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

Derek Smythe derek at aa419.org
Sun Jan 9 22:49:46 UTC 2011

Karl, you have probably heard the expression "junk in junk out".

>> 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'."

It's not a case  of "because there
 >> is a danger", it is happening right now. Read the news.

Better yet, If you are to truly represent ALL user interests, I 
suggest you reach out to the relevant law enforcement officials in 
your area and have a long conversation with them. Ask specifically 
what role domain names play in internet abuse.

You have this idea that good people should now pay good money for 
fictitious data? Why should I pay good money for data that does not 
even exist?

Let us do a quick reality check: 
> We never ask for any personal details except an email address (which can be created anonymously like www.SecMail.in). Accounts are setup using usernames that are randomly generated. There will be no whois information if someone does a search on your domain name. We will not even show anyone the email address you signed up with. We accept a number of easy payment providers including accepting cash by post which gives you 100% anonymity.

You may also wish to read up on how they set up their domain contacts.

Incidentally, the German authorities have numerous victims to users of 
this provider's practices (selling non existent goods on fake 
shopfronts). This group use their own in house registrar. Their 
"allowed or denied" page has changed drastically in the past year, but 
not due to legal intervention. This is just one such example of many.

Let us take this one step further, a proxy provider with an incomplete 
address, which was at first totally invalid, later changed to an 
address does not check out and the provider is unknown at the address. 
Now the proxy themselves use another proxy for their own domain.

If you wish to obtain fake identification documents or stolen credit 
card details complete with names, social security numbers,  addresses 
etc, this same provider mentioned has just the clientele you wish to 
support if you require either.

As for law enforcement, yes, I was the one that mentioned them.

For a minute, remember the world does not end on US shores, we are now 
talking world wide. While some law enforcement authorities do talk to 
one another, this is by no means globally. In fact as you may or may 
not have heard, the internet is even used in cyber wars between countries.

Do you think that Estonia and Russian authorities will exchange data 
under such circumstances?

You also need to consider local laws, not necessarily mine or yours, 
that does not reflect the realities of what is now possible on the 

There is a lot that would be good for the average internet user, 
however that has to start with a credible whois system with real and 
not fictitious data - as John hinted at.
> On the other hand, if you're proposing that people have to appear in
> person to a government official and verify their identity before they can
> register a domain, that's not a bad idea.

The days when there was trust on the net is long gone and the 
proportion of bad actors is growing, that small minority making it bad 
for all.

The domain industry has a choice, either self regulation or government 
regulation - and we all know how things go then. We have already cried 
foul on this same mailing group when government involvement has happened.

Why did the USA change the rules for .us domains?

I believe if it was not for non-governmental groups, many self funded 
(not the governments, not the domain industry, in fact out of 
individual pockets), we would have already crossed that point where we 
would be deprived of what you consider a right.


On 2011/01/09 22:40, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> 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
> process.
> 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.
> 	--karl--
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the At-Large mailing list