<nettime> Re: Why Domains Affect Freedom of Speech, Access and Privacy

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

pg@lokmail.net (Sun 01/23/00 at 10:48 PM -0500):

> Policies in place by Name.Space include NO CENSORSHIP, PRIVATE
> (unpublished) LISTINGS, ANTI-SPECULATION AND HIJACKING, and encourages USE
> of a domain name over hoarding and re-selling.  The stated policy also
> calls for a politically decentralized management of the DNS, in the
> interests of the global public and not favoring any nation, corporation,
> or individual.  (see http://namespace.org/policy) 

when i talked with you at the CPSR conference 'Governing the 
Commons: The Future of Global Internet Administration' (last 
fall) i asked you about Namespace's policies regarding (what
you like to call) the 'new global top-level domains' (gTLDs).

specifically, i asked you what Namespace's policies were for
deciding what was or was not 'sufficiently generic' to be ad-
mitted by Namespace as a 'new gTLD.' our talk went something 
like this:

     TB: how about '.byfield'?
     PG: no, that's not generic.
     TB: why not?
     PG: it's your last name--that's not generic.
     TB: how about '.smith'?
     PG: no, that's not generic either.
     TB: what if i'm a metalsmith and i think metalsmiths
         worldwide have a common interest in carving out
         a gTLD devoted to metal-working?
     PG: oh, well in that case, that would be generic: that'd
         be ok then.
     TB: what about '.miller' then?

and so on and so forth. 

now, since Namespace has poured *so* much energy into criticiz-
ing the centralized and unaccountable institutions that govern
DNS, it was pretty remarkable to stand there while you made up
rules on an ad-hoc basis--particularly because only moments be-
fore, you had spoken very optimistically indeed about how Name-
space was going to win its case against NSI on appeal. and yet
you seemed quite comfortable issuing one would-be ruling after
another based on 'common sense.'

moreover, when i asked whether Namespace had made any specific 
plans for dealing with the problems that would inevitably come 
up if it *did* win its lawsuit against NSI--clear policies, ac-
countable structures, systems for public input, appeals proces-
ses, etc.--the answer was no: no plans, no preparations at all.

so your statement that Namespace has policies 'in place' seems
completely comical: who wrote these policies? who will enforce
them? if Namespace enforces one of its 'policies,' but its cli-
ent disagrees, what's Namespace's 'policy' about reviewing dis-
putes? it's easy to see how these 'policies' could come in con-
flict with each other. for example, if a Namespace client were
to 'squat' domains, what would Namespace do? if it revoked the
domains, wouldn't that be 'censorship'? but if it didn't, what
does it mean that Namespace's 'policies' oppose speculating?

as a for-profit corporation, Namespace is obliged to obey laws,
which is why Namespace's legal boilerplate requires people who
register domains to agree to X, Y, and Z. if Namespace becomes
an ICANN-accredited registrar, its registration contracts will
be governed by Namespace's agreement with ICANN--just like all
*110* other accredited registrars. big deal.  



> Get Free Private Encrypted Email https://mail.lokmail.net

btw, has your 'lokmail' released its source code for public re-
view? if not, why not? does 'lokmail' advocate trusting propri-
etary, closed crypto?

cheers,
t

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net