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

[Vanda UOL]

Hi Roberto, agreeing with you, since I am from a country where anonymousness
is forbidden by the Constitution, and this not means the information of
anyone is public, for me it sounds like the anonymousness just goes in the
benefit of the bad guy. Government - if there where lies the fear - has
thousands of opportunities to control the citizen´s life. Once is not public
other person will not be able to reach it. Roberto, If you once understand
it,  please public it to the benefit of our knowledge.
best. 

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8
01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil
Tel + 5511 3266.6253
Mob + 55118181.1464

-----Mensagem original-----
De: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Roberto Gaetano
Enviada em: sábado, 8 de janeiro de 2011 20:38
Para: 'At-Large Worldwide'
Assunto: Re: [At-Large] 9th Circuit Court ruling on ICANN Contract.

Happy new year to all.
Let me add a late comment to this thread.
I believe that the registration of a domain requires the owner of the domain
to correctly identify oneself to the registering authority, but that this
information does not need necessarily to be public.
This is not a new debate, but it still comes in waves, without substantial
changes in the opinions of the different parties. Years ago, I think it was
at the Tunis/Carthage (2003?), we had this discussion and I replied to
Marilyn Cade making the example of car registration: a car owner is obliged
to provide complete and accurate information to the registration authority,
but this information is not necessarily public. Actually, I am not aware of
any national car registry in which you can access this information without
proving that you need it, and qualify yourself.
I have not yet heard a convincing argument on why the domain names have to
be treated differently.
Cheers,
Roberto



> -----Original Message-----
> From: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bill 
> Silverstein
> Sent: Friday, 24 December 2010 00:32
> To: At-Large Worldwide
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] 9th Circuit Court ruling on ICANN Contract.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> The registration of a domain requires the owner of the domain to 
> correctly identify oneself to the public when registering the domain  
> name.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org