Libya terminating unacceptable .ly domains
See tale of woe: http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/2010/10/the-ly-domain-space-to-be-considered-uns... -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------
ccTLDs are bound to pave the way for national governments to control their national Internet space. IDN TLDs would open up another dimension of local laws for Internet. ICANN and the Internet Community may have to find ways of working even more closely with ccTLD registries and NICs to promote gTLD like policies in the ccTLD space. Sivasubramanian M On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
See tale of woe:
http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/2010/10/the-ly-domain-space-to-be-considered-uns...
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.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
In this case. The terms speciffically said that sites must not contravene Libyan law. Apparently the objection was that the vb.ly was advertised as specifically a sex-oriented url shortener. See http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2010/10/official-vb-ly-link-shortene... j On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com>wrote:
ccTLDs are bound to pave the way for national governments to control their national Internet space. IDN TLDs would open up another dimension of local laws for Internet.
ICANN and the Internet Community may have to find ways of working even more closely with ccTLD registries and NICs to promote gTLD like policies in the ccTLD space.
Sivasubramanian M
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
See tale of woe:
http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/2010/10/the-ly-domain-space-to-be-considered-uns...
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------
http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/2010/10/the-ly-domain-space-to-be-considered-uns...
Well, honestly, it was pretty stupid to put a sex site on a domain in a Muslim country. (Violet Blue is a very elegant high class sex site, but there's no way it's anything else.) Their argument that it vb.ly was only a redirector to the underlying site may have been technically correct, but it was just silly since it was utterly obvious to anyone what showed up on your screen if you typed http://vb.ly in the address bar. I also have a short ly domain at http://jl.ly, and it's true, they appear to have realized that it was not a great idea to sell off the two letter domains for $75 each, but I haven't seen any evidence that they're reclaiming two letter sites in general. R's, John
John, Will Internet be Internet if Muslim countries ban sites with porn content, Hindu countries ban sites that have anything to do with beef or veal, Jewish countries ban sites with pictures of fish without scales and Christian nations ban sites from every other religion ? Starts with domain names, next would be deep packet inspection aided filtering and IP address blocking. Stars with porn, will progress to idealogical and political content and then the technologies would even be adopted to be tools for 'economic sanctions'. The network of networks wouldn't be Internet if it becomes a network of national networks. ccTLDs, National Internet Exchanges and IDN TLDs are the greatest threats to Internet. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:08 AM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/2010/10/the-ly-domain-space-to-be-considered-uns...
Well, honestly, it was pretty stupid to put a sex site on a domain in a Muslim country. (Violet Blue is a very elegant high class sex site, but there's no way it's anything else.) Their argument that it vb.ly was only a redirector to the underlying site may have been technically correct, but it was just silly since it was utterly obvious to anyone what showed up on your screen if you typed http://vb.ly in the address bar.
I also have a short ly domain at http://jl.ly, and it's true, they appear to have realized that it was not a great idea to sell off the two letter domains for $75 each, but I haven't seen any evidence that they're reclaiming two letter sites in general.
R's, John _______________________________________________ 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
On 8 October 2010 02:48, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
Will Internet be Internet if Muslim countries ban sites with porn content, Hindu countries ban sites that have anything to do with beef or veal, Jewish countries ban sites with pictures of fish without scales and Christian nations ban sites from every other religion ?
You speak as if this hasn't already started. There are many countries in the mideast that already have a blanket ban on the ".il" TLD, regardless of content. The censorship of major second-level domains in China is well known -- whether the motivation is religious or political is irrelevant to me, as (in my personal opinion) in this context religion *is* politics. And even the bastion of freedom is making its own censorship plans<http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5334/135/> .
The network of networks wouldn't be Internet if it becomes a network of national networks. ccTLDs, National Internet Exchanges and IDN TLDs are the greatest threats to Internet.
Then we must allow hundreds of gTLDs to blossom in their place :-) - Evan
Evan before I respond to your message, I must expand on my own message: The network of networks wouldn't be Internet if it becomes a network of
national networks. ccTLDs, National Internet Exchanges and IDN TLDs are the greatest threats to Internet.
ccTLDs, National Internet Exchanges and IDN TLDs - each has its own rationale and purpose. ccTLDs in a way expanded the Domain Name System and paved the way for Registries worldwide, instead of almost the entire DNS concentrated in one country. National Internet Exchange points provided the answer to an unfair system of peering whereby someone in Kenya paid both his email inward and outward. Though not scientifically researched and established, National Internet Exchanges would even reduce the carbon foot print, by controlling wasteful hops. IDN TLDs would make it easier for the non-English speaking people to connect to the Internet. (But there could be a system whereby the IDN DNS remains within the International DNS, and a system whereby IDN TLDs are intelligible to the English users) In spite of the rationale and purpose as indicated above, I stand by my statement that "The network of networks wouldn't be Internet if it becomes a network of national networks. ccTLDs, National Internet Exchanges and IDN TLDs are the greatest threats to Internet." Some of my comments to your message inline as below: On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 8 October 2010 02:48, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
Will Internet be Internet if Muslim countries ban sites with porn content, Hindu countries ban sites that have anything to do with beef or veal, Jewish countries ban sites with pictures of fish without scales and Christian nations ban sites from every other religion ?
You speak as if this hasn't already started.
There are many countries in the mideast that already have a blanket ban on the ".il" TLD, regardless of content.
The censorship of major second-level domains in China is well known -- whether the motivation is religious or political is irrelevant to me, as (in my personal opinion) in this context religion *is* politics. And even the bastion of freedom is making its own censorship plans<http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5334/135/>
While Middle East or China are noticed for their National activism, US is usually more subtle. It professes Internationalism but is excessively steered by its own National Interests. It professes a commitment to freedom but happens to be thorough in its policies and practices to curtail freedom.
The network of networks wouldn't be Internet if it becomes a network of national networks. ccTLDs, National Internet Exchanges and IDN TLDs are the greatest threats to Internet.
Then we must allow hundreds of gTLDs to blossom in their place :-)
Not necessarily hundreds, but enough to expand the Internet out of bounds of the .com space. In such a way that the control of the DNS moves out of national space.
- Evan _______________________________________________ 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
Yes Siva But I think we must accept that ccTLD operators, and any other name provider for that matter, are entitled to set their terms of service and withdraw from agreements when those terms are egregiously contravened - as would appear to be the case here. The termination of one second level domain does not imply the fractionalization of the Internet. But the case should be a salutary warning to those contemplating putting all their eggs in any ccTLD basket, rather than one more tightly beholden to ICANN standards. joly On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com>wrote:
Evan before I respond to your message, I must expand on my own message:
The network of networks wouldn't be Internet if it becomes a network of
national networks. ccTLDs, National Internet Exchanges and IDN TLDs are the greatest threats to Internet.
<snip>
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------
On 10/08/2010 12:10 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
You speak as if this hasn't already started.
Indeed. The recent brouhaha about .xxx was driven in large part by some very conservative religious groups in the US who lobbied the Bush administration which, in turn, put pressure on the US Dep't of Commerce, who, in turn ... well, we all saw the results. But the net has never been seamless. My private net is not open to everyone. I would suspect that pretty much everyone's home net is closed to outsiders. Corporate and military chunks of the net are also pretty well closed up. It is a fantasy that the net ever was, is, or will be an open field in which everyone can contact anyone and in which anyone can prance freely to any part. The end-to-end principle is a fading aspiration, not a reflection of present or past reality. And the chunking of the net is happening in many ways beyond DNS. IPv6 is going to chop the net into two distinct nets running side-by-side. NATs and Application Level Gateways carve us up further. Rules that require or deny cryptography (e.g. the Blackberry mess) are going to divide us in yet another dimension. Private interconnects are going to create a caste system in which large corporate interests will be able to provide their most favored users with a better internet experience than received by the independent internet user. The dimensionality of separations is increasing even more - for instance, those who refuse to use Facebook are divided from those who do. Yesterday's XKCD drawing of the continents and nations of the net is very illustrative of the growing boundaries. My own sense is that rather than wringing hands over the divisions that we ought to aspire to create processes and institutions that show how those divisions are not merely silly but also counterproductive and ultimately ineffective.
Then we must allow hundreds of gTLDs to blossom in their place :-)
Yes!!! (But why merely hundreds? I'll raise you by 2 decimal orders of magnitude a year. ;-) --karl--
Dear Karl Auerbach, On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 10/08/2010 12:10 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
You speak as if this hasn't already started.
Indeed.
The recent brouhaha about .xxx was driven in large part by some very conservative religious groups in the US who lobbied the Bush administration which, in turn, put pressure on the US Dep't of Commerce, who, in turn ... well, we all saw the results.
But the net has never been seamless. My private net is not open to everyone. I would suspect that pretty much everyone's home net is closed to outsiders. Corporate and military chunks of the net are also pretty well closed up.
One's Home network, a military network or a Corporate Network are in the Intranet realm, these are networks that by definition, do not want to be part of the Internet. It is another matter if that happens to National networks. Sivasubramanian M
It is a fantasy that the net ever was, is, or will be an open field in which everyone can contact anyone and in which anyone can prance freely to any part.
The end-to-end principle is a fading aspiration, not a reflection of present or past reality.
And the chunking of the net is happening in many ways beyond DNS. IPv6 is going to chop the net into two distinct nets running side-by-side. NATs and Application Level Gateways carve us up further. Rules that require or deny cryptography (e.g. the Blackberry mess) are going to divide us in yet another dimension. Private interconnects are going to create a caste system in which large corporate interests will be able to provide their most favored users with a better internet experience than received by the independent internet user.
The dimensionality of separations is increasing even more - for instance, those who refuse to use Facebook are divided from those who do. Yesterday's XKCD drawing of the continents and nations of the net is very illustrative of the growing boundaries.
My own sense is that rather than wringing hands over the divisions that we ought to aspire to create processes and institutions that show how those divisions are not merely silly but also counterproductive and ultimately ineffective.
Then we must allow hundreds of gTLDs to blossom in their place :-)
Yes!!! (But why merely hundreds? I'll raise you by 2 decimal orders of magnitude a year. ;-)
--karl-- _______________________________________________ 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
Siva, I respectfully disagree. Many ccTLDs do much better than gTLDs on several aspects. WHOIS policy is one example. National Internet exchanges do a great job at saving international bandwidth by allowing local peering. This makes Internet access cheaper locally. IDNs are needed for those populations which do not wish to suffer the latin alphabet imperialism. I am not aware of christian countries - if such a thing exists, most are secularized societies - banning sites based on expressed religious faith. can you share some examples ? Censorship has been around for centuries in many societies. First, they burned books. Then, they jammed radio and TV signals. Now, they filter the Internet. Nothing new under the sun. How to solve that is another debate. However, I am afraid one cannot expect to "save the Internet" as such. Mentalities regarding censorship as a concept need to be changed. Yours, Patrick On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:18:46 +0530, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
Will Internet be Internet if Muslim countries ban sites with porn content, Hindu countries ban sites that have anything to do with beef or veal, Jewish countries ban sites with pictures of fish without scales and Christian nations ban sites from every other religion ?
Starts with domain names, next would be deep packet inspection aided filtering and IP address blocking. Stars with porn, will progress to idealogical and political content and then the technologies would even be adopted to be tools for 'economic sanctions'.
The network of networks wouldn't be Internet if it becomes a network of national networks. ccTLDs, National Internet Exchanges and IDN TLDs are the greatest threats to Internet.
Dear Patrick Vande Walle, On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu>wrote:
Siva,
I respectfully disagree.
Many ccTLDs do much better than gTLDs on several aspects. WHOIS policy is one example. National Internet exchanges do a great job at saving international bandwidth by allowing local peering. This makes Internet access cheaper locally. IDNs are needed for those populations which do not wish to suffer the latin alphabet imperialism.
I agree. I said the same thing about the good side of ccTLDs, National Internet Exchanges and IDN TLDs in my response to Evan's message on this thread earlier. So I am very much in agreement with you on all these points, yet, I have concerns that ccTLDs, National Internet Exchanges and IDN TLDs have MIGHT make it easier for some or many national governments to barricade their national Internet space. I said it might happen, Evan responded by saying that it is already happening and provided an example.
I am not aware of christian countries - if such a thing exists, most are secularized societies - banning sites based on expressed religious faith. can you share some examples ?
No, such a thing does not exist. I was trying to explain that the Internet would become fragmented if politically, religiously or linguistically divided.
Censorship has been around for centuries in many societies. First, they burned books. Then, they jammed radio and TV signals. Now, they filter the Internet. Nothing new under the sun. How to solve that is another debate.
How?
However, I am afraid one cannot expect to "save the Internet" as such. Mentalities regarding censorship as a concept need to be changed.
We may not be able to preserve the Internet as a space totally free of any form of oversight, but the core values can be saved to a large extent, if we keep working. Thank you Patrick.
Yours,
Patrick
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:18:46 +0530, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
Will Internet be Internet if Muslim countries ban sites with porn content, Hindu countries ban sites that have anything to do with beef or veal, Jewish countries ban sites with pictures of fish without scales and Christian nations ban sites from every other religion ?
Starts with domain names, next would be deep packet inspection aided filtering and IP address blocking. Stars with porn, will progress to idealogical and political content and then the technologies would even be adopted to be tools for 'economic sanctions'.
The network of networks wouldn't be Internet if it becomes a network of national networks. ccTLDs, National Internet Exchanges and IDN TLDs are the greatest threats to Internet.
_______________________________________________ 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
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:45:05 +0530, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
Censorship has been around for centuries in many societies. First, they burned books. Then, they jammed radio and TV signals. Now, they filter the Internet. Nothing new under the sun. How to solve that is another debate.
How?
Dear Siva, What I meant is that the issues of censorship, freedom of expression, democracy, etc are mostly out of scope in ICANN, short maybe of those related to objectionable TLD strings that have been debated for a long time. Such issues need to be addressed in the more global fight for human rights through other organizations. If I had the magic formula that would stop censorship and reinstate tolerance and democracy, I would gladly share it. Alas, I don't. Patrick
Dear Patrick, On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu>wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:45:05 +0530, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
Censorship has been around for centuries in many societies. First, they burned books. Then, they jammed radio and TV signals. Now, they filter the Internet. Nothing new under the sun. How to solve that is another debate.
How?
Dear Siva,
What I meant is that the issues of censorship, freedom of expression, democracy, etc are mostly out of scope in ICANN, short maybe of those related to objectionable TLD strings that have been debated for a long time. Such issues need to be addressed in the more global fight for human rights through other organizations. If I had the magic formula that would stop censorship and reinstate tolerance and democracy, I would gladly share it. Alas, I don't.
Patrick
Thanks. It may be out of scope in ICANN, but is at-Large, even though it is ICANN at-Large, limited to names and numbers? Sivasubramanian M _______________________________________________
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 focus would be best served keeping ICANN within scope :-) On 8 Oct 2010, at 13:53, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
Dear Patrick,
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu>wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:45:05 +0530, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
Censorship has been around for centuries in many societies. First, they burned books. Then, they jammed radio and TV signals. Now, they filter the Internet. Nothing new under the sun. How to solve that is another debate.
How?
Dear Siva,
What I meant is that the issues of censorship, freedom of expression, democracy, etc are mostly out of scope in ICANN, short maybe of those related to objectionable TLD strings that have been debated for a long time. Such issues need to be addressed in the more global fight for human rights through other organizations. If I had the magic formula that would stop censorship and reinstate tolerance and democracy, I would gladly share it. Alas, I don't.
Patrick
Thanks. It may be out of scope in ICANN, but is at-Large, even though it is ICANN at-Large, limited to names and numbers?
Sivasubramanian M
_______________________________________________
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
Sorry to intervene so late, I have been pretty busy lately and this subject, although interesting, ended on my back burner. My personal opinion is that we are making things more dramatic than they are. I don't see at all a risk for the Internet if some TLDs (cc or g) decide not to allow certain sites. I believe that the beauty (and strength) of the internet is not in allowing (or obliging) everybody to do everything, but in having enough diversity so that there is a space for everybody. In short, if .ly wants to ban porn sites, this is not a tragedy. Porn sites have hundreds of other TLDs where they can be hosted. I don't see this any different from .museum that does not allow registrations from entities that are not... Museums. Let me make a parallel with restaurants. Would you argue that all restaurants have to serve all types of food? Should vegetarian restaurants be obliged to serve also meat? The problem does not exist the moment in which we have enough restaurants, with enough diversity, so that every type of food can be served. And the customers have the choice. So, I tend to agree with Karl, saying that the issue is to have enough TLDs to produce enough diversity. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 08:49 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Libya terminating unacceptable .ly domains
John,
Will Internet be Internet if Muslim countries ban sites with porn content, Hindu countries ban sites that have anything to do with beef or veal, Jewish countries ban sites with pictures of fish without scales and Christian nations ban sites from every other religion ?
Starts with domain names, next would be deep packet inspection aided filtering and IP address blocking. Stars with porn, will progress to idealogical and political content and then the technologies would even be adopted to be tools for 'economic sanctions'.
The network of networks wouldn't be Internet if it becomes a network of national networks. ccTLDs, National Internet Exchanges and IDN TLDs are the greatest threats to Internet.
Sivasubramanian M
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:08 AM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/2010/10/the-ly-domain-space-to-be-consider
ed-unsafe/
Well, honestly, it was pretty stupid to put a sex site on a domain in a Muslim country. (Violet Blue is a very elegant high class sex site, but there's no way it's anything else.) Their argument that it vb.ly was only a redirector to the underlying site may have been technically correct, but it was just silly since it was utterly obvious to anyone what showed up on your screen if you typed http://vb.ly in the address bar.
I also have a short ly domain at http://jl.ly, and it's true, they appear to have realized that it was not a great idea to sell off the two letter domains for $75 each, but I haven't seen any evidence that they're reclaiming two letter sites in general.
R's, John _______________________________________________ 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
participants (8)
-
Christian de Larrinaga -
Evan Leibovitch -
John R. Levine -
Joly MacFie -
Karl Auerbach -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Roberto Gaetano -
Sivasubramanian M