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

[a@help.org]

Thanks ... but no thanks.  I don't need someone telling me what is
'acceptable' to me.  The only thing I consider unacceptable is people trying
to censor free speech and block others from getting domain names.  Internic
is already way out of line with their domain censoring.  I suspect none of
this would stand up to a court challenge.

I don't understand some people on this list who seek to control the Internet
based on their own person beliefs or feelings.  People don't like it when
they see a domain for sale so they automatically want ICANN to outlaw the
practice (this would put ICANN in the position of telling people that they
could not sell something that belongs to them).  Now you want ICANN to start
telling people they can't register domain names because you don't like
something about it.

I would look to ICANN to protect these rights, not violate them.  Their job,
as I see it, is to administer the domain system ... not 'rule and control'
it.  If they did start trying to do these things they would probably end up
in all sorts of litigation.

Russ Smith
http://consumer.net

>I can't see someone in BOSTON ruling and controlling a Domain name
...
>I know freedom of naming is controversial - but there are some names that
are
>not acceptable to people in the US that would have no meaning in TIBET.
>thanks
>steve witkin