[ga] ICANN's Mission Creep -- Censorship

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Joanna

On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:59:37 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> on 12/3/01 11:31 AM, Marc Schneiders at marc@fuchsia.bijt.net wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Everyone has a right to freedom of speech.
>
> An act of murder is not freedom of speech. These websites are not just
> putting out political viewpoints, they are inciting terrorist acts of
> violence . . .

<snip>

> Am I wrong?

Nobody is supporting terrorism.

> What makes you think that defending a terrorist website is going to uphold
> freedom of speech for internet users? Freedom of speech on the internet is
> being murdered on a daily basis by ICANN's "friendly fire". The GA is the
> "collateral damage" at the alter of a false god called "Stability".

I don't believe Marc is "defending a terrorist website".  He is simply saying
that decisions on individual websites should be made by the appropriate
authorities under the law.

I share his view that promoting censorship is destroying our freedom.  As
George W. Bush said, the issue is a struggle between "Freedom and Fear".  It
is clear that you are not on the side of "freedom".

<snip>

> Yes, auctions of Nazi memorabilia, and Yahoo lost that battle because the
> courts viewed it as glorification of the holocaust (if memory serves me
> correctly) and as a consequence, it is now against the law worldwide,
> virtually. What makes you think the courts are going to treat those who
> glorify any other atrocity any different?

It is not "against the law worlwide" simply in France.  What the Courts do is
up to the Courts, not Joanna Lane.

> On this we agree, if only for the same reason the holocaust should never be
> forgotten (ref ED: Always make new mistakes). Have you actually looked at
> the Palestine-info.com website recently Marc? Celebrating the mass murder of
> innocent Israeli children is not my idea of "telling the Palestinian side of
> the story". And advocating to shut down a website that is doing just that,
> is reason enough.

No, Joanna.  A website breaching the rules against sanctions is quite
different than one which has unsavoury content.  Unless, of course, the
content itself breaches the law which in this case it probably does not.
However, IANAL.

Any suspected breaches of the law should be reported to the proper
authorities.  You could probably do that all on your own.

> The Somaliarefreshment.com site is a totally different story, being a
> website whose content is not inciting anarchy per se, but whose registrant
> is, and has been specifically named as providing financial support to those
> who would obliterate every American and Israeli from the face of the planet.
> For me, this is not a question of withdrawing political freedoms of speech,
> but of denying a privilege, the privilege to profiteer in the societies it
> seeks to destroy. It is no different from stopping Bin Laden purchasing
> satellite phones on Long Island, or freezing a bank account in Switzerland.

You can be as emotive as you like.  It is either against the law or it is not.
If it is against the law it should be reported to the proper authorities.

<snip>

> So far as I know, nobody is asking ICANN to make any
> decisions. Clause 3.7.2 simply requires the Registrars to comply with the
> law, without stipulating what those laws are, which is as it should be, but
> I really don't think it is unreasonable to recommend an ICANN policy that
> allows for sanctions against any Registrar that deliberately and knowingly
> breaches clause 3.7.2 of the Accreditation Agreement, including financial
> penalties and/or in the most sever cases, removing their Accreditation
> status (obviously with prior warning).

It is not at all reasonable, Joanna, as that would be a very clear invitation
to "mission creep".  The truth is that ICANN could, like yourself, report any
offending lawbreaker to the proper authorities at any time.

If I were a registrar, I would simply report any issue that ICANN raised to
the appropriate authorities.  That would completely negate ICANN's power to do
any censorship.  I'd then tell ICANN to go away and leave me alone.

I'm sure that many registrars, particularly those overseas, would have a very
strong argument against ICANN for "restraint of trade" and all sort of civil
wrongs.

> If you're saying that the Registrars need to go to Court to determine *how*
> they must uphold the law,

I completely missed such an interpretation.  Once the issue has been raised,
it is likely that, after consulting legal advice, a reasonable registrar would
only need to send a letter to the appropriate authorities then sit back and
wait.  Other scenarios aren't worth hypothesising over.

> I disagree with respect to the very obvious
> examples that have been cited. In the unlikely event that a genuine
> Registrant is mistakenly shut down, they would have legal recourse, so I'm
> only suggesting Registrants take immediate action in the most obvious cases,
> of which ut cannot be denied there are quite a few.

As far as I understand it this is the first time you've actually made any such
suggestion.  Most of the time to date you have been campaigning.  As I clearly
suggested, make your proposals, whatever they are, without the inflasmmatory
language.

> Why prevaricate? NetSol
> can shut down palestine-info.com and somaliarefreshment.com tomorrow if it
> wants, one phone call from Stuart Lynn would do it, one two sentence
> statement on the ICANN website referring to the relevant laws would do it,
> whereas to do otherwise is to support Hamas and Al Barakat, which so far as
> I understand things, *is* breaking the law (IANAL*).

Why indeed Joanna?  Write a letter to Stuart Lynn with your clearly described
proposals, copy to the list, and I'm sure he will reply.  Or use your Best
Practices Guidelines which you've said often enough took you six months to
produce.

> Now who is picking fluff out of their navel?

No comment.

> I am also taking this opportunity to respond briefly to Patrick's post,

You never respond to my posts, Joanna.  You just do enough to pretend to.

> which attaempts to debate semantics with a person in a war zone using the
> tone of a person sitting on a beach drinking shirley temples. It is not fair
> to shoot the messenger on the basis of using scary language that is outside

It is a "beat up" Joanna.  And you know it.  I have said repeatedly that you
should stay on topic which as far as I understand it is websites which are
breaching sanctions or some other rule of law.

However, as you want to extend this scope to include all forms of "mission
creep" and "content censorship" you are using emotive language to win support.

What you don't realise, however, is that you are just showing immaturity.

> the normal comfort zone, when all that is happening is that the story is
> being told as it really is. No apologies for lack of "Politically correct"
> speech. I am not going to apologize to any members of Hamas that may be
> members of this group and there are plenty of Palestinians who would agree
> with me.

That's a distortion as you well know.  You can say whatever you like about
Hamas or anybody else on any forum that is designed for that purpose.

We are here to discuss the DNS.  It's a pity you can't understand that.

> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> IANAL - I am not a lawyer. Anything I say is my personal opinion and not in
> any sense legal advice.

Me too.

Regards
Patrick Corliss










--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html