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

[Bill Silverstein]

>
> On 19 Dec 2010, at 19:51, Derek Smythe wrote:
>
> Derek
>
>> The reality of this issue is that the normal internet user, be it a
>> small business or an individual, has not real protection on the
>> internet.
>
>
> The flipside to this is that registrants have a right to privacy and a
> degree of protection. The "normal" user wants to be able to register and
> use domain names without publishing their private details.
>
> Yes we all know there are criminals out there, but there are plenty of
> other ways to get to them other than WHOIS of a domain name.
Ok. How? And why should there be a need?

If you buy a house, but put it under my name to avoid a judgment against
you, can you cry when the IRS (the US taxing authority) seizes the house
because my outstanding tax bill?

>
>>
>> The registrar is held blameless and the victim of internet abuse
>> cannot hold him liable.
>
> Which is correct in my view.
>
> If I sold kitchen knives and you happened to use one to commit murder it
> wouldn't be reasonable to hold me liable UNLESS I had sold you the knife
> to commit murder ..

No, and yours is a bad analogy.

A better analogy:
  I buy a car and register it under my name because I live in a cheaper
area to insure and have a better driving record so the  insurance and
tax cost would be half of what it would be if you registered it (or
maybe that you are hiding it from your 6 ex-wifes wanting alimony and
child support). But, you gave me the money for the car and you are the
one paying the bill and driving it.  If you then run over the little old
lady in the crosswalk while drunk, I am the one sued because the car is
owned by me not you.

Here, the privacy

>
>
>>
>> ICANN is not interested in abuse issues, it is outside their gambit
>> despite creating an environment ideal for abuse.
>
> That is a wonderfully inflammatory statement

So what? Does that make the statement inaccurate?

>
>
>>
>> As for law enforcement, law enforcement only deals with the most
>> serious issues.
>
> Which is normal. It's not up to law enforcement to go around enforcing IP
> interests.

No, that is why there are civil courts.

>
>
>> A simple reality is they are absolutely flooded with
>> ongoing issues.
>>
>> That does leave the normal internet user vulnerable to exploitation.
>
>
> You could extend the same logic to the offline / tangible / real world ..
>
> Taken to its logical (though somewhat perverse) conclusion then we should
> all be hiding in bunkers.
No, but if someone takes money from you so that you can hide assets why
should they be surprised when sued because of the abusing relating to
those assets?