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

Karl Auerbach karl at cavebear.com
Sun Jan 9 23:14:07 UTC 2011

On 01/09/2011 01:58 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Fine. I said that registration data for a domain name have to be complete
> and correct. I am not at all against the fact that the owner has to be
> identified by the registration authority.

By-the-way, the following item is relevant here to the degree that one 
equates domain names as an part of the machinery of free expression and 
dialog on the net:

> http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2011/01/stanley-fish-leads-the-charge-against-immunity-for-internet-hosts-but-ignores-the-costs.html

There seems to be a tendency to draw lines between "legitimate" speech 
and "vanity" domains and the excesses of spammers and those who engage 
in clearly fraudulent misidentification of products with an ill intent 
of gain or harm.

But the problem is that there are now clear lines, only fuzzy 
differences, like the difference between dawn and day.

There is little doubt in my mind that there needs to be some thread 
through which one can be held accountable for illegal actions.  But that 
thread ought to be hard to pull and those who pull it ought to be held 
to account for their own accusations and actions in so doing.

In today's world I also see a strong bias in favor of corporate (and 
governmental) privacy and against personal privacy.  We seem to be 
willing to jump to weaken privacy of individuals - make that privacy 
fall on mere accusation - while according corporate and governmental 
bodies vast rights to create layers upon layers of indirection and evasion.

We also seem far more willing to leap to the conclusion that an accuser 
is right and the accused is guilty, particularly if the action is 
unsavory even if it is not illegal.

Our rush to righteousness may have the effect of transforming Kafka's 
"Trial" from a novel to a fulfilled prophecy.


More information about the At-Large mailing list