Healthy Domains Initiative will enable censorship

[foilmon]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/he...regulation

Special interests who seek power to control others' speech on the Internet often cloak their desires in the rhetoric of "multistakeholder" standards development. HDI's use of terms like "process of consultation," "best practices," and "network of industry partners" fits this mold. But buzzwords don't actually give legitimacy to a proposal, nor substitute for meaningful input from everyone it will affect.

The HDI proposal was written by a group of domain name companies. They include Donuts Inc., a registry operator that controls over 200 of the new top-level domains, like .email, .guru, and .movie. Donuts has taken many steps that serve the interests of major corporate trademark and copyright holders over those of other Internet users. These include a private agreement with the Motion Picture Association of America to suspend domain names on request based on accusations of copyright infringement, and a "Domain Protected Marks List Plus" that gives brand owners the power to stop others from using common words and phrases in domain names--a degree of control that they don't get from either ICANN procedures or trademark law.

And with our unfortunately corrupt conservative government it's likely to go from proposal to reality

[joew771]

From what I read in your link, it seems as though companies are trying to protect thier brands. For example: Someone can't use the domain name of 'coke.doopa' or 'mcdonalds.peepee' or some such thing. That seems reasonable.

Maybe I read it wrong.

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

The problem is that MAFIAA corporations are trying to get the ability to interfere with domain names
based on mere allegations, bypassing courts or any sort of equitable due process.

Registries that sign on to this pro-censorship scheme risk losing business and possibly running into
serious problems with ICANN as soon as innocent parties are censored or decide to fight back.

[joew771]

The problem is that MAFIAA corporations are trying to get the ability to interfere with domain names
based on mere allegations, bypassing courts or any sort of equitable due process.

Registries that sign on to this pro-censorship scheme risk losing business and possibly running into
serious problems with ICANN as soon as innocent parties are censored or decide to fight back.

wtf are you talking about? Again you show your ignorance and lack of ability to understand even the simplest of concepts.

The article was about companies trying to protect their brands. That's it. The article specifically said it had nothing to do with the content of the websites, and therefore nothing to do with free speech, or certainly the MAFIAA. I have no idea where you got that the MAFIAA had anything to do with any of it at all in the first place.

The proposal only said, in it's last topic, which was what the article was about, is that there should be 'a voluntary framework for copyright infringement disputes, so copyright holders could use a more efficient and cost-effective system for clear cases of copyright abuse other than going to court' to decide who gets control of a website domain. In other words instead of coke suing someone and taking all of their money for making a website called 'coke.idiot', an arbiter should be used to clear it up more easily and cheaply.

It has not one thing to do with free speech or motion pictures. It's about the names of websites. That's it.

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

Special interests who seek power to control others' speech on the Internet often cloak their desires in the rhetoric of "multistakeholder" standards development.

You apparently have a habit of selective perception blocking your reading comprehension.
I suggest you start over again, and read the whole thing this time from the top, more slowly. ‌ ‌

The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) already exists and has been working more
or less properly as you obviously expect. ‌ The ADRP, on the other hand, is an attempt to
help MAFIAA organizations hold domain names hostage over copyright allegations on site
contents, not domain names themselves; and bypassing courts of law in the process.

[joew771]

Holy crap, you are such a paranoid weirdo. You need to get some psychiatric help. That's not an insult in any way, you need help. Set up an appointment with a psychiatrist.

Nothing in that original article has anything to do with the MAFIAA, and where you get that from is beyond me.

It's just as I said.

Please, please seek help before you hurt someone.

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

Holy crap, you are such a paranoid weirdo. You need to get some psychiatric help. That's not an insult in any way, you need help. Set up an appointment with a psychiatrist.

I didn't mention insults.
You imagined that. ‌ ‌

Nothing in that original article has anything to do with the MAFIAA, and where you get that from is beyond me.

Define: "major corporate trademark and copyright holders" and "Motion Picture Association of America."
Apparently you missed those, or maybe you didn't read that far… ‌ ‌ ‌

It's just as I said.

Please, please seek help before you hurt someone.

Are you talking to yourself now? ‌ ‌

[joew771]

I'll reply one more time, though I shouldn't, and try to explain one last time what the article was about dammit.

Let's say, you, aaron, wanted to set up a website. And for whatever reason you decided to call it microsoft.walkhouse.

The article states that microsoft can challenge your use of that domain name (the website name), since you used 'microsoft' in it, duh. Which they always could have anyway. The article goes on to say that microsoft has the opportunity to take you to a mitigating court, or an arbiter, instead of taking you to full blown civil court, in order to save money. That's all it says.

It would save you and microsoft both money. Because an arbiter is much cheaper than hiring lawyers and going to an actual court.

That's it! Nothing more! Nothing about movies or free speech or any of the other insane things you and the op have been talking about. F**ck!