Fwd: Re: [ga] SSAC releases Wildcards report

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Note: forwarded message attached.

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

--- Begin Message ---

• To: Leah G <jandl@xxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: [ga] SSAC releases Wildcards report
• From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
• In-reply-to: <40F03AEF.90901@jandl.com>

Leah G <jandl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
You are making the assumption that the courts will see through 
Verisign's argument that they are providing a useful service for the 
public good as opposed to all the others who claim that "service" is 
harmful to the community, unwitting users, the DNS and all other 
businesses who reference the .com TLD and don't contract for SiteFinder 
advertising. And that doesn't account for those who had no intention of 
being tracked by a site they had no desire to visit in the first place 
or the other search engine providers who will be shut out by SiteFinder.

At this point it's a he said/she said confrontation. I keep wondering 
how a public comment period could work unless it was done by a 
non-participating entity asking how people feel about being 
automatically taken to an unrequested page without the capability of 
preventing it (average user) and being tracked at the same time. 
Users already have the Verisign spin. They need the opposing argument 
in order to make a determination on their own.

If past court decisions are an indicator of how this might pan out, I'm 
not very encouraged. If any weight is given to the SSAC report, it 
would be slightly more encouraging.

Leah


No the assumptions have nothing to do with the merits of the underlying CoA. My assumptions are made on Jurisdiction and propriety and priority.  Thresholds must be met to allow a court to review, intervene and/or grant remedy. A threshold when dealing with Govs is "exhaustion of administrative remedies" In this case it would be commissioners overseeing DoC contracts.  You can't even go around doing good things for the Gov without a permit or concession to do so.

If as it appears, Verisign is simply given a license to do what they do they must remain within strictly within that license. Who cares if it is good or bad, first they must get permission. Generally alteration of Gov. licensing requires open public forums, run by the interested Government entities. Again DoC has refused to do so.

The lazy boys over at DoC are to blame here not anyone else.


Eric























































































































































































































































































		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

--- End Message ---