Forums
New posts
New posts
Search forums
Market
Domains/Websites Wanted
.com Domain Market
gTLD Domain Market
ccTLD Domain Market
Web3 Domain Market
Third-Level Domain Market
Adult Domain Market
What's New
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Account Upgrade
Premium Members Directory
Log in
Register
What's New
calendar
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.
Forums
Domain Discussion
General Domain Name Discussion
ICANN threatening acronyms and other desirable domain names
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ImageAuthors" data-source="post: 2176248" data-attributes="member: 322543876"><p>Thanks for the head's up on this, George. I've posted my own comments just now. But I'll also post here in DNForum, mainly in the hope that other people -- glancing over these remarks -- may be persuaded to comment as well:</p><p></p><p>... ... ... ... ...</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #000000">I'll begin less formally than others have done but with the same thanks for the opportunity to comment publicly on this draft report. Of course, that opportunity and these comments -- though nominally public -- will be virtually unknown to the actual public, even though the policy being debated threatens the rights of every member of the general public without exception.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">To some extent, most important policies are decided by some minority and imposed on the majority. Frequently that minority stands to profit most from drastic policy changes, which explains its interest in framing the outcome. This isn't always sinister, but it may nevertheless rob the majority of long-held rights or set a dangerous precedent for doing so. In this case, the precedent is very dangerous indeed.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Others have compared domain name rights to land rights. Well, it is not unheard of for governments to seize land from underneath the feet of lawful owners when the purpose seems beneficent enough to those in power. But policies permitting such actions should not be entered upon lightly. Restricting new expansion into areas not previously owned -- such as National Forests -- is much less controversial than confiscating privately held property. Choking off an owner's ability to transfer an asset is effectively the same thing, since it compels loss of value or loss of rights sooner or later.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Perhaps the proposal to "use a carrot and stick approach ... for removing the names from existing holders" could be compared to similar inducements used to assemble lands for the National Parks here in the United States. But, in fact, that's a spurious analogy. All U.S. citizens benefit from the preservation of National Parks and are afforded meaningful access to them. The same would not be true if domain names currently owned by private individuals, companies, or nonprofits were forcibly transferred to a few privileged groups. Those groups would use them for their own aims -- which, though laudable perhaps, would not be truly public.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Domains are property; and, as such, existing ownership rights ought to be honored without diminution unless there is some clearcut violation of the law. Forced transfer from an individual to some group with arbitrary privileges -- or from one organization to another organization with more vigorous lobbyists -- is not justified. It seems obvious to me that the rights of existing property owners ought not to be dismantled retroactively. Whether or not new GTLDs are subject to new requirements, domains registered already in existing GTLDs should be governed under the current laws.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Domains are property, yes. However, I'd like to stress a point that hasn't been raised yet to my knowledge. We are not simply advocating for property rights. Domain names are *language*. Ultimately, this draft report threatens, not just property rights, but free speech. Confiscating a domain deprives not only its owner but also its audience of a publicly understood form of meaningful speech. In effect, ICANN would be dictating what a term *must* mean.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Here ICANN ought to tread very lightly because the general public has historically been somewhat attached to its right of free speech. That has included naming themselves and assembling in public places. Domain names are public places -- unless, of course, ICANN sets the opposite precedent, as seems to be the suggestion before us.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Should ICANN repeal free speech simply in order to confiscate private property for the benefit of an arbitrarily defined group of special organizations? No.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Sincerely,</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Joseph Peterson</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ImageAuthors, post: 2176248, member: 322543876"] Thanks for the head's up on this, George. I've posted my own comments just now. But I'll also post here in DNForum, mainly in the hope that other people -- glancing over these remarks -- may be persuaded to comment as well: ... ... ... ... ... [COLOR=#000000]I'll begin less formally than others have done but with the same thanks for the opportunity to comment publicly on this draft report. Of course, that opportunity and these comments -- though nominally public -- will be virtually unknown to the actual public, even though the policy being debated threatens the rights of every member of the general public without exception. [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000] To some extent, most important policies are decided by some minority and imposed on the majority. Frequently that minority stands to profit most from drastic policy changes, which explains its interest in framing the outcome. This isn't always sinister, but it may nevertheless rob the majority of long-held rights or set a dangerous precedent for doing so. In this case, the precedent is very dangerous indeed. [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000] Others have compared domain name rights to land rights. Well, it is not unheard of for governments to seize land from underneath the feet of lawful owners when the purpose seems beneficent enough to those in power. But policies permitting such actions should not be entered upon lightly. Restricting new expansion into areas not previously owned -- such as National Forests -- is much less controversial than confiscating privately held property. Choking off an owner's ability to transfer an asset is effectively the same thing, since it compels loss of value or loss of rights sooner or later. Perhaps the proposal to "use a carrot and stick approach ... for removing the names from existing holders" could be compared to similar inducements used to assemble lands for the National Parks here in the United States. But, in fact, that's a spurious analogy. All U.S. citizens benefit from the preservation of National Parks and are afforded meaningful access to them. The same would not be true if domain names currently owned by private individuals, companies, or nonprofits were forcibly transferred to a few privileged groups. Those groups would use them for their own aims -- which, though laudable perhaps, would not be truly public. [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000] Domains are property; and, as such, existing ownership rights ought to be honored without diminution unless there is some clearcut violation of the law. Forced transfer from an individual to some group with arbitrary privileges -- or from one organization to another organization with more vigorous lobbyists -- is not justified. It seems obvious to me that the rights of existing property owners ought not to be dismantled retroactively. Whether or not new GTLDs are subject to new requirements, domains registered already in existing GTLDs should be governed under the current laws. [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000] Domains are property, yes. However, I'd like to stress a point that hasn't been raised yet to my knowledge. We are not simply advocating for property rights. Domain names are *language*. Ultimately, this draft report threatens, not just property rights, but free speech. Confiscating a domain deprives not only its owner but also its audience of a publicly understood form of meaningful speech. In effect, ICANN would be dictating what a term *must* mean. [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000] Here ICANN ought to tread very lightly because the general public has historically been somewhat attached to its right of free speech. That has included naming themselves and assembling in public places. Domain names are public places -- unless, of course, ICANN sets the opposite precedent, as seems to be the suggestion before us. [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000] Should ICANN repeal free speech simply in order to confiscate private property for the benefit of an arbitrarily defined group of special organizations? No. [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000] Sincerely, Joseph Peterson [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Domain Discussion
General Domain Name Discussion
ICANN threatening acronyms and other desirable domain names
Top
Bottom