Re: [ga] no problem with www.nukeisrael.com

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, Hugh, I would agree with you 100%, IF the Internet were governed by US Law. That same law does not apply in some countries. So are we to impose our beliefs and laws? I know you don't think that way. Just pointing out that free speech is allowed here in the US and in several other countries, but not all countries. The same goes with limitations on that free speech. Some have the one you mentioned, some don't.

I agree with Karl. Tucows or any other registrar is not responsible for what I register as a string of letters to represent the string of numbers that makes up my web address. They are there to make sure it works and that a record is maintained as far as who registered it. There job for me ends there.

There was a list of banned domains you cannot register. Was that at particular registrars? Is it still in effect?

Chris McElroy
http://www.blogs.pn



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Dierker 
  To: Karl Auerbach ; Esther Dyson 
  Cc: Danny Younger ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:15 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] no problem with www.nukeisrael.com


  Karl,

  I share your apriori censorship concerns and even more ICANN censorship.

  But one may not properly incite muder or yell fire in a crowded theatre. Nor may one specifically plan an assasination., on or off the net.
  I like your "smoke" example.  With this said it is up to "law enforcement" to make the call on prosecution - definately not a registrar or ICANN

  e

  Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Esther Dyson wrote:

    > 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--








------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brings words and photos together (easily) with
  PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.