[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Membership] Structure of 'at large' membership

People are going to have these 'questionable' links and banners anyway so
your proposed solution does nothing to stop the 'problem' you are trying to
solve.  The information you are trying to censor could appear in other parts
of the URL or in the content of the page yourself.  If your solution is to
work there would have to be the same regulations covering URL's, content,
banner ads, etc.  Your 'solution' simply prevents some people from getting
domains.  Rather than someone standing on your foot it sounds more like you
sit there and think up things that might bother you and then go out and try
to find them and censor it (church lady syndrome).

As I understand it ICANN will incorporated in California and if they make a
censorship decision against someone who lives in the US I believe the US
courts would have jurisdiction.  I would certainly support litigation
against ICANN if this type of activity should occur.  This situation will
only serve to increase the cost of domain names.  I don't think this should
what ICANN is doing.

Russ smith


Domain names have a very interesting way of popping up in various places.
Under the system you advocate - "FULL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT", would allow
people to place questionable ( is that word ok) Banner Ads or links in
ordinary totally benign sites. Under the principle you suggested, local
jurisdictions or courts ( including US SUPREME COURT) would have no
jurisdiction as were a creating an International organization.

Remember - you may have a right to stand where you want , i have a right to
not have it on my foot. So we are discussing and cussing about possibly
conflicting rights

thanks steve witkin