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

Karl Auerbach karl at cavebear.com
Sun Jan 9 20:40:46 UTC 2011

On 01/09/2011 11:04 AM, Derek Smythe wrote:

> How can you put all the responsibility and risk on one party, yet have
> no risk on the other side for those pill spammers/money mules/....

The argument you are making is one that essentially says "because there 
is a danger that some actors might use their free speech rights to do 
things that I do not like that, therefore, we must remove the 'free' 
from 'free speech'."

I do not accept accusations as proof that a person is "spammers/money 
mules/".  I kind of prefer accusation to be merely a first step in a 

Given events of the last few days in which people have been killed or 
shot for expressing opinions I see a greater need than ever to assure 
that those who use the internet to be able, if they chose, to have 
privacy protections that may be broken only upon fair procedures - 
certainly not on mere accusation (or, as today, mere curiosity.)

Personally I'd have wished that I could have added to my list of steps 
that the accuser's statements and evidence be weighed by a human 
magistrate.  But I left that out in a bow to speed over fairness.

Was it you who mentioned law enforcement?

I always forget to mention that parallel to the process I outline that 
there are other procedures available to law enforcement and governmental 
authorities; I generally assume that those exist and transcend the kind 
of private mechanisms that exist under ICANN.  And I generally assume 
(increasing, it seems, incorrectly) that these law enforcement and 
governmental procedures honor some sort of due process.


More information about the At-Large mailing list