RE: [registrars] FW: Senate passes anti-Spam bill

[Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

Elana, 

I read the definition of "mulitple" at the bottom, so
I think the language correctly covers mass-mailers but leaves out
mom-and-pops
who may have inadvertant incorrect whois information, 
plus it incents them (non-spammers) to get it to be correct just in case.

I have the same interpretation on the liability:
1) its for the spammer, not for the whois privacy provider
2) liability is not increased for the non-spammer in using the privacy
product

We should keep an eye on it to see if the house makes any changes.

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 10:19 AM
To: Paul Stahura; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Cc: legal
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: Senate passes anti-Spam bill


Paul - you are right to be concerned, but the operative language is
"intentionally initiates the
transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from any
combination of such accounts or domain names..."

That would be liability for the spammer who uses a domain masking product.

Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
Fax   (212) 629-9309
ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx 


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 1:06 PM
To: Elana Broitman; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: Senate passes anti-Spam bill


Elana

Section 1037 may have an implication for our business that are US based I
guess
It says:
"...registers, using information that materially falsifies the identity of
the actual registrant, for five or more electronic mail accounts or online
user accounts or two or more domain names, and intentionally initiates the
transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from any
combination of such accounts or domain names..."

There may be other implications too.
(I suppose it will be modified by house and passed there next)
S.877
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 
Some links:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.877:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./temp/~c108ieMkC0::
(copy entire link including the ":" at the ends)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm
?congress=108&session=1&vote=00404

If anyone has a better link, let us know

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 6:38 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] FW: Senate passes anti-Spam bill



> Hi - I thought you'd want to see this news of a likely new anti-spam law.
While it is not explicitly targeting the DNS, there are implications for our
businesses.  I would be interested in anything you are hearing on this
issue.> >  <<Welcome to the Mercury News on Bayarea.com.htm>>