[At-Large] 9th Circuit Court ruling on ICANN Contract.

[Karl Auerbach]

On 12/23/2010 03:31 PM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
>> On 12/22/2010 10:40 AM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
>>
>>> It is not vigilante justice to know the identity of the owner of  a
>>> domain
>>> name.
>>
>> Oh yes indeed it is.  It is most definitely vigilante action to take
>> away the right of an accused - merely on the basis of that accusation.
>> In this case the rights are those of privacy and due process.

> Oh no. You are inserting a right here where there is none. The right to
> privacy regarding the ownership of a domain name. Anonymous speech does
> not equate to anonymous domain name registration.

That makes no sense - people have a Federal Constitutional right to 
privacy - See Griswold v Connecticut.

The method you are espousing takes that right, runs it through the 
shredder, and dismisses the loss on the basis that the ends justify the 
means.

> The registration of a domain requires the owner of the domain to correctly
> identify oneself to the public when registering the domain  name.

"requires" - sez who?  A non-responsive answer would be "a 
self-proclaimed regulator such as ICANN".  Self-proclaimation hardly 
constitutes a legitimate form of "requires".

Otherwise I could hereby proclaim myself as the emperor of the universe 
- with equal legitimacy.

		--karl--