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

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 10 January 2011 12:38, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:

> On 01/10/2011 06:52 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> > The car analogy was used earlier. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction on
> earth
> > that doesn't have government-issued plates used to identify a cars owner.
>
> Try California.
>

That sounds like the exception that proves the rule, especially since this
particular bypass seems aimed to specifically enable lawmakers to elude the
laws they bestow on everyone else.


> >     - It should be a criminal offence to have incorrect information
> attached
> >     to a WHOIS entry
>
> Criminal?  That raises this discussion to a qualitatively different level.
>  Criminal labels are usually reserved for things that we generally feel are
> morally culpable.


Fine by me.



> And the criminal label raises a new suite of enforcement concerns - are you
> ready (in the US) for jury trials, beyond-reasonable-doubt standards, and a
> unanimous jury requirement?


Such standards seem reasonable for non-Internet instances of alleged fraud.
What makes (accusations of) providing false identity information for WHOIS
exempt from similar penalties related to business registration, political
sponsorship, drivers licenses or passports?



> Also, criminal matters are not usually allowed to be prosecuted by private
> persons but must be left to the discretion of a district attorney.
>

Again, fine by me.

Put another way ... it is my position that lying on one's WHOIS is a crime
against the broader society, including those yet to be lured as well as
those who have already been affected. Such offense need not wait for (or
require the legal resources of) a single individual to confront it. These
are definitely instances that justify "the people versus [...]".

If ICANN can't demand accuracy through its contracted relationships,
governments will eventually enforce it themselves -- further weakening
ICANN's position as a primary agent of stability and security.


> What is the argument against this? What right to privacy -- or to
> obfuscate
> > their identify -- exists for those who engage in financial transactions?
> > (Outside of Switzerland, that is)
>
> Not just Switzerland - way being proposed for selling of shares of Facebook
> in the US is one in which an intermediary bundles anonymous ownership into
> one giant share, thus keeping the ownership of Facebook before a statutory
> trigger level of 500 person.
>

Indeed. And the very awareness of this proposed move has regulators
scrambling to close that loophole.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with hiding ones identity - if
> nothing else what would super heros do in their movies?  ;-)
>

All they need is a pair of glasses.

- Evan