[governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of CensorshipinDomain Names

[Guru@ITfC]

"Not if they are proposing to restrict a fundamental human right. 
And "governments" don't have a single opinion, in case you hadn't noticed.
We have over 200 of them and their laws don't agree on this matter. This
business of lumping so-called "stakeholders" into homogeneous groups is
really getting out of hand. "

We are some few dozens of us in civil society interested in ig issues (and
frankly least representative of even civil society) and we have few dozen
view points amongst ourselves.  So 200 or so Governments not agreeing
amongst themselves does not in any way reduce their legitimacy as
stakeholders to this process. And there is no denying that each Government
is a legitimate stakeholder, even with all their faults, most Governments
can claim representative legitimacy, that we cant. 

Also are 'fundamental rights' divinely ordained ... Or are they what
societies (with active participation of Governments) have accepted at
particular points in time. (the nature and scope of these rights today have
little with those a century ago and daresay may have little with those a
century hence). 

Guru


-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:11 AM
To: vb at bertola.eu
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of CensorshipinDomain
Names

>>> Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu> 04/03/07 7:04 PM >>>
>In any case, why do you think that opposition by governments should be 
>disregarded? They are a significant stakeholder and their opinion has 
>to be taken into account.

Not if they are proposing to restrict a fundamental human right. 

And "governments" don't have a single opinion, in case you hadn't noticed.
We have over 200 of them and their laws don't agree on this matter. This
business of lumping so-called "stakeholders" into homogeneous groups is
really getting out of hand. 

>Actually, one of ICANN's core values (see the
>Bylaws) is:

[laughing out loud] that craven "core value" was added in the immediate
aftermath of WSIS. Again demonstrating that we are dealing more with
intimidation and pandering to power than anything else.

>Oh well, if a court in the US (one of the zillion courts in the
>US) says so, then it's settled for the globe... :-)

Vittorio, let's try to keep the argument honest, ok? First, this was a
federal circuit court in the US, not one of "zillions." ICM registry and in
fact about 80% of the gTLD industry litigation (and adult industry) is in
the US. And the point is not that US law applies globally, but that in the
one case I know of where the issue of the speech status of domains was
actually put before a national-level court, your argument lost. Can you
provide any examples of European courts which have ruled differently? Asian
courts (assuming you can find a country there that legally protects free
expression)? That would be an informed, constructive contribution.

>Top level domains are not the expression of an individual, they are 
>broad group names that are to be used by thousands or millions of 
>individuals together.

Excuse me, where is this principle enshrined in law? Or did you just make it
up? Anyway, they are labels that can be adopted by individuals.

>I can't see how your free expression is harmed by setting up your 
>pro-abortion website at proabortion.com rather than at pro.abortion.

Expression is restricted whenever a person who wishes to express themselves
in their preferred mnanner is prevented from doing so. It's not for you to
decide for others how they express themselves or what domain they use.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance