[At-Large] 9th Circuit Court ruling on ICANN Contract.
karl at cavebear.com
Sun Jan 9 23:14:07 UTC 2011
On 01/09/2011 01:58 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Fine. I said that registration data for a domain name have to be complete
> and correct. I am not at all against the fact that the owner has to be
> identified by the registration authority.
By-the-way, the following item is relevant here to the degree that one
equates domain names as an part of the machinery of free expression and
dialog on the net:
There seems to be a tendency to draw lines between "legitimate" speech
and "vanity" domains and the excesses of spammers and those who engage
in clearly fraudulent misidentification of products with an ill intent
of gain or harm.
But the problem is that there are now clear lines, only fuzzy
differences, like the difference between dawn and day.
There is little doubt in my mind that there needs to be some thread
through which one can be held accountable for illegal actions. But that
thread ought to be hard to pull and those who pull it ought to be held
to account for their own accusations and actions in so doing.
In today's world I also see a strong bias in favor of corporate (and
governmental) privacy and against personal privacy. We seem to be
willing to jump to weaken privacy of individuals - make that privacy
fall on mere accusation - while according corporate and governmental
bodies vast rights to create layers upon layers of indirection and evasion.
We also seem far more willing to leap to the conclusion that an accuser
is right and the accused is guilty, particularly if the action is
unsavory even if it is not illegal.
Our rush to righteousness may have the effect of transforming Kafka's
"Trial" from a novel to a fulfilled prophecy.
More information about the At-Large