Re: [ga] no problem with www.nukeisrael.com
Imagine this same article, but now replace the domain names and organizations with Chinese dissident organizations. I don't know what is actually said on these sites, nor what is said on the sites of Chinese dissidents, but I do know that it is *not* Tucows' job to be moral police or viiglantes. If the Canadian gov wants to shut them down, then indeed the Canadian government should do so (if its laws so dictate). But then they should shut down the *organizations,* not just their websites. I agree with you completely - that it is not the registrar's job to suppress what is a mere utterance of a name on the basis of presumed semantics. And in practice I see this as being very difficult to do - for example suppose someone tries to register "smoke-olliestan.com"? There is slang usage of the word "smoke" as a synonym for "kill". So is "smoke-olliestan.com" to be denied registration because someone might be expressing the thought that Olliestan (which lies to the northwest of Kyjganistan) should be destroyed? Or perhaps it's only that someone is opening up a tabacconist shop in Olliestan? And what if the name to be registered looks like xn--euhaiiejj73286k3wja7adkadjdf82bfndlk.com? But in the script of northern Olliestanese means "smoke-kyjganistan.com"? Those are calls that are too tought to impose on a registrar and, as you say, the real test ought to be use not registration. But that brings us to the deeper issue, which is this: How do we prevent the mechanisms of internet governance from becoming tools for national policy? We are not in a good position to defend against this: We have alread imposed a system of domain name banning to protect mere trademarks. Certainly one can argue that if the ICANN mandated rules over dns name registrations contain rules to protect trademarks than it is only natural that there be even more stringent rules to protect greater interests, such as national reputation or security? The point I am making here is that the rules that ICANN has adopted to protect trademarks has established a pattern in which ICANN is viewed as not a protector and organizer of neutral mechanisms of DNS and IP addresses, but rather as a place in which other, non-technical, policies can be put into effect. In other words, once politicized for trademark purposes, it is not much of a leap to politicize ICANN and its rules for other purposes. To my mind this is what I fear most about what the US and the IGF can do in the internet governance space - that is to politicize it as a vehicle for national (and international) policies rather than leaving it to be merely a neutral place where the technical mechanics of the net are be oiled, tuned, and kept running without asking why. --karl--
|