Re: [bwg+] Re: [wg-b] Revised IPC Proposal

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <john@johnberryhill.com>
To: Hartman, Steve <HartmanS@nabisco.com>; <wg-b@dnso.org>

> > The
> > IPC proposal does not affect the use of words on a website.(And in other
> > countries, Great Britain comes immediately to mind, prior restraint of
the
> > written word is not uncommon.)
> > Steve Hartman


Then let's open up the sunrise period to religious groups who have a
profound interest in the non-use of certain strings of letters.

Why should the Internet protect trademark holders, and yet offend orthodox
Jews who consider a certain four-letter combination, the tetragrammaton, to
be sacred.

You guys only worry about litigation.  Why, if a registrar allows a
disrespectful name to incorporate that of the Prophet, peace be upon him,
well.... would you rather face down a lawsuit or a Jihad?  Clearly the
registrars need protection from that kind of thing.  Look what happened to
Salman Rushdie.

Also, we will need to protect the interests of minority groups against hate
speech, much in the same way that killniggers.com is indicated to be
registered for non-use in the whois data for it.  Why is the cause of
trademark holders more worthy of sunrise protection than the cause of human
rights?  Oh, yeah, I forgot "killniggers.com" is not speech.... Do you
believe that?

I don't.