Re: [atlarge-discuss] Dow Chemical Shuts Down TenantNet andHell's Kitchen

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 23:26 -0500 2002/12/13, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>Questions for the at-large membership:
>
>As Verio is a member of the ISP constituency, is this an issue
>that should be raised with the ISP constituency?  Should ISPs be
>required to abide by a Code of Practice that would prohibit such
>conduct under penalty of law?

My answer would be a resounding "YES!" It's clearly absurd that
an ISP should shut down a whole slew of Web sites because one
of them might be violating a law. In fact, it's absurd that an
ISP should shut down even that one site unless the site was in
violation of their contract or there were a court order telling
them to do so.

A mere objection from a third party, whether over the content or
the registered domain name, in no way authorizes an ISP to take
the law into its own hands. If the ISP is sufficiently panicked
by a lawyer's letter to violate a customer's rights under their
contract, it really shouldn't be in the business of hosting
Web sites at all -- some ISPs don't, and most who do spell it
out clearly that they are not responsible for vetting the
contents of sites.

>As actions on the part of ISPs of the type mentioned above can
>affect the legitimate interests of domain name registrants, is
>this an issue that falls within the purview of ICANN?  Inasmuch
>as ISPs are not yet a contracting party in the ICANN world of
>>interrelationships, does ICANN have any authority over the ISP
>community?

I admit I'm hazier on this part. If I understand correctly,
ICANN has no direct authority over ISPs except insofar as they
"sell" domain names to their customers. There's a (rather biased)
procedure by which somebody's registration of a given domain
name can be challenged by whatever corporation claims to own
a string of characters within it under trademark or trade law,
but that is handled at the registrar level and has nothing to
do with hosting per se.

ICANN doesn't licence ISPs to provide access accounts or hosting
-- ISPs operate under the laws of the jurisdiction they're in --
so I can't see how it would have any authority to demand that an
ISP cancel a customer's account or make its Web site disappear.
Here in Canada, it would be up to the plaintiff to sue the owner
and/or operator of the offending site, and could then ask the
court to order that the site cease publishing the contentious
material but I doubt whether that court order would demand
that the whole site, never mind a bunch of other peoples' sites,
be shut down pending hearing of the case.

>This forwarded message is clearly a grass-roots, bottom-up appeal
>for help from members of the real-world At-Large.  As
>representatives of the At-Large movement, how will you choose to
>respond?  Your feedback will be appreciated.

This is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to see this putative
organization of ours watching out for. Arbitrarily shutting
down a site just because somebody has complained simply nullifies
both the right to free expression of the site owner and the
right to access to information on the part of all Internet users.
Therefore, I think that as an organization we should be prepared
to react quickly and decisively whenever ICANN or anyone else
suggests this kind of thing is proper procedure.

As a mere individual, I doubt anyone would care much what
objections I had to such arbitrary actions -- though I would
be willing to write any ISP who shut a site down that way.

As an organization of Internet users, I think we should be
- tracking such abuses of communications rights;
- presenting briefs to ICANN, conferences, "summits", etc.
  about these cases and their pernicious effects
- encouraging our members and the general public to
  participate in letter-writing campaigns, sign petitions,
  inform their elected representatives on the issue, etc.
- talking to the media about the rights of Internet users
  vs. the "right" of commercial entities to prevent
  negative publicity about themselves.

>From my own perspective, this is exactly the area where an
international "At Large" is most needed -- protecting
freedom of speech and freedom of access for all individuals
from the various parties which make up policies and
procedures to suit themselves and their friends in industry
without regard for the longterm public interest.

Does that answer your question, Danny? Personally, I don't
think it does until everyone else weighs in on this
important question ... and I'd be astonished if many of
our colleagues here would commit themselves to any course
of action.

Please, people, surprise me!

Regards,

Judyth


##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de