Hi Roberto, agreeing with you, since I am from a country where anonymousness is forbidden by the Constitution, and this not means the information of anyone is public, for me it sounds like the anonymousness just goes in the benefit of the bad guy. Government - if there where lies the fear - has thousands of opportunities to control the citizen´s life. Once is not public other person will not be able to reach it. Roberto, If you once understand it, please public it to the benefit of our knowledge. best. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 -----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Roberto Gaetano Enviada em: sábado, 8 de janeiro de 2011 20:38 Para: 'At-Large Worldwide' Assunto: Re: [At-Large] 9th Circuit Court ruling on ICANN Contract. Happy new year to all. Let me add a late comment to this thread. I believe that the registration of a domain requires the owner of the domain to correctly identify oneself to the registering authority, but that this information does not need necessarily to be public. This is not a new debate, but it still comes in waves, without substantial changes in the opinions of the different parties. Years ago, I think it was at the Tunis/Carthage (2003?), we had this discussion and I replied to Marilyn Cade making the example of car registration: a car owner is obliged to provide complete and accurate information to the registration authority, but this information is not necessarily public. Actually, I am not aware of any national car registry in which you can access this information without proving that you need it, and qualify yourself. I have not yet heard a convincing argument on why the domain names have to be treated differently. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bill Silverstein Sent: Friday, 24 December 2010 00:32 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] 9th Circuit Court ruling on ICANN Contract.
On 12/22/2010 10:40 AM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
It is not vigilante justice to know the identity of the owner of a domain name.
Oh yes indeed it is. It is most definitely vigilante action to take away the right of an accused - merely on the basis of that accusation. In this case the rights are those of privacy and due process.
Oh no. You are inserting a right here where there is none. The right to privacy regarding the ownership of a domain name. Anonymous speech does not equate to anonymous domain name registration.
The registration of a domain requires the owner of the domain to correctly identify oneself to the public when registering the domain name.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org