Re: [ga] Report: Registrars & Steroids

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

elliot noss wrote:
> the comments are quite instructive here.
>
> On 22-Jul-08, at 6:48 AM, Danny Younger wrote:

> > Even more shocking is the lack of cooperation from the Registrars that
> > sponsor these sites. On July 1 we issued joint letters to eight
> > registrars: Abacus America, DSTR Acquisition VII, Dynadot.com, Everyones
> > Internet, eNom Inc, EstDomains Inc, GoDaddy/Wild West, and Parava
> > Networks Inc. In these letters we listed the websites, described the
> > banned substances offered at each, and detailed how these sites were
> > violating Internet policy, the Registrar’s own terms of service, and
> > the law.
Which law?  Remember, in some parts of the world things that are banned 
here in the US are legal.  Similarly, some things such as the selling of 
items reflecting certain events in the 1930s and 1940s in Europe) are 
not legal in some countries, such as France, but are perfectly legal 
here in the US.
Context matters.  For example:

Scientology is "cult" in some countries, and thus subject to 
constraints, but here in the US it is a "religion" and thus quite free 
to do those things that it does.
In some countries it is unlawful for women to drive an automobile. 
Would it thus be considered a violation of law everywhere if a website 
in the US offers to sell automobiles to women?  I am sure that many 
countries with conservative religious views would find European clothing 
advertisements on websites to be more than merely offensive to their 
morality.
There are medications that one can buy over the counter in Canada (home 
of Tucows) but that require a prescription in the US.  Would a website 
offering those medications be "violating Internet policy" and "the law"?
Perhaps if such website consummated a sale in a way that could be said 
to be within the jurisdictional boundaries of the US then there would be 
a violation of the law.  But what if that website sold to a person who 
was physically within Canada?
And as far as violating "Internet policy" goes - since when are ICANN's 
contractual terms, terms that exist merely between the parties who 
signed the contract and, through the absence of third party beneficiary 
designations, do not confer rights onto the public, become some sort of 
global moral standard that binds everyone everywhere?
Why do we continue to insist that ICANN and its contacts be an arm of 
social and moral policy?   What ever happened to the original conception 
of ICANN as a body that does only and merely *technical* coordination?
                --karl--