Re: [ga] Re: The battle over .xxx again...

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hugh/Eric, and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    Standards.  I will paraphrase and oversimplify.
>
> Just assume for a moment that all has gone well with anti-spamming or
> pornography law being passed.

  A rather large assumption here...

> The right motives existed and due process was followed and a consensus
> was reached.

  Oh?  What consensus was that??

> Now as with all good rules someone has stretched it to the limit or
> intentionally violated it and is testing it in some tribunal.  Assume
> a Platos' Republic desire to enforce the law and a willing citizen to
> abide by the ruling.
> The first thing that our Jurists would do is look to the plain meaning
> of the text of the rule.
> Assume again, that this is just unsatisfactory.  Now they look toward
> precedence in interpreting this rule, alas this helps not as it is a
> matter of first impression.  Now they will certainly look to learned
> treatises on the matter.  However in this case our friends at, Markle,
> Berman et al, and our resident legal beagles such as Drs. Froomkin and
>
> Beryhill have had more pressing engagements. So no treatises.
> The Jurists are stuck at looking first hand at the committee reports
> and standards in the Industry to help them figure out logic and
> meaning to this new law.  Do RFCs help?

  Sometimes RFC's help, sometimes they harm...

>  Why sure.  Do Org reports help? yes. Would Verisigns' input help?
> yes.  Microsofts? yes.  Would an informal working group within the GA
> help by tying it all together and getting broad userbased input from
> crazies such as myself help - No, it would not help, it would rule the
> day. This in fact would establish and industry standard.

  Interest argument, and well put as well. However I doubt it will be
largely
well received...

>
>
> (yes, my scenario leaves out chicanery and bribes and misdeeds)

  A small oversight I am sure...

>
>
> It is most assuredly outside of the mission for ICANN to make laws.

Yes and thankfully so.  However given their tone as an organization and
policy making process it is difficult to determine for the average
stakeholder/user
to tell that ICANN does not...  It may be this is and has been
intentional
from the beginning of ICANN's existence..

>  It is most assuredly within its mission to contract and help to
> establish these industry standards.

  Yes, with stakeholder/user approval...

> Look for the UL label on anything you plug in, look at your home and
> see if it does not meet building standards that are later adopted as a
> Uniform Building Code.

  Thankfully my home was built to exceed the Uniform Building Code
standard...

>  A doctors standard of care has long been, that which a reasonable
> practitioner would do in the same or similar situation. (used to be
> locale, but telephones and internets and TV screwed that up)

  This may be why the increase in legal actions on mal practice has
raised the
cost if Medical Mal practice insurance so high that many doctors in the
US are now doing without such coverage...

>
>
> An example would easily have been if we all decided that a domain name
> registration conferred an irrevocable property right in the name, then
> that could have been the standard and it would take one heck of a due
> process fight to change that fact.
>
> However as it now stands.  Courts and regulators have to decide for
> themselves because the industry cannot even agree on simple
> definitions.  Good or bad I do not know but I do know that any void
> will be filled.

  With .XXX, I am sure many "Voids" will need filling...  >;)

>
>
> PS.  Yes I spent many hours with the relevant powers in Vietnam trying
> to get them to reserve .sex.vn for the purpose of using it as an
> educational locale on the net.

  Oh really?  Well I guess that means in  your particular vernacular,
that
education is marketing???  So would that with .XXX, be .XXX as an
educational name space marketing adult content of various sorts?

>  Objection over objection and Ministry after Ministry were sent my
> proposals including such nationally important matters as
> contraception, chastity, STDs, family planning, redirecting
> inquisitive young minds etc. etc.  Finally the final word was and this
> is a quote; Dr. Dierker you will not have sex in Vietnam. Well I
> showed them, I quickly brought my wife to the US.  ;>} Obedience of
> the law is the greatest freedom.

  Hopefully not before having sex in Vietnam I trust?  >;)  If not, your
wife
has my condolences to be sure...

>
>
> Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Stephane and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
> stakeholders/users,
>
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:12:22PM -0800,
> > Jeff Williams wrote
> > a message of 32 lines which said:
> >
> > > Seems to me in the .xxx specific case, depending on how it is
> > > handled, it would be a good idea to have such a sTLD.
> >
> > Read RFC 3675 ".sex Considered Dangerous" first.
>
> ROFLMAO! Well .sex might be dangerous in Some
> African countries, which may have been the IETF's motivation
> for the RFC you reference. .XXX is a different matter, yet
> perhaps such a "xTLD" has some merit "contracted" correctly.
> However given ICANN's lack of reasonable legal expertise
> I would advise strongly against taking any contractual determination
> of such an "xTLD/ Adult TLD" without independent stakeholder/user
> review, as it would almost certainly be a magnet for under age
> stakeholders/users and thereby have it's own moral and cultural
> implications on a global scale..
>
> As our friend and fellow stakeholder/user often told me,
> "there is no sex/.sex in Vietnam"... >;)
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827