inc. (http://www.execsoft.com/) of the professed scientologist Craig Jensen. Founded in 1981 the enterprise offers defragmentation and data storage tools to "enhance the speed and performance of Microsoft Windows NT". Executive chief Jensen himself shares his biography on his homepage. According to that he has been a member of the organization calling itself church since 1974 and supposedly transformed his company from a "one-man show to a flourishing multi-million Dollar corporation" with the help of the scripts of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Jensen also climbed the corporate ladder at Scientology: He is an operating Thetan at level VIII (OT VIII), the highest level scientologists can achieve currently. In 1992 the Californian company opened an office in Hamburg. Staff was hired according to the following criteria: "Fully trained scientologists, computer skills desirable but not a prerequisite". By integrating the Executive product into Windows 2000 Microsoft created a situation that at least a few large potential customers see as a serious problem. A employee of the German catholic church who did not want his name mentioned told c't that the origin of the software is "highly disturbing". It is "a genius move" of the Scientology organization if soon such a program that has direct and active access to all data is working principally on every company desk and in government and church institutions as an integrated part of a widely used operating system. Espionage suspected The underlying reason for these kinds of worries is the philosophy of the Scientology umbrella organization WISE, Executive being a member of the latter. WISE stands for World Institute of Scientology Enterprises and forms the "most important money-generating apparatus of the psycho sect" according to the German news magazine Focus. Up to 15 percent of the revenues are paid to Scientology. The participating companies are "exclusively managed with LRH technology" describes WISE itself; LRH are the initials of Hubbard. [snip] -- James Love Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org love@cptech.org 202.387.8030; fax 202.234.5176 From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 17:45:11 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE3421C34; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 17:45:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10216; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 17:45:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 17:45:17 -0500 (EST) From: James Love X-Sender: love@milan.essential.org To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org, random-bits@venice.essential.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Ecommerce] Slashdot on Google Patent This is a discussion on slashdot.org about the google searching patent. Jamie http://slashdot.org/articles/99/12/26/2121203.shtml ------------------------------- James Love Center for Study of Responsive Law | Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 | http://www.cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 | love@cptech.org From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 28 13:58:00 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F86121B0C; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 13:58:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23042; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 13:58:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 13:58:03 -0500 (EST) From: James Love X-Sender: love@milan.essential.org To: random-bits@venice.essential.org, ecommerce@venice.essential.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Ecommerce] IP: Web Tracking and Data Matching Hit the Campaign Trail (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 17:56:46 -0500 From: Dave Farber To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: Web Tracking and Data Matching Hit the Campaign Trail Date: Thu, 23 Dec 99 20:40 PST From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator) Subject: Web Tracking and Data Matching Hit the Campaign Trail Greetings. In yet another example of the "if it's legal, someone will do it" school of data matching and web tracking, it has been revealed that the two leading Republican presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, have contracted with Aristotle Publishing (http://www.aristotle.org) to target web users by matching web browsing habits and web site signup data with actual voter registration records. Apparently these are the only two presidential candidates currently making use of this service, as announced by an Aristotle spokesman. Aristotle, which describes itself as a "thriving, growing, profitable firm," provides "tools" to political campaigns to "influence public opinion" and "win votes." Their web site apparently can only be viewed if you have javascript enabled--without it you could simply see a blank page. You may have already been justifiably concerned about DoubleClick, Inc.'s tracking of your behavior over the web, but Aristotle takes consolidation of personal data to a whole new level, by actually combining the information that has been provided by web users (e.g. for various "freebie" web giveaways), with specific and detailed political data such as voter location and party affiliation information, obtained from voter registration roles. Maybe you wondered why you seemed to be getting something for nothing at those web sites, and what would really happen to that information you provided to them? Well, now you know. Welcome to the big time. Once you've been targeted by this system, you'll be presented with the designated candidates' political banner ads on at least 1500 web sites, including some major portal and news sites. Some of these ads, once clicked, entice the user to enter various additional personal information (some of which Aristotle says they don't record). Of course, to the average web user, there's no clue that they've been the subject of this sort of intensive data matching and rifling through their voter registrations. Most users would probably just assume that the ads popped up at random. Random? Surely you jest! And golly gee whiz Mr. Wizard, you guessed it, this *is* all entirely legal. Proponents claim that there've been no significant complaints about the privacy aspects of the operation (perhaps that will change?), and they also suggest that they're no more privacy-invasive than direct mail (wow, now there's a "high" ethical bar to be shooting for if ever I've seen one...) And in fact, Aristotle is obviously proud of the service, since they've posted at least one outside press account on their own web site. (Will this issue of the PRIVACY Forum Digest show up on there? They hereby have my permission...) Keep in mind that this is just the barest shadow of the sorts of "services" likely to evolve in the near future, given the "wild west" attitude which still prevails regarding personal information. It was bad enough when this *only* involved search engines and ads for offshore gambling or mailorder sales pitches. But the introduction of the political element directly into the mix should give everyone cause for some serious concern. I dare say that this calls into sharp focus the abysmal lack of regulations to control the handling and abuse of personal information, regardless of its various sources. The power of web data collection, tracking, ad presentation, and similar technologies, combined with other traditionally public record data sources (and voter registration roles are just the tip of the iceberg) creates a scenario that might cause Darth Vader to be jealous. But of course, it's also possible to hold opposing points of view. Maybe none of this actually matters? Perhaps some persons reading this might feel that there really are no significant privacy problems with these sorts of data collection and matching activities. Perhaps you're not all that concerned about who gets your data or how it's used? Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I'd be interested in hearing your views (please remember to send submissions for possible inclusion in the Digest to privacy@vortex.com). It does seem bizarre, however, that it appears to be impossible to register to vote in this country without subjecting yourself to these sorts of information manipulations, with apparently no real opt-out available. Given these developments, perhaps it's no wonder that whenever I see the glowing descriptions of plans for voting over the Internet (already a reality for one state's primary and high on the wish list for many states) I get a cold chill down the back of my spine... Until next time, all the best for the holidays! --Lauren-- lauren@vortex.com Lauren Weinstein Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Co-Founder, PFIR: People for Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy ****************** A Happy Holiday and a safe New Year from Dave and GG Farber ****************** From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Fri Dec 31 16:45:07 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BE421C33; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 16:45:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (ppp-2.essential.org [216.0.125.2]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA30255; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 16:45:06 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <386D3223.A15080C4@cptech.org> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 17:45:55 -0500 From: James Love X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ecommerce] Link Controversy Page People who are interested in linking disputes, will find this page useful. Jamie -------------------- The Link Controversy Page is intended to provide an overview of the legal problems of using hyperlinks, inline images and frames in the WWW. http://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~s-bes1/lcp.html -- James Love, Consumer Project on Technology v. 1.202.387.8030, fax 1.202.234.5176 love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Wed Jan 5 01:53:21 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5223621AFF for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 01:53:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27844; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 01:53:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 01:53:20 -0500 (EST) From: James Love X-Sender: love@milan.essential.org To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org, tacd-ecommerce Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Ecommerce] Proposed TACD postion on Linking This could use some work. Jamie --------------- Draft .9 Proposed TACD position on Linking The Internet's World Wide Web is designed so that persons can point to information, using a Universal Resource Locator, commonly referred to as a URL. Pointing to a resource on the Internet is sometimes referred to as "linking." It is common for web pages to link to other resources on the web. There are legal disputes over linking practices. For example: - Music publishers claim that it is illegal to link to web pages that have copies of software that can circumvent DVD anti-copying technologies. - Music publishers want Internet Service Providers to be libel for infringement if they host web pages that link to web pages that have infringing MP3 files. Similar claims have been made in connection with hypertext links to photographs and other materials. - Ticketmaster, Universal Studies, eBay, the Times of London, the Washington Post, the Village Voice and others have asserted that "deep" linking is illegal under various legal theories. (Deep linking is a name for linking to an "interior" page on a web site, such as http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-324822.html, which is a "deep link" to a page on cnet's news.com web site.) - The Los Angles Times, Total News, Playboy, Futuredontics, Hotmail and many others are involved in disputes over the appropriate use of "framing" web pages -- a practice of presenting a web page within another web page. The technology of the World Wide Web is new. Governments should avoid restrictions on a person's freedom to point to information. The benefits of the free flow of information, including information about where information is located, are great. We are particularly concerned with efforts by governments to prohibit such practices as "deep linking," a practice that is fundamental to the web. If web page operators were to forgo deep links, it would be far more difficult to find information on the Internet. We oppose efforts to make web publishers liable for infringing materials that appear on linked pages. This will chill speech on the Internet. It is impossible for most persons to know if a linked web page contains infringing materials. Moreover, it will undermine the rights of persons who have legitimate claims to use materials on the web, including cases where there are differences of opinion regarding infringement. For example, under doctrines of fair or innocent use, the use of copyrighted materials is permitted, even without authorization, for some purposes. However, if a web page is perceived to be using materials in ways that may be controversial, the publisher will run the risk of others declining to link to that page, in order to avoid liability for contributory infringement. The web page publisher will be thus be punished even if engaged in legally permitted activities. The Internet is a new technology, and we are only beginning to understand how it will be used. There are many technological solutions to concerns expressed by content owners. Governments should protect the freedom of persons to link to web pages. For more information on linking disputes, see: http://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~s-bes1/lcp.html ------------------------------- James Love Center for Study of Responsive Law | Consumer Project on Technology | P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 | http://www.cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 | love@cptech.org From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Wed Jan 5 02:19:05 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31ECA21AFF for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:19:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA28029; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:19:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:19:03 -0500 (EST) From: James Love X-Sender: love@milan.essential.org To: tacd-ecommerce , Ecommerce@venice.essential.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Ecommerce] Proposed TACD statement of junk email Junk Email The use of unsolicited commercial email is a growing burden for persons who use email. Consumers need better mechanisms to control and manage unwanted commercial solicitations. Governments should require mandatory labeling of unsolicited commerical solitications by electronic mail, so that consumers can use computers to sort of block such announcements. Op-out systems are not a sufficient protection for consumers, and it is very difficult to control the continued recycling of names on new mailing lists. Junk email is an international problem, and governments need to work together to develop common standards for labeling junk email. The character and nature of unsolicited commercial internet messages will change over time. For now, governments could begin by requiring every unsolicited commercial email announcement to use the following four characters in the beginning of the subject line: ADV: ------------------------------- James Love Center for Study of Responsive Law | Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 | http://www.cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 | love@cptech.org From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Thu Jan 6 22:23:34 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C907721B75 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 22:23:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (ppp-6.essential.org [216.0.125.6]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01712; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 22:23:33 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387563B7.44B4E321@cptech.org> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 22:55:35 -0500 From: James Love X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ecommerce] Information about ICANN expenditures on Travel This is a letter I sent today to Mike Roberts, the President of ICANN. Mike Roberts Dear Michael, Some time ago I wrote and asked for information about travel reimbursements for ICANN board members. You told me the information would be put on the web later. I have checked several times, and the financial reports on the web do not give such details. I am thus asking again for information about the money given to individual board members for travel and expenses. Specifically, I am asking for the amount of money each board member has received for every trip that they have sought reimbursement for, in 1999. I am also asking for a break down of those expenses according to expense category, such as airfare, meals, lodging, and other, for example. Please advise me if ICANN has a policy against releasing this type of information, if such a policy exists, or let me know when and if I will receive the information. I am asking both because I am wondering how ICANN spends its money (the money it gets indirectly from domain name owners), and what ICANN's policies are regarding such disclosures. I'm sure that you can see that both topics are legitimate issues regarding public accountability. Jamie Love fax 202.234.5176 -- James Love, Consumer Project on Technology v. 1.202.387.8030, fax 1.202.234.5176 love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Mon Jan 10 11:52:21 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@lists.essential.org Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC8221B05; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:52:21 -0500 (EST) Sender: jamie@venice.essential.org Message-ID: <387A0E0F.B7C6E88E@cptech.org> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:51:27 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ecommerce] Quick notes why the AOL acquisition of Time-Warner should be stopped: Quick notes why the AOL acquisition of Time-Warner should be stopped: 1. AOL is the single most important force today in advocatingfor open access to the cable broad band platform. If this merger is approved, AOL s interests will be fundamentally changed. 2. AOL is a direct competitor to Time-Warner as an Internetcontent provider on broad band services. 3. One relevant market for AOL and Time-Warner as contentproviders is for providing navigation and interface services to Internet users - such as menus for electronic commerce. 4. If AOL can buy Time-Warner, will a Microsoft/AT&T merger befar behind? 5. AT&T and Time-Warner are both trying to set up broad bandinternet services that can discriminate among content providers, and effectively degrade services offered by competitors. People who know about this include: Andy Schwartzman, Media Access Project Jeff Chester, Media Access Project Gene Kimmelman, Consumers Union Mark Cooper, CFA -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Mon Jan 10 14:35:24 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E53421AFF; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:35:24 -0500 (EST) Sender: jamie@venice.essential.org Message-ID: <387A3447.862E4A2D@cptech.org> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:34:31 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Meeks, Brock" Cc: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , ecommerce References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ecommerce] Re: [Random-bits] Quick notes why the AOL acquisition of Time-Warner should be stopped: "Meeks, Brock" wrote: > > But Steve Case, just now on the conference call, said that he knew the cable > open access issue would be a potential hurdle, so "we took it off the table > right away" but saying that the new company would be in FAVOR of open access > cable and provide for customer choice for ISPs. > When AOL purchaed Netscape, the company said it would continue to support the Mozilla project. We asked AOL to make specific legally binding commitments to this effect, and AOL refused. Since then, there have been some notabnle departures from the Mozilla project staff. Here is a link to Steve Case's letter to Jamie Zawinski when the Netscape merger was announced. http://www.mozilla.org/stevecase.html "Hopefully by now the AOL positon on mozilla.org is clear to all, but I did want to let you know personally that we're very supportive of mozilla.org;" When the merger was pending, Jamie Zawinski was quite hopeful. But later he resigned. http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html In general, we expect AOL to flip an issues when it suits AOL -- just as it did when it dropped Netscape as its browser in return for Microsoft giving AOL a good position for its ICON on Windows. Jamie Quick notes why the AOL acquisition of Time-Warner should be stopped: 1. AOL is the single most important force today in advocating for open access to the cable broad band platform. If this merger is approved, AOL s interests will be fundamentally changed. 2. AOL is a direct competitor to Time-Warner as an Internet content provider on broad band services. 3. One relevant market for AOL and Time-Warner as contentproviders is for providing navigation and interface services to Internet users - such as menus for electronic commerce. 4. If AOL can buy Time-Warner, will a Microsoft/AT&T merger be far behind? 5. AT&T and Time-Warner are both trying to set up broad bandinternet services that can discriminate among content providers, and effectively degrade services offered by competitors. -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Tue Jan 11 02:49:10 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732F921B57 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 02:49:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27038; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 02:49:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 02:49:08 -0500 (EST) From: James Love X-Sender: love@milan.essential.org To: tacd-ecommerce Cc: Ecommerce@venice.essential.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Ecommerce] Proposed TACD statement on ICANN This is a first draft. Comments are welcome. Jamie --- Proposed TACD statement on ICANN version .1 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a non-profit organization incorporated in the State of California that is seeking broad control over resources and functions that are essential for the operation of the Internet. According to ICANN, this includes "responsibility for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management. The most important area will concern the management of the domain name system (DNS). Everyone who uses the Internet has to use a domain name (names such as such as TACD.org or Amazon.com). Computer that are connected to the Internet use IP number (unique numeric internet addresses, such as 216.0.124.147). The DNS system is designed to be an authoritative way to map the easier-to-remember names to the IP numbers. (It is easier to remember CNN.com than 207.25.71.20, for example). The DNS management system provides a surprisingly highly centralized mechanism for influencing Internet navigation. (This is a fact readily apparently to anyone who fails to pay domain name registration fees and eliminated from the constantly updated databases of domain names, making a web page "disappear"). For years DNS management was considered a largely technical issue, managed by Internet Pioneer Jon Postel or other government contractors, that most users simply took for granted. With the growth of the commercial value of the Internet and electronic commerce, and the untimely death of Jon Postel, there has been an astonishing flurry of activity surrounding management of domain names and allocation of IP numbers. Early efforts by the US government to privatize the management of certain generic top level domain (gTLD) names such as .com, .net and .org, led to concerns that private firms, like Network Solutions, would obtain monopoly power of registration of important aspects of domain names, charging excessive prices for the registration of domains, and possibly imposing inappropriate restrictions on the use of domain names. And as e-commerce has become big business, there are also disputes involving a number of content issues, and many groups are seeking to control what happens on the Internet. For example: businesses are seeking to take away domain names that they claim infringe on trademark rights. Pharmaceutical companies want to prevent online pharmacies from selling inexpensive pharmaceuticals across national borders. Music companies want to prevent web pages from providing copies of software that will defeat DVD anti-copying technologies, or the distribution of unauthorized MP3 music files. Some governments are seeking to block access to web sites that feature gambling, the sale of unregistered securities, pornography, or censored political views. Owners of software, films, music and other materials are seeking methods of monitoring the private movements of copyrighted materials on the Internet, to police possible infringements. Groups with various agendas are seeking ways to block access to websites that engage in a variety of activities, or to impose new Internet surveillance systems that can be used to impose liability on certain actions. There is now growing attention to the role of the DNS system and Internet protocol development as a system of control over Internet usage. For example, by controlling the allocation and mapping of domain names and IP numbers, it is possible to render a web page invisible and unfindable to most Internet addresses. There are also proposals for various Internet protocols that would enable new mechanisms for surveillance of Internet transmissions. Because of their strategic importance, there are profound concerns over the future control over the resources to control DNS management. A number of groups with diverse interests and views are seeking mechanisms to limit the use of DNS management to narrow technical issues necessary for the operation of the Internet, and to prevent the system of DNS management from being used as an enforcement mechanism for government or private policy making. The Clinton Administration has proposed the creation of a private non-profit organization to control the DNS management system, under a system of "self governance." ICANN was created and selected by the US government to assume the ownership and control of the DNS system. Among the early acts by ICANN was the adoption of a set of policies regarding the use of well known trademarks, that critics say have substantially reduced the public's rights to use certain domain names. ICANN has also imposed fees on organizations that register domains, and announced a budget of approximately $6 million per year, with a President that will earn a salary of $300,000, plus benefits. The organization will have a nineteen member board of directors, who will fly business class to quarterly meetings in locations such as Cario, Santiago, Berlin and Singapore. ICANN can effective "tax" internet domain registrations, to fund any activity it desires, including the funding of litigation, lobbying, public relations, public policy research, conferences and other items. ICANN is now considering making policy for the Internet on topics such as the use of real organization names in navigation systems, the rights of national governments to the two digit top level domain space (such as .fr, .au, .de, etc), the addition of new top level domains such as . .firm, .store, .law, and .arts., and other issues, including issues relating to protocol development. ICANN is controlled by its board of directors, who have broad powers, including the power to amend ICANN's articles of incorporation and bylaws. The initial board was self selected. ICANN has created a system for various stakeholder groups to elected members to the board of Directors. These include the "Address supporting Organization," the "Domain Name Supporting Organization" and the "Protocol Supporting Organization," each of which elects three members of the board of directors. These groups are dominated by electronic commerce businesses. There will be a mechanism to elect nine additional board members from the general public. The lobbying for the ICANN board of directors has been surprisingly intense -- including, for example, an aggressive but failed campaign by AT&T and other firms on behalf of a former member of US Congress. Groups like the Motion Picture Association of America have been active in ICANN deliberations , as have many other business interests, particularly those representing trademark interests or firms engaged in the domain registration business. There is a concern that ICANN will be asked by various business interests to expand its present mission to address issues such as the enforcement of copyrights. Some ICANN supporters say it should be a model for developing self regulatory rules for privacy and consumer protection. It is the view of TACD that ICANN structure is not balanced, with nearly half of the board sets presently allocated by business interests through the various supporting organizations, and that ICANN's mission should be limited so that it does not become a general purpose internet governance organization. One mechanism to limit ICANN's authority would be the creation of a sui generis multilateral government charter, that would define and limit ICANN's authority. Such a could be based upon a limited purpose sui generis agreement among countries that express interest in working together, and that agree that ICANN's role should be limited to tasks essential to maintaining an efficient and reliable DNS management, and that ICANN will not be used as an instrument to promote policies relating to conduct or content on the Internet. While additional multilateral institutions may be desired to address electronic commerce issues, ICANN itself should not become the foundation for a vast Internet governance institution. ICANN should not use its power over domain registration policy to exclude persons from the use of a domain on issues that are not germane to managing the DNS system of mapping IP addresses into domain names. The right to have a domain on the Internet should be considered the same as the right to have a street address, a telephone number or a person's name. Accountability and transparency The records of ICANN should be open to the public, including financial records, and all ICANN contracts. The meetings of ICANN should be open to the public. The public should be given an annual opportunity to review and comment on the ICANN budget. The Budget of ICANN should be subject to review by the countries that provide the ICANN charter. Fees associated with domain registration should only be spent on activities essential to the management of the DNS system. ------------------------------- James Love Center for Study of Responsive Law | Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 | http://www.cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 | love@cptech.org From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Tue Jan 11 20:08:13 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from hpamraaa.compuserve.com (ah-img-rel-1.compuserve.com [149.174.217.152]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8C021B02 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:08:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by hpamraaa.compuserve.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/HP-REL-1.2) id UAA09353 for ecommerce@venice.essential.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:08:12 -0500 (EST) Sender: hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu Received: from hans-klein (par-c45-009-vty27.as.wcom.net [195.232.73.27]) by hpamraaa.compuserve.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/HP-REL-1.2) with SMTP id UAA09170; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:07:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000111173523.00825ec0@pop.compuserve.com> X-Sender: hkln@pop.compuserve.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:35:23 -0500 To: James Love , tacd-ecommerce From: "Hans K. Klein" Subject: Re: [Ecommerce] Proposed TACD statement on ICANN Cc: Ecommerce@venice.essential.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jamie, The content of this statement is excellent. It needs an editorial re-write, however. Some comments are below. Hans At 02:49 AM 1/11/00 -0500, James Love wrote: > > >This is a first draft. Comments are welcome. Jamie > >--- >Proposed TACD statement on ICANN >version .1 > >The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >is a non-profit organization incorporated in the State of >California that is seeking broad control over resources and >functions that are essential for the operation of the Internet. "is seeking broad control" -- not really accurate. First,ICANN *has* that broad control; the seeking stage is pretty much over. Second, ICANN did not just decide to seek that control; control was given to it by the The American People, in the form of the Dept. of Commerce. Pretty much everybody in the Internet community (Milton Mueller, Gordon Cook, Tony Rutkowski, Einar Steferud) supported the "privatization" of the Internet; to the best of my knowledge, only Rhonda Hauben explicitly opposed privatization. >According to ICANN, this includes "responsibility for the IP >address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain >name system management, and root server system management. > This is set out in the DoC's White Paper, which was a widely-supported document. >The most important area will concern the management of the domain >name system (DNS). Addresses are important, too. I suggest you soften your claims: "Perhaps the most important area..." or "One of the most important ..." Everyone who uses the Internet has to use a >domain name (names such as such as TACD.org or Amazon.com). >Computer that are connected to the Internet use IP number (unique >numeric internet addresses, such as 216.0.124.147). The DNS >system is designed to be an authoritative way to map the >easier-to-remember names to the IP numbers. (It is easier to >remember CNN.com than 207.25.71.20, for example). The DNS >management system provides a surprisingly highly centralized >mechanism for influencing Internet navigation. (This is a fact >readily apparently to anyone who fails to pay domain name >registration fees and eliminated from the constantly updated >databases of domain names, making a web page "disappear"). > >For years DNS management was considered a largely technical >issue, managed by Internet Pioneer Jon Postel or other government >contractors, that most users simply took for granted. With the >growth of the commercial value of the Internet and electronic >commerce, and the untimely death of Jon Postel, there has been an >astonishing flurry of activity surrounding management of domain >names and allocation of IP numbers. > Postel's death doesn't figure in the privatization debate. ICANN was already created by the time he died. >Early efforts by the US government to privatize the management of >certain generic top level domain (gTLD) names such as .com, .net >and .org, led to concerns that private firms, like Network >Solutions, would obtain monopoly power of registration of >important aspects of domain names, charging excessive prices for >the registration of domains, and possibly imposing inappropriate >restrictions on the use of domain names. > >And as e-commerce has become big business, there are also >disputes involving a number of content issues, and many groups >are seeking to control what happens on the Internet. For >example: > > businesses are seeking to take away domain names that they > claim infringe on trademark rights. > > Pharmaceutical companies want to prevent online pharmacies > from selling inexpensive pharmaceuticals across national > borders. > > Music companies want to prevent web pages from providing > copies of software that will defeat DVD anti-copying > technologies, or the distribution of unauthorized MP3 music > files. > > Some governments are seeking to block access to web sites > that feature gambling, the sale of unregistered securities, > pornography, or censored political views. > > Owners of software, films, music and other materials are > seeking methods of monitoring the private movements of > copyrighted materials on the Internet, to police possible > infringements. > >Groups with various agendas are seeking ways to block access to >websites that engage in a variety of activities, or to impose new >Internet surveillance systems that can be used to impose >liability on certain actions. There is now growing attention to >the role of the DNS system and Internet protocol development as a >system of control over Internet usage. For example, by >controlling the allocation and mapping of domain names and IP >numbers, it is possible to render a web page invisible and >unfindable to most Internet addresses. There are also proposals >for various Internet protocols that would enable new mechanisms >for surveillance of Internet transmissions. > >Because of their strategic importance, there are profound >concerns over the future control over the resources to control >DNS management. A number of groups with diverse interests and >views are seeking mechanisms to limit the use of DNS management >to narrow technical issues necessary for the operation of the >Internet, and to prevent the system of DNS management from being >used as an enforcement mechanism for government or private policy >making. > >The Clinton Administration has proposed the creation of a private >non-profit organization to control the DNS management system, >under a system of "self governance." This should be the opening line. Also, "has proposed" is out of date. It proposed it, and then it did it. >ICANN was created and >selected by the US government to assume the ownership and control >of the DNS system. Among the early acts by ICANN was the >adoption of a set of policies regarding the use of well known >trademarks, that critics say have substantially reduced the >public's rights to use certain domain names. ICANN has also >imposed fees on organizations that register domains, and >announced a budget of approximately $6 million per year, with a >President that will earn a salary of $300,000, plus benefits. >The organization will have a nineteen member board of directors, >who will fly business class to quarterly meetings in locations >such as Cario, Santiago, Berlin and Singapore. ICANN can >effective "tax" internet domain registrations, to fund any >activity it desires, including the funding of litigation, >lobbying, public relations, public policy research, conferences >and other items. Don't hint at criticisms; state them outright. "... will fly business class ..." -- say that they have a high budget and high operating expenses and then give some "for examples." [end of comments] > >ICANN is now considering making policy for the Internet on topics >such as the use of real organization names in navigation systems, >the rights of national governments to the two digit top level >domain space (such as .fr, .au, .de, etc), the addition of new >top level domains such as . .firm, .store, .law, and .arts., and >other issues, including issues relating to protocol development. > >ICANN is controlled by its board of directors, who have broad >powers, including the power to amend ICANN's articles of >incorporation and bylaws. The initial board was self selected. >ICANN has created a system for various stakeholder groups to >elected members to the board of Directors. These include the >"Address supporting Organization," the "Domain Name Supporting >Organization" and the "Protocol Supporting Organization," each of >which elects three members of the board of directors. These >groups are dominated by electronic commerce businesses. There >will be a mechanism to elect nine additional board members from >the general public. > >The lobbying for the ICANN board of directors has been >surprisingly intense -- including, for example, an aggressive but >failed campaign by AT&T and other firms on behalf of a former >member of US Congress. Groups like the Motion Picture >Association of America have been active in ICANN deliberations , >as have many other business interests, particularly those >representing trademark interests or firms engaged in the domain >registration business. There is a concern that ICANN will be >asked by various business interests to expand its present mission >to address issues such as the enforcement of copyrights. Some >ICANN supporters say it should be a model for developing self >regulatory rules for privacy and consumer protection. > >It is the view of TACD that ICANN structure is not balanced, with >nearly half of the board sets presently allocated by business >interests through the various supporting organizations, and that >ICANN's mission should be limited so that it does not become a >general purpose internet governance organization. > >One mechanism to limit ICANN's authority would be the creation of >a sui generis multilateral government charter, that would define >and limit ICANN's authority. > >Such a could be based upon a limited purpose sui generis >agreement among countries that express interest in working >together, and that agree that ICANN's role should be limited to >tasks essential to maintaining an efficient and reliable DNS >management, and that ICANN will not be used as an instrument to >promote policies relating to conduct or content on the Internet. > While additional multilateral institutions may be desired to >address electronic commerce issues, ICANN itself should not >become the foundation for a vast Internet governance institution. > >ICANN should not use its power over domain registration policy to >exclude persons from the use of a domain on issues that are not >germane to managing the DNS system of mapping IP addresses into >domain names. The right to have a domain on the Internet should >be considered the same as the right to have a street address, a >telephone number or a person's name. > > Accountability and transparency > >The records of ICANN should be open to the public, including >financial records, and all ICANN contracts. The meetings of >ICANN should be open to the public. The public should be given >an annual opportunity to review and comment on the ICANN budget. >The Budget of ICANN should be subject to review by the countries >that provide the ICANN charter. Fees associated with domain >registration should only be spent on activities essential to the >management of the DNS system. > > >------------------------------- >James Love >Center for Study of Responsive Law | Consumer Project on Technology >P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 | http://www.cptech.org >Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 | love@cptech.org > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ecommerce mailing list >Ecommerce@lists.essential.org >http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce > From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Tue Jan 11 22:04:49 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1BEC21B02 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 22:04:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14732; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 22:04:48 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 22:04:48 -0500 (EST) From: James Love X-Sender: love@milan.essential.org To: roundtable Cc: Ecommerce@venice.essential.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Ecommerce] Howard Rheingold: AOL and the stupid web, and our views Here are a few comments from Howard Rheingold and me on the AOL merger -- jamie http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/01/11/aol_reaction/index.html Howard Rheingold, Net pioneer and author of "Virtual Community" The more the Net becomes like TV, the stupider we are going to become; the more TV becomes like the Net, the more intelligent we'll become. It's the mass media-fication/dumbing down of the Net; the bigger these enterprises get and the broader their reach, the less intelligent their content. The Net used to be a grand alternative to television, and it still is. But with the expectations of the mass market, the big center of the curve, clearly AOL's ambition is to be more and more like television. Jamie Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology The current system -- you get a pipe from your ISP and you do what you want with content -- is that going to be history? The architecture that's being proposed by the big cable operators would allow them to discriminate in terms of performance ... They could design highly discriminatory platforms, so that [your content] will play differently if you have a business relationship with the owner of the last mile. Whether or not the operators go the common courier route or the common cable route -- "We own the pipe and decide what goes on it" -- is a big deal. AOL has been a big advocate of open access -- we need to have companies like AOL beating up on the regulators at state and federal level to change things. This merger is partly evidence that AOL thinks it's losing the battle to protect the competitors. AOL was the biggest proponent of making it a level playing field. They say they still are, but it depends how much you trust Steve Case. We don't; historically he does what benefits him at the time. -- James Love, Consumer Project on Technology v. 1.202.387.8030, fax 1.202.234.5176 love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Wed Jan 12 09:31:40 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE3721AFF; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:31:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17940; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:31:39 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387C902A.DB83813C@cptech.org> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:31:06 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ecommerce] Alex Kuczynski: On CBS News, Some of What You See Isn't There ----Original Message----- From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" To: "Dave E-mail Pamphleteer Farber" Subject: more "new media": ...What You See Isn't There Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 3:33 AM http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/cbs-digital.html On CBS News, Some of What You See Isn't There By ALEX KUCZYNSKI The New York Times If you were watching the "CBS Evening News" broadcast live from Times Square on New Year's Eve, you might have seen a billboard advertising CBS News out in the square behind Dan Rather. You might have looked at the well-placed billboard and wondered just exactly how it was that CBS was able to place its ad so fortuitously. The truth is, it didn't. The billboard and the advertisement for CBS did not exist. The image was digitally imported onto the live CBS broadcast and used to obliterate real objects, the NBC jumbotron underneath the New Year's ball and a Budweiser ad. Inserting digital images has become increasingly common in sports and entertainment programming -- usually to insert advertising and corporate logos and first-down markers in football -- but has generally been considered out of line on news shows, a type of programming in which the assumption of reality is considered sacrosanct and not informing viewers is considered a breach of journalistic guidelines. -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Thu Jan 13 10:23:45 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6B221AFF for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:23:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06639 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:23:44 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387DEDEA.BE935FA3@cptech.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:23:22 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ecommerce] US-Europe cybercrime treaty happening in secret --M.Wessling Does anyone know anything about this? Jamie -------------- Subject: US-Europe cybercrime treaty happening in secret --M.Wessling Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:52:24 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu *********** [The following note says a draft treaty would outlaw distributing (think: posting on your web site) hacking and eavesdropping tools, including presumably ones that are currently readily available like crack and tcpdump. I wonder if there will be a grandfather clause for the version of crack I compiled in 1992? If not, does this mean I'll be a criminal if I lend a CDROM with my hard drive archive to a friend? Hmmm. --Declan] *********** To: declan@well.com Subject: Bogus cybercrime treaty happening in secret Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:37:49 -0800 From: John Gilmore Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:23:17 +0100 (CET) From: Maurice Wessling Subject: cybercrime treaty I've just submitted this to slashdot. Many people on this list will have to worry about it. It will make your job a lot more difficult. maurice The Council of Europe is preparing a so-called "Cybercrime" treaty. European countries, the USA, Canada, Japan and South Africa are involved in the talks. There is no draft made public but a letter of the Dutch minister of Justice to the Dutch parliament is mentioning some of the details of what is discussed during the negotiations about the treaty. The draft is prepared by an ad-hoc group of experts (PC-CY) who will have to finish their work by the end of 2000. There is only a Dutch language version of the letter (if you can read Dutch, I've put it on http://www.bof.nl/cybercrime_treaty.pdf One part of the treaty is of particular interest to Slashdot readers. The treaty will outlaw hacking tools. A summary (not a word-by-word translation): Protection against so-called CIA-crimes (confidentiality, integrity and availability) of public and closed networks and systems: computer hacking, unauthorized eavesdropping, unauthorized changing or destroying of data (either stored or in transport). In discussion are also denial of service attacks to public and private networks and systems. This will probably not cover spam. The treaty will outlaw the production, making available or distribution of hardware and software tools to do the above-mentioned (hacking, denial of service, eavesdropping, etc.). The letter does not mention the possession of these tools. The treaty will also outlaw sites with lists of passwords or codes that give unauthorized access to computer systems (this is not about copyright related serials and cracks). The letter explicitly points out that as a result of this treaty countries that wish to implement digital wiretapping or the use of hacking tools by law enforcement need to implement that in their national legislation. This definitely sounds like a bad idea. The public will get a false sense of safety, security experts can not do their work and software producers and system administrators will loose an important stimulation to improve the quality of their work. Other points in the treaty: illegal content There is only agreement upon child pornography. The countries involved could not agree upon racist speech and pornography in general. European countries wanted to include racist speech but the USA blocked this. On the other hand, European countries did not want to include pornography in general as some others wanted to (the letter doesn't mention who). Child pornography is defined here as "the realistic depiction of a child involved in sexual behavior". It does not matter if children were actually involved in the fabrication of the material. It explicitly includes material with adult actors impersonating as children or computer animations. Cartoons with a non-realistic character are not included in the definition. The letter states a broad international consensus about this definition. email The treaty defines the procedures of investigating the content of email. The treaty tries to follow regimes for search warrants when email is stored and warrants for tapping of telecommunication when email is in transport. Under circumstances (not further explained in the letter) the person subject of a search warrant which involves stored email can be ordered to keep the search secret to prevent damage to the further investigation. border crossing aspects of computer and network search warrants Law enforcement can not cross borders during the search of a computer network. The draft outlines a procedure in which an official request is necessary to the other country to complete the search. All members of treaty will establish a national contact point where such request can be handled fast. In most cases this will be the Interpol contact point. Discussions are ongoing about accessing a computer in another country to which the person that gets the warrant already has authorized access. Is that a border crossing of law enforcement competence? Do the authorities in the other country need to be informed? There is no agreement yet about the status of information that was accidentally gathered from systems in other countries during a network search. One possibility is that that country gets a veto right on the use of that information. preservation order to admins of public or private networks The treaty will define a preservation order that can be given to the admin of the public or private network. Such an order is intended to log traffic data (not content) that would normally be lost immediately or as soon as that data is not important anymore for the maintenance of the network (according to privacy rules). tapping The treaty will force countries to implement digital wiretapping into their national laws. Both of public and private networks. As the Netherlands already have digital wiretapping laws this section is not discussed extensively in the letter. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Thu Jan 13 11:17:21 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from epic.org (epic.org [204.91.138.50]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB73721BF0 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:17:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from [204.91.138.229] (204.91.138.229) by epic.org with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2.1); Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:21:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <387DEDEA.BE935FA3@cptech.org> References: <387DEDEA.BE935FA3@cptech.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:15:50 -0500 To: James Love , ecommerce From: Marc Rotenberg Subject: Re: [Ecommerce] US-Europe cybercrime treaty happening in secret --M.Wessling Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Several organizations associated with the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (www.gilc.org) are following this. Maurice Wessling is the key contact in Europe. Marc. At 10:23 AM -0500 1/13/00, James Love wrote: >Does anyone know anything about this? Jamie > > >-------------- >Subject: US-Europe cybercrime treaty happening in secret --M.Wessling > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:52:24 -0500 > From: Declan McCullagh > To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu > >*********** > >[The following note says a draft treaty would outlaw distributing >(think: >posting on your web site) hacking and eavesdropping tools, including >presumably ones that are currently readily available like crack and >tcpdump. I wonder if there will be a grandfather clause for the version >of >crack I compiled in 1992? If not, does this mean I'll be a criminal if I >lend a CDROM with my hard drive archive to a friend? Hmmm. --Declan] > >*********** > >To: declan@well.com >Subject: Bogus cybercrime treaty happening in secret >Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:37:49 -0800 >From: John Gilmore > > >Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:23:17 +0100 (CET) >From: Maurice Wessling >Subject: cybercrime treaty > >I've just submitted this to slashdot. Many people on this list will have >to worry about it. It will make your job a lot more difficult. >maurice > >The Council of Europe is preparing a so-called "Cybercrime" >treaty. European countries, the USA, Canada, Japan and >South Africa are involved in the talks. There is no draft >made public but a letter of the Dutch minister of Justice to >the Dutch parliament is mentioning some of the details of >what is discussed during the negotiations about the treaty. >The draft is prepared by an ad-hoc group of experts >(PC-CY) who will have to finish their work by the end of >2000. There is only a Dutch language version of the letter >(if you can read Dutch, I've put it on >http://www.bof.nl/cybercrime_treaty.pdf >One part of the treaty is of particular interest to Slashdot >readers. The treaty will outlaw hacking tools. A summary >(not a word-by-word translation): > >Protection against so-called CIA-crimes (confidentiality, >integrity and availability) of public and closed networks >and systems: computer hacking, unauthorized eavesdropping, >unauthorized changing or destroying of data (either stored >or in transport). In discussion are also denial of service >attacks to public and private networks and systems. This >will probably not cover spam. >The treaty will outlaw the production, making available or >distribution of hardware and software tools to do the >above-mentioned (hacking, denial of service, eavesdropping, >etc.). The letter does not mention the possession of these >tools. >The treaty will also outlaw sites with lists of passwords or >codes that give unauthorized access to computer systems >(this is not about copyright related serials and cracks). >The letter explicitly points out that as a result of this >treaty countries that wish to implement digital wiretapping >or the use of hacking tools by law enforcement need to >implement that in their national legislation. > >This definitely sounds like a bad idea. The public will get >a false sense of safety, security experts can not do their >work and software producers and system administrators will >loose an important stimulation to improve the quality of >their work. >Other points in the treaty: > >illegal content >There is only agreement upon child pornography. >The countries involved could not agree upon racist speech >and pornography in general. European countries wanted to >include racist speech but the USA blocked this. On the other >hand, European countries did not want to include pornography >in general as some others wanted to (the letter doesn't >mention who). >Child pornography is defined here as "the realistic >depiction of a child involved in sexual behavior". It does >not matter if children were actually involved in the >fabrication of the material. It explicitly includes material >with adult actors impersonating as children or computer >animations. Cartoons with a non-realistic character are not >included in the definition. >The letter states a broad international consensus about this >definition. > >email >The treaty defines the procedures of investigating the >content of email. The treaty tries to follow regimes for >search warrants when email is stored and warrants for >tapping of telecommunication when email is in transport. >Under circumstances (not further explained in the letter) >the person subject of a search warrant which involves stored >email can be ordered to keep the search secret to prevent >damage to the further investigation. > >border crossing aspects of computer and network search >warrants >Law enforcement can not cross borders during the search of a >computer network. The draft outlines a procedure in which an >official request is necessary to the other country to >complete the search. All members of treaty will establish a >national contact point where such request can be handled >fast. In most cases this will be the Interpol contact point. >Discussions are ongoing about accessing a computer in >another country to which the person that gets the warrant >already has authorized access. Is that a border crossing of >law enforcement competence? Do the authorities in the other >country need to be informed? >There is no agreement yet about the status of information >that was accidentally gathered from systems in other >countries during a network search. One possibility is that >that country gets a veto right on the use of that >information. > >preservation order to admins of public or private networks >The treaty will define a preservation order that can be >given to the admin of the public or private network. Such an >order is intended to log traffic data (not content) that >would normally be lost immediately or as soon as that data >is not important anymore for the maintenance of the network >(according to privacy rules). > >tapping >The treaty will force countries to implement digital >wiretapping into their national laws. Both of public and >private networks. >As the Netherlands already have digital wiretapping laws >this section is not discussed extensively in the letter. > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology >To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text: >subscribe politech >More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >-- >James Love >http://www.cptech.org >mailto:love@cptech.org >voice 1.202.387.8030 > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ecommerce mailing list >Ecommerce@lists.essential.org >http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Thu Jan 13 15:26:06 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00BF21AFF; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:26:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA13393; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:26:06 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387E34CA.588F5AC6@cptech.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:25:46 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ecommerce] FTC action on eBay Interesting article about recent FTC action on eBay and its efforts to enforce the eBay user agreement, to stop a firm from spaming its users. ACLU and CDT criticized the FTC actions. http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/practice/techlaw/news/A13317-2000Jan12.html FTC's eBay Move Gets Mixed Reactions By Lisa I. Fried New York Law Journal January 13, 2000 The Federal Trade Commission's move last week to help the Internet auction site eBay enforce its user agreement and privacy policy is generating mixed reactions from Internet lawyers and consumer rights advocates. -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Thu Jan 13 18:11:24 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B066221C13; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:11:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16824; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:11:22 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387E5B87.21852A4B@cptech.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:11:03 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecommerce , Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , IP-Health list , pharm-policy , upd-discuss Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Ecommerce] National Academies: IPRs, who far should they be extended? This is part of a pretty important National Academies program on intellectual property. Jamie --------------------------- Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy The National Academies Intellectual Property Rights: How Far Should They Be Extended? Wednesday, February 2 & Thursday, February 3, 2000 Lecture Room National Academy of Sciences 2100 C Street, NW Washington, DC This conference will bring together Federal judges, executive branch officials, practitioners, corporate executives, legal scholars, and economists to discuss the effects on innovation and economic performance of extending intellectual property rights. Confirmed speakers include Hon. Randall Rader, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Hon. Todd Dickinson, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Hon. Fern Smith, Federal Judicial Center and U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Hon. Roderick McKelvie, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Richard Levin, President, Yale University Mark Myers, Senior Vice President, Xerox F.M. Scherer, Harvard Kennedy School of Government John Barton, Stanford University Law School Robert Merges, Boalt Hall Law School, University of California at Berkeley Sessions will examine recent IP developments and strategies in key sectors. Panel discussions will consider several cross-cutting issues: Wednesday, February 2 · IPRs in semiconductors · Technology development, competition and antitrust policy · IPRs in software and business methods · Patent standards, quality and scope · IP protection and knowledge transfers Thursday, February 3 · IPRs in biotechnology: pharmaceutical and agricultural applications · IP right to tools and results of fundamental research · Patent administration and litigation · Summary A current agenda may be found attached or on the STEP Board's website (www.nationalacademies.org/ipr). Registration is complimentary by (1) return email, (2) fax to 202-334-1505, or (3) completing the form on the website. For more information call Craig Schultz at 202-334-2200 or email to . We encourage you to refer this announcement to others who may be interested in joining us. (See attached file: 01-11agenda.doc) -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Fri Jan 14 16:30:11 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from web.net (web.net [192.139.37.21]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 64B1F21CAD for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:30:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from piac_5(ip125.ottawa8.dialup.canada.psi.net[154.5.70.125]) (9276 bytes) by web.net via sendmail with P:smtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:31:31 -0500 (EST) (Smail-3.2.0.109 1999-Oct-27 #3 built 1999-Nov-18) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000114163237.00ca9d30@pop.web.net> X-Sender: pippa@pop.web.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:32:37 -0500 To: ecommerce@lists.essential.org From: Pippa Lawson Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Ecommerce] AOL/TimeWarner merger FYI: action on the Canadian front... see www.piac.org THE PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY CENTRE (PIAC) CALLS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION ON AOL TIME WARNER MERGER MEDIA RELEASE January 14, 2000 The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) joined with American consumer organizations today in questioning the benefits to consumers from the AOL Time Warner Inc. blockbuster merger. The Consumers Federation of America, Consumers Union, the Consumers Project on Technology and the Media Access Project have called for the AOL acquisition of Time Warner to be stopped. Michael Janigan, Executive Director of PIAC noted that the AOL Time Warner merger is hardly good news: "There is much to indicate that this deal is a win for the shareholders of the merging companies without any increase in availability of services for consumers." Janigan also contrasted current market reality with past predictions of the future, "For the first part of this decade, we nourished the fiction that competition was going to build the Information Highway. Now, it seems as if the industry stakeholders think it will be built by eliminating the competition itself." In a letter to the Honourable John Manley, Minister of Industry, PIAC has submitted that the federal government should make a formal request pursuant to the 1995 agreement between the United States of America and Canada regarding the application of their competition and deceptive marketing practices laws. The request, pursuant to Article V of that Agreement, would be for US competition authorities to initiate appropriate enforcement activities against the anti-competitive implications of the proposed merger. In a statement released on January 10, the American groups noted that: "AOL is the single most important force today in advocating for open access to the cable broadband platform. If the merger is approved, AOL's interest will be fundamentally changed." They further noted that: "AOL is a direct competitor to Time Warner as an internet content provider on broadband services thereby lessening competition and raising the threat of discrimination among content providers effectively degrading the services offered by competitors." The Public Interest Advocacy Centre describes concerns particular to Canada. In 1995, the federal government's Information Highway Advisory Council issued a report entitled "The Challenge of the Information Highway". The report noted the importance of maintaining carriage/content separation: "The Broadcasting Act calls for programming that is varied and comprehensive, expressing a range of differing views on matters of public concern; indeed, the promotion of diversity has been a tradition in Canadian broadcasting policy and regulation. As companies merge to face global competition, maximize competitive advantage, and benefit from vertical integration, maintaining diversity will require structural measures that discourage preferential treatment based on ownership interests." The report went on to recommend: "The principle of carriage/content separation should be maintained at a minimum through the requirement of structural separation between programming and distribution undertakings and with other reasonable safeguards." The federal government acknowledged the legitimacy of these concerns in its later report "Building the Information Society: Moving Canada Into the 21st Century" in particular, the dangers to Canadian content for new media services were highlighted: "More important within the emerging information industry itself, there are signs of growing vertical integration between providers of broadcasting carriage and content services. This trend could ultimately leave providers of Canadian content vulnerable to discrimination. The present policy and regulatory framework may have to take this new reality into account." The implications of the merger calls into question the "hands off" policy of the government towards the internet. AOL has indicated that they have discretion about "populating channels" on Canadian AOL where they see fit (National Post, January 12, 2000). "We appear to be getting regulation of the internet and control of access but it is private corporate regulation not necessarily initiatives in keeping with Canadian objectives." Janigan added. ______________________________________________________________________________ January 13, 2000 Honourable John Manley Minister of Industry 235 Queen Street 11th floor, East Tower Ottawa, ON K1A 0H5 Dear Minister Manley: Re: AOL Time Warner Merger The AOL acquisition of Time Warner presents serious implications for Canadian consumers of broadcasting and new media services, as well as potential problems of access for Canadian content providers. These problems are not confined to Canada. Significant and reputable consumer groups in the United States, including the Consumers Federation of America, Consumers Union, the Consumers Project on Technology and the Media Access Project, have called for the AOL acquisition of Time Warner to be stopped. We believe that the analysis of the American consumer groups is compelling, and that a thorough review of the competitive and other implications of this deal is called for. As you are aware, the issue of the importance of carriage/content separation is not a new one for the federal government and your department. In 1995, the Information Highway Advisory Council report entitled "The Challenge of the Information Highway" had this to say on the issue: "The Broadcasting Act calls for programming that is varied and comprehensive, expressing a range of differing views on matters of public concern; indeed, the promotion of diversity has been a tradition in Canadian broadcasting policy and regulation. As companies merge to face global competition, maximize competitive advantage, and benefit from vertical integration, maintaining diversity will require structural measures that discourage preferential treatment based on ownership interests." Recommendation 7.7 of the aforesaid report provided as follows: "The principle of carriage/content separation should be maintained at a minimum through the requirement of structural separation between programming and distribution undertakings and with other reasonable safeguards." The legitimacy of these concerns was acknowledged by the federal government in its later report "Building the Information Society: Moving Canada Into the 21st Century". That report noted the dangers to Canadian content for new media services: "More important within the emerging information industry itself, there are signs of growing vertical integration between providers of broadcasting carriage and content services. This trend could ultimately leave providers of Canadian content vulnerable to discrimination. The present policy and regulatory framework may have to take this new reality into account." PIAC is of the opinion that the AOL Time Warner merger may have serious and sustaining implications for access and distribution of new Canadian media services. It not only blurs the line between the desirable carriage/content separation, it potentially lessens competition. In the words of our American counterparts the deal: "...raises the threat of discrimination among content providers effectively degrading the services offered by competitors." We believe that the implications for Canada and Canadian consumers are such that the government should make a formal request pursuant to Article V of the 1995 "Agreement between the government of the United States of America and the government of Canada Regarding the Application of Their Competition and Deceptive Marketing Practices Laws" The Agreement provides that: "If a party believes that anti-competitive activities carried out in the territory of another party adversely affect its important interest, the first party may request that the other parties competition authorities initiate appropriate enforcement activities..." We believe that AOL's acquisition should be afforded a rigorous review by American competition authorities. It is also our preliminary view that the merger in its current form should be stopped. We welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns with your office and your officials. We would be pleased to provide any further information that may be of assistance to the government in making this request. Thank you. Yours truly, Michael Janigan Executive Director/General Counsel cc: Konrad von Finckenstein, Commissioner of Competition ------------------------ Philippa Lawson Counsel Public Interest Advocacy Centre 1204 - 1 Nicholas St. Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7B7 tel: (613) 562-4002 ext.24 fax: (613) 562-0007 e-mail: pippa@web.net PIAC webpage: http://www.piac.ca From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Tue Jan 18 12:08:12 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C37B21B4F; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:08:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17188; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:08:12 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <38849E1C.8A54BAC2@cptech.org> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:08:44 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ecommerce] Media Concentration issue: David Cassel on AOL censoring email critical of AOL *** Democracies Online Newswire - http://www.e-democracy.org/do *** ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:39:00 -0800 (PST) From: David Cassel To: AOL Watch Subject: AOL Watch: Is AOL Blocking Your Mail? I s A O L B l o c k i n g Y o u r M a i l ? ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ On September 6, the AOL Watch newsletter was sent to its 50,000 readers. But subscribers on AOL didn't receive it. Canvassing nearly two dozen of the list's AOL subscribers, all reported the same thing: the newsletter didn't reach their AOL mailboxes. Had AOL's "spam" filters made a mistake? Or was the newsletter being deleted because it had included the phone number for cancelling AOL accounts? AOL's postmaster didn't respond to requests for comment. But AOL's privacy policy specifies AOL can read your e-mail "to protect the company's rights and property." Have they already invoked that clause? In July of 1997 Simutronics announced that AOL "without our knowledge, has been deleting all e-mail from Simutronics addresses to AOL addresses." A gaming newsletter also reported e-mail from gaming company Sierra wasn't reaching AOL addresses, and both incidents were cited in a lawsuit filed by a third company. http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0066.html http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0080.html Ziff-Davis News uncovered another incident, in which AOL, equating an internet web site's "Thank you" notes to customers with unsolicited commercial e-mail, began deliberately blocking the e-mail. (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,4436,2139310,00.html) And one former AOL content partner told AOL Watch their goodbye to staffmembers suspiciously failed to arrive. In fact, AOL's Terms of Service also states they may block access to web sites that are "injurious to AOL" -- and they may have already begun. The author of a book about on-line dating -- titled "You've Got Male" -- filed a lawsuit in November alleging AOL prevented their users from accessing her site! Reuters reported that AOL had earlier demanded she stop selling the book and to never re-print it. "My attorney told me, 'You may as well change the name of the book," the author commented, "because you can't fight a big company like that'." http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-122453.html?tag=st.cn.1. http://www.youve-got-male.com/rocky_mountian_news_story.htm AOL has the power to control whether publishers can reach their audience. The "disappearance" of the last edition of this newsletter ( http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0102.html ) meant that many AOL Watch readers didn't received a post for nearly ten months. (Ironically, that edition had been titled "Breaking AOL's Grip".) AOL subscribers concerned at the thought of a corporation rifling through your mailbox, picking and choosing what e-mail you'll receive and which web pages you'll access, should also consider: when it comes to simply delivering mail reliably, AOL has a bad record. At various times AOL has sporadically refused to deliver mail from several other internet services, including the Microsoft Network, FlexNet, Fuse.net, En.com, Cybercom.net, and Gorilla.net. http://www.aolwatch.org/flexnet.htm http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,16907,00.html http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0011.html http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0009.html http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0081.html http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0080.html One December, AOL even stopped displaying thousands of web pages for over ten days. ( http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0031.html ) But AOL has affected the flow of online communication in other ways, too. On December 24 the Washington Post reported that internet service providers have been "bombarded with calls" from subscribers, most complaining that after installing AOL's 5.0 software, "non-AOL Internet software is disabled." Beta-testers warned AOL about the problem, the Post and other news outlets have noted -- but the warnings were apparently ignored. http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/print/0,1089,8_216641,00.html Anger over the glitch proves noticeable numbers of AOL users now choose non-AOL services for their net access. Though AOL appears to have disregarded them, the users show that thousands of internet services exist for dissatisfied AOL subscribers, and that AOL doesn't have a monopoly on delivering service to homes like the cable television companies that deliver cable programming. But has AOL discovered a way to change that? A proposed merger with Time-Warner grants AOL access to that company's cable system -- and some observers fear other net services won't get the same access. Then only AOL would be able to offer high-speed net access through the cable! In his most-recent Community Update, Steve Case gloated that the deal gives AOL "an unprecedented ability to drive commerce" -- but besides exclusive rights to lucrative advertising and sales money, AOL could also determine what news and information is available. One columnist suggested that the real appeal of the merger "hinges on the ability to control both customers' ability to access the Internet and what they see, hear and read when they're online." http://www.alternet.org/PublicArchive/Hazen011400.html A variation on picking-and-choosing what subscribers receive will then become a reality! Senator Patrick Leahy warned that "we will have to look closely at whether it makes public policy sense to consolidate control of content, cable and Internet service distribution channels." ( http://www.senate.gov/~leahy/releases/0001/0110_4144.html ) Even before AOL's proposed merger, Forbes magazine had suggested AOL as "potential defendants" in a Department of Justice monopoly break-up. ( http://www.forbes.com/forbes/99/1129/6413054a.htm ) Now Senator Leahy wants Americans to think about the future. "At some point, all of this concentration and convergence has implications for consumers, because it will minimize competition and choice, giving us fewer voices and fewer pipelines in the marketplace." Ultimately the Senator cautions about the need to "make sure that all that information does not become funneled and controlled by just two or three sources." Resistance to the merger is already building. ( http://www.nypost.com/business/22004.htm ) Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology warns that "AT&T and Time-Warner are both trying to set up broad band internet services that can discriminate among content providers, and effectively degrade services offered by competitors" ( http://www.cptech.org/ecom/aol-tw.html ) The European Union also announced that they'll investigate the implications of the proposed deal, and Canada's Ministry of Industry is already being urged to move against it. http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,121604,00.html http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,33668,00.html Concerned netizens have a way to voice their concerns. "People should contact the agencies that will review the merger," the Consumer Project on Technology's Jamie Love told AOL Watch. "That will include the Federal Communications Commission, as well as the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission." There's also the ultimate protest: cancelling your service! One celebrity is already seeking suggestions for ways to replace his AOL account -- Michael Moore, director of "Roger and Me." He explained his feelings on his personal web page. "If just a few people end up owning all the ways for us to communicate with each other, and they decide what will be communicated and what won't, then we are all in deep trouble." ( http://www.michaelmoore.com/01122000.html ) Moore notes that "The incredible beauty of this Internet is that you and I can bypass all of them and talk to each other directly. They hate that!" Fear of the new world order showed in dark humor circulating the internet. http://graphics.nytimes.com/00/01/11/oped/011100opart.GIF http://www.globeandmail.ca/series/cartoon/0112.html One AOL Watch reader joked there might be consequences for cable viewers. "Attempting to switch channels will result in the message 'A request to the host has taken longer than expected. If the problem persists...' " And at least one Time-Warner employee with an AOL account suggested to AOL Watch that the deal has a bright side. "Perhaps now I'll be able to stay connected for more than three minutes without being cut off." Even the technology editor for Salon -- an AOL content partner -- saw the merger as a call to arms. "AOL-Time Warner's interests are now aligned opposite those of a freewheeling, independent Internet," their Managing Editor wrote. "So let's give 'em hell -- while we still can." (http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/01/14/aol_deal/index.html?CP=SAL&DN=) In fact, those who value the freedom of their speech over the interests of corporations are already on the move. Unidentified web users have already claimed the domains anti-aol.org and aoltimewarnersucks.com , and they've even installed a pornography page at aolwebmaster.com. (It's slogan is "So sleazy, no wonder I'm number one.") "Web Vengeance" software took it further, using a parody doppelganger -- "America Offline" -- to illustrate a program letting users shoot bullet-holes into any web page. http://www.segasoft.com/webvengeance/index.html AOL's unspoken desire to control all media may have met its match in Georgia resident Christopher Alan. He claimed the domain stephencase.com -- then composed a rockabilly song about it and put it up at the URL. "When you bought Time-Warner we were all impressed. How come you didn't buy your web address?" The bluesy guitar tune http://www.stephencase.com, http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/62/christopher_alan_cook.html served as an important reminder -- that the internet houses millions of individuals, each with their own uses for technology. Alan's taunting song reaffirms the hope that ultimately consumers will do what *they* want... oblivious to what Steve Case wants. "You may be a big-shot down at AOL, but I'm the one that got your URL!" THE LAST LAUGH AOL is even having trouble providing users with access to their own software. An exit screen ad in September barked "We've got a new and improved browser!" -- then told users to "Download now at Keyword: " The ad's failure to provide an actual keyword made downloading impossible -- and users who guessed keyword "browsers" were told that that keyword didn't exist. AOL's software then suggested users try keyword "brewers." David Cassel More Information - http://www.fair.org/media-beat/000113.html http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,121553,00.html http://slashdot.org/features/00/01/10/1418231.shtml http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/indepth/docs/dg113099.htm http://yahoo.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1429691.html http://www.internetworldnews.com/idx_article.asp?inc=010100/1.01Decon&issue=1.01 ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ Please forward with subscription information. To subscribe to this list, type your correct e-mail address in the form at the bottom of the page at http://www.aolsucks.org -- or send e-mail to MAJORDOMO@AOLWATCH.ORG containing the phrase SUBSCRIBE AOLWATCH To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to MAJORDOMO@AOLWATCH.ORG containing the phrase UNSUBSCRIBE AOLWATCH. ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ From owner-ecommerce@venice.essential.org Tue Jan 18 21:05:14 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B6421B02 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:05:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from citizen.xnet.com (citizen.xnet.com [199.245.227.75]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with ESMTP id UAA25262; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:05:07 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <388519CF.BCE1257E@essential.org> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:56:33 -0600 From: Theresa Amato Organization: Citizen Advocacy Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Love , "Ecommerce@venice.essential.org" , tacd-ecommerce Subject: Re: [Ecommerce] Proposed TACD statement on ICANN X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6144F2633BDD537DBC8F509E" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------6144F2633BDD537DBC8F509E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To Jamie and the lists: A few comments on the proposed TACD statement on ICANN: First, thank you Jamie for getting the discussion rolling on this issue in TACD. TACD should have a role in this debate. Overall, I think it is important for a multinational group like TACD to begin its statement on ICANN by noting that it is wholly inappropriate to have the functions of a worldwide resource such as the Internet controlled by a PRIVATE, corporate-controlled nonprofit in the State of California. Specifically, I agree with Hans’ comments about ICANN being given power by the U.S. Dept of Commerce as a result of ICANN’s formation to respond to the request for a nonprofit to meet the White Paper’s mandates, and that DNS management is not necessarily the “most” important area of control, but one of them. In response to the discussion about Internet surveillance, I think the key point with respect to ICANN is that it is a relatively centralized way of controlling the DNS. As such, it has been used to foster the trademark/IP concerns for policing, rather than as a vehicle for other arguably more relevant concerns – such as consumer protection issues. In response to the discussion about the election of the Board of Directors, it is not accurate to say that ICANN has created a system for various stakeholder groups to elect members to the Board of Directors. The three supporting organizations and the membership can all elect councils (the Names Council and the “At-large Membership Council”) and these council members, in turn, select Board members. The distinction has ramifications. The lack of direct election to the Board of Directors means that the privilege of “membership” under California non-profit law – and all of the statutory rights that would accrue (such as the power to bring a shareholder derivative suit, the right to amend bylaws, call meetings, recall directors, etc.) – are not conferred upon the so-called “members.” Accordingly, members of ICANN are not “members” under the statutory definition of membership in California law because the ICANN members do not directly elect the Board. Atlhough ICANN p