I strongly believe we are at a point where no single commercial organization can control the registerations for a single domain; it either has to be done by panel (ICANN) or the government.
It is being done by the government. Specifically, by the soverign Tuvaluan government. If by "the government" you meant the government of the United States of America, I don't think they really have jurisdiction there. To the extent that ".tv" is the Tuvulans' to do with as they please, they are certainly empowered to subcontract or subdelegate to DotTV if they see fit. Tuvaluan citizens who object can express their displeasure at the ballot box.
DotTV has a lot of power right now, but I suspect someone's going to look into this practice shortly.
Somebody did look into it. Namely, the Tuvaluan Minister of Information Technology (or whatever the appropriate title might be) looked into it. Who else needs to look into this action taken by a soverign government? ICANN? Country names are delegated to the named countries; I doubt that DNS delegation policy would call for ICANN to take any action.
Or would it? Is ".tv" really and truly the Tuvaluans' to do with as they please? Does ICANN treat delegated domain management completely hands-off? Or does ICANN have policies and procedures regarding what nations may do with their two-letter contry domains?
That's not a rhetorical question. I just don't know the answer. Anybody? What rules, if any, do all nations have to obey with respect to their corresponding two-letter TLD's?
I sent e-mail to Jason Kroll asking him to clarify the issues I raised in my Slimy, yes. But unconstitutional? posting. He replied promptly, and asked that I post the following clarification:
Hello!
My slashdot password to my hyena account doesn't seem to work...
Yes, they are Norwegian citizens, and if Norway were truly independent and entirely sovereign, the MPA would not have made a successful effort to get the Norwegian police to raid the Johansen's home. However, the MPA(A) describes itself on its own web site as "a little State Department" which clearly identifies that it intends to enforce US law throughout the world. The World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization are both effective tools for doing this, they are so powerful as you know that they can sometimes override American law! The DMCA would be worthless to the US if it did not enforce it throughout the world, and I expect that if it is not ruled unconstitutional, this is exactly what will happen. So, while Jon is protected by his own nation, we need to make it clear that he is also protected by the law of the nation which instigated the whole affair. Neither US nor Norwegian law were broken, so it's not even an issue of whose law is legit. I do think, however, that Human Rights Accords such as free speech are valid at least in all UN nations, and really I consider them valid (since they are rights not restrictions) the world over, a moral imperative. "Truth never damages a cause that is just" said Gandhi, it's pretty relevant.
One minor point. I actually didn't allege the violations of the US constitution and US law in Jon's case (since obviously we all know he is Norwegian), it was the GILC, I was just quoting, though I should have been more critical on this point. Still, if his rights are protected by Norwegian law AND American law, there's not much argument for prosecution from anywhere, not even the WTO would be able to do much here.
Thanks for taking the time to contact me. You're more than welcome (in fact please do if you can) to post this email to slashdot if it helps to clarify the issue. I appreciate your questioning of this issue, it's very important both for our cause to make sure that we understand our own arguments, and on the general principle that we should question everything. Thank you again!
-- Jason
So there you have it. Since I publicly challenged Mr. Kroll's article, I would now like to publicly thank him for responding in an expedient and professional manner. As he quotes Gandhi, "Truth never damages a cause that is just," and a questioning public is a critical component of an enlightened, free society.
Fine, the MPA and MPAA are different entities. But that still doesn't explain why Jason Kroll feels that the US Constitution and Digital Millennium Copyright Act are applicable to this Norwegian legal affair.
I'm trying to give Mr. Kroll the benefit of the doubt here, but I just don't understand his reading of the legal situation.
The GILC... has condemned the action as a violation both of the Human Rights Accords of the United Nations and the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
The US Constitution? Aren't Jon and Per Johansen Norwegian citizens? And wasn't the "action" carried out by Norway's Econcomic Crime Departement (ECD)? How is the US Constitution relevant here?
Is Mr. Kroll's claim that the MPAA was somehow directly influencing Norway's ECD to suppress the Johansens' free speach, and that since the MPAA is an American organization, somehow the US Constitution has bearing on the ECD's actions? That doesn't make much sense. So what if the MPAA pressured the ECD? That might be an issue for Norwegian law, but I just don't see the US Constitutional tie-in.
Mr. Kroll goes on to write:
Almost ironically, Jon's reverse-engineering rights are specifically protected by the notorious Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which itself is probably unconstitutional).
Again, why would Jon's rights to do anything be protected by an American law? The Digital Millennium Copyright Act should be completely irrelevant as regards a Norwegian citizen acting on Norwegian soil.
Am I just missing something here?
Don't get me wrong. I don't endorse the action taken against the Johansens. But I do want to understand the basis for Mr. Kroll's claims. If his claims have merit, then I have misunderstood something important and I wish to be corrected. If his claims are without merit, then they are alarmist misdirections that do nothing to help foster rational discussion and debate.
Slashdot Mirror
"Is that a kernel in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"
Related jokes include:
You get the idea.
It is being done by the government. Specifically, by the soverign Tuvaluan government. If by "the government" you meant the government of the United States of America, I don't think they really have jurisdiction there. To the extent that ".tv" is the Tuvulans' to do with as they please, they are certainly empowered to subcontract or subdelegate to DotTV if they see fit. Tuvaluan citizens who object can express their displeasure at the ballot box.
Somebody did look into it. Namely, the Tuvaluan Minister of Information Technology (or whatever the appropriate title might be) looked into it. Who else needs to look into this action taken by a soverign government? ICANN? Country names are delegated to the named countries; I doubt that DNS delegation policy would call for ICANN to take any action.
Or would it? Is ".tv" really and truly the Tuvaluans' to do with as they please? Does ICANN treat delegated domain management completely hands-off? Or does ICANN have policies and procedures regarding what nations may do with their two-letter contry domains?
That's not a rhetorical question. I just don't know the answer. Anybody? What rules, if any, do all nations have to obey with respect to their corresponding two-letter TLD's?
I sent e-mail to Jason Kroll asking him to clarify the issues I raised in my Slimy, yes. But unconstitutional? posting. He replied promptly, and asked that I post the following clarification:
So there you have it. Since I publicly challenged Mr. Kroll's article, I would now like to publicly thank him for responding in an expedient and professional manner. As he quotes Gandhi, "Truth never damages a cause that is just," and a questioning public is a critical component of an enlightened, free society.
Fine, the MPA and MPAA are different entities. But that still doesn't explain why Jason Kroll feels that the US Constitution and Digital Millennium Copyright Act are applicable to this Norwegian legal affair.
I'm trying to give Mr. Kroll the benefit of the doubt here, but I just don't understand his reading of the legal situation.
In the Crackers and Crackdowns article from Linux Journal , Jason Kroll <hyena@ssc.com> writes:
The US Constitution? Aren't Jon and Per Johansen Norwegian citizens? And wasn't the "action" carried out by Norway's Econcomic Crime Departement (ECD)? How is the US Constitution relevant here?
Is Mr. Kroll's claim that the MPAA was somehow directly influencing Norway's ECD to suppress the Johansens' free speach, and that since the MPAA is an American organization, somehow the US Constitution has bearing on the ECD's actions? That doesn't make much sense. So what if the MPAA pressured the ECD? That might be an issue for Norwegian law, but I just don't see the US Constitutional tie-in.
Mr. Kroll goes on to write:
Again, why would Jon's rights to do anything be protected by an American law? The Digital Millennium Copyright Act should be completely irrelevant as regards a Norwegian citizen acting on Norwegian soil.
Am I just missing something here?
Don't get me wrong. I don't endorse the action taken against the Johansens. But I do want to understand the basis for Mr. Kroll's claims. If his claims have merit, then I have misunderstood something important and I wish to be corrected. If his claims are without merit, then they are alarmist misdirections that do nothing to help foster rational discussion and debate.
Either "stadia" or "stadiums", according to Mr. Webster.