NOTE: For the most part, e-mail to participants has contained nothing more than an alert that a given item has recently been posted to the seminar Web page. Those e-mail messages are not reproduced here. The e-mails below contain information not otherwise posted and are provided for participants' reference. They are in reverse chronological order (most recent first). -- N.J., last added April 6, 2000

All:

To remind: The proposed April 13 make-up evening was voted down by the class in favor of two, three-hour sessions April 12 and 19. (The preference was for a break during the three hours. When and how long is up to you. The default, if the majority offers no better alternative, will be to meet from 6:30 to 8:30 (since we're already used to that), break from 8:30 to 8:45, and then resume from 8:45 to 9:45.)

Given these changes, I've asked the potential presenters of seminar papers to once again express their preferences for evenings, if they do want to present.

Therefore, rather than load you up with a reading assignment at this point, not knowing how much time we'll have for it next Wednesday evening, I'm going to wait until I hear back from them. Hopefully, that will be sometime tomorrow.

At this point in time, assume we will spend at least some time on finishing up the "Digital Divide" assignment. So that you can count on. If the relative lack of presenters means there needs to be more reading than that I will have an assignment to you by Monday afternoon.

Nick

OK, Gang,

Rather than dump all the hassle of exam dates on our gracious and energetic Ombuds, Henry, I have taken on some of the responsibility for the course myself.

Have I got a deal for you!

You get to vote.

Whichever date gets the most votes wins. Kind of like our esteemed (ex?) colleague, Manny.

The possible dates are: Thursday, April 27th, 8:30 a.m., or Thursday, May 4th, 8:30 a.m.

We will follow the normal rules on makeups. (E.g., there's one scheduled for May 3rd at 1:00 p.m.)

So, let me hear from you. Polls close Monday afternoon at 4:00 p.m. Following which the winning date will be announced.

Your participation in this contest does not constitute a "lottery" under Iowa law.

Nick

All:

1. Our Ombuds has raised three items with me. Each has involved -- at least in part -- a misunderstanding arising from a participant's failure to read (or, having read, to recall) memos posted to our Web site. Whether it's the "student handbook" while you're in school or the court's rules once you're out -- or the memos on our Web site for this seminar -- it's useful to review from time to time the standards and rules under which you're operating in any given environment. (In this connection, there are at least some of those participants who are writing who have missed an earlier, posted deadline. It is my practice to wait, rather than send out reminders -- thereby encouraging you to develop your own habits involving to-do lists, tickler files, and other project management techniques.) Midway through the semester might be such a time. I'm not being a drill sergeant or Dutch uncle, just providing a friendly suggestion at a time in your life when the penalties are still the least severe.

2. Dan asked that I post to the Web site the General Semantics Power Point slides I used last evening. That has now been done. They are under "Reference Sites."

3. Joshua's Web site is now linked from our page. It is under "Participants' Personal Web Pages." No one's obliged to have a personal Web page, as you know. But if you have one you wouldn't mind my linking just let me know. The primary item there is his paper, "The Uniform Jurisdictional Approach to State and Local Taxation of the Internet."

4. George Sallaway's latest site is, I now discover, one I got from David Loundy this morning and was going to share with you myself anyway. It is a March 1 letter from a couple of Ralph Nader associates, and friends of mine, John Richard and Jamie Love, to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). They are requesting the creation of new top level domains somewhat anti-corporate in character -- such as "dot sucks." I doubt they'll be successful, but it's an interesting idea. See http://www.cptech.org/ecom/icann/tlds-march1-2000.html
So thanks to George for that one -- and for being one step ahead of David and me!

Nick

Hi All:

I'm back. Look forward to seeing you Wednesday evening.

Hope you had as much fun coming up with those Web sites as I've had browsing them. Thanks to all who entered into the spirit of the assignment.

They're now all compiled, and I've created links, so you can see what your colleagues came up with. Maybe we'll look at some of them during class this week.

It's called "Participants' Choice of Five Favorite Web Sites" and is a link off of our main class Web page.

What I've done is just copy your e-mail to me to that page. So you might want to check it. There may be some links that don't work. Let me know. There may be information in your e-mail you don't want on the Web. Let me know. I'll modify as you request (but give me 24 hours to respond; I'm a little swamped at the moment).

On a related subject: We haven't added any personal Web pages recently. Are there any more of you who have created personal Web pages who would be willing for me to provide a link to them from our class page?

I don't know if the photos will be back in time for Wednesday night or not. If so, and if prints are provided (mostly I think they're on disk), I'll try to remember to bring some in.

Nick

Just to remind: We are _not_ having class next Wednesday evening, February 2, 2000. (I am in California; details on my Web page.)

We will schedule a makeup for some Thursday afternoon in the future.

Meanwhile, . . .

Those who are writing papers are going into a couple of their heaviest weeks of research and will be exempt from this assignment (since they will already be doing the equivalent -- and much more -- in another context anyway).

It's fun and takes little time. It's something you may have already done and, if not, ought to do anyway.

Surf the Web. Come up with five sites and send them to me by e-mail.

Hopefully, they'll have something to do with law in general or this course in particular. Sites you find genuinely useful and already use, or cool sites you've just come across (like my sharing with you last time the fun I had with dialpad.com and excite.com).

But it's your call. Send me whatever you want.

(Just be forewarned that I'll probably post them on our Web site -- and credit you as the source!)

Nick

Here's a _suggestion_ only for additional reading for Wednesday night. Because (a) this is Tuesday, and (b) you already have a goodly amount to read, there will not be a _quiz_ item on this one.

But I think it's important we focus on the "legal" language used in the "Privacy Policy" statements of the companies that are members of "TRUSTe."

Excite.com is one.

Its policy is at: http://www.excite.com/privacy_policy

(I'll also probably have some comments Wednesday about my own personal experience with excite.com over the weekend. It's an interesting operation with many implications for the Internet's future.)

If you're able to look at the policy, (1) ask yourself if you are/would be satisfied with the companiy's distinction between "anonymous information" and "personally identifiable information." (2) What are the loopholes in this policy/practice? (3) What enforcement mechanisms are there? Etc.

Nick