Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Can a Government force ICANN to ban some domains? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 77 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Spain is on war against someone? There is DEMO
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday September 02 2002, @06:32AM (#8919)
    User #2810 Info
    The US, for one more of many examples, was not in a state of war against Cambodia, yet bombed them, and without any democratic decision behind it. I fail to see much distinction between a Cambodian child blown to bits by carpet bombing and an Israeli or British or Lebanese or Spanish or Canadian child blown to bits by a car bomb. How many Cambodians killed Americans in response? SFAIK: zero. Was the US brought to trial for war crimes, for terrorism? No. And if you think I'm talking about the past (not that I see any distinction to whether it happened 10 minutes or 10 years ago) perhaps you should visit Columbia, where children are being maimed and poisoned (I don't see much distinction between that and being blown to bits either, except the first is slower) by US cropdusting in the war on drugs (and that war is another one that has no legal standing, the US has legally declared a total of 6 wars in its history, the scores of others had no more legality behind them than a car bomb). And don't tell me that because it is state sponsored terrorism that it is somehow more OK, unless you agree that if it is OK for the US then it is OK for Iraq or Libya or Afganistan under the Taliban or...

    But let's take a realworld example I know a bit more about, lest you think I am somehow only against US terror. In 1970 I was going to university (which staledates me, I know) in Vancouver, Canada. Thousands of miles away in Quebec, Canada there was a 'terrorist' group called the Front De Liberation Du Quebec, or FLQ, which wanted Quebec secession from Canada. They were involved in numerous bombings and other 'terrorist' acts, leading up to the kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte, a Quebec government minister. Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau then declared the War Measures Act (essentially martial law). In addition to tanks in the streets and hundreds of arrests without trial (the FLQ never amounted to more than a few dozen individuals), Canadians were forbidden to use the term FLQ. A prof at my university, thousands of miles from the 'troubles', wrote FLQ on the blackboard. The next day there were three plainclothes Mounties (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) sitting in on his class to ensure he didn't do the same thing again. A few miles away in a high school a Social Studies teacher talked to his class about a current event, the FLQ. He was fired. Similar events went on across Canada. Hardly anyone, and certainly no-one I knew, supported the FLQ, let alone their actions, but the government just brought itself into disrepute by banning a word, FLQ graffiti popped up everywhere, mostly written by those who didn't support the FLQ.

    Now I suppose at some point the government again OK'd the use of that character string (although perhaps not and I'm guilty of sedition). And some of the FLQ went into exile in Cuba, and some of them have since come back and become government ministers, federal judges, and university professors. And some Quebecois still want separation, indeed they held a referendum on that a few years ago which failed by less than 1%. And the Canadian government let it be known that even if Quebec legally voted to secede it wouldn't be recognized and military intervention wasn't out of the question. And Quebec Indians let it be known that the land which they are still fighting (in a legal sense) to regain in Quebec would remain part of Canada, and Quebec let it be known that they might then intervene militarily. And so on... Thankfully saner heads prevailed, for the moment anyway. And let me just add that Indians in the Americas were probably subjected to the longest and bloodiest reign of terror in global history, a considerable amount of it at the hands of the Spanish. Do I support the ETA or their actions? Of course not. Did they invent terrorism, are they its only practitioners? Of course not. Will banning a word do any good? Not bloody likely. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]

    Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com