[At-Large] 9th Circuit Court ruling on ICANN Contract.
karl at cavebear.com
Fri Dec 24 23:06:35 UTC 2010
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
>> 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
> 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.
More information about the At-Large