.net domains

[denis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

To whom it may concern:

I am owner of dhammond.net, writing in my behalf today. I am writing to express 
my objections to the comments filed by the Intellectual Property Constituency, 
available here:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-agreement-renewal/pdfTeYfTqqAOg.pdf

==

1. DOMAIN SEIZURES DON'T WORK AND ARE DISPROPORTIONATE

The past year has seen ample evidence that domain seizures don't work. The 
extrajudicial, streamlined rough justice that the IPC and its members advocate 
resulted in the erroneous seizure of 80,000 websites and their replacement with 
an incorrect warning that they had previously hosted child pornography.

http://boingboing.net/2011/02/17/dhs-erroneously-seiz.html

Meanwhile, practically every site seized went back up immediately. Of course, 
some of the seized sites had been found legal in their local courts, so it's 
not surprising:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/do-domain-seizures-keep-streaming-sites-down.ars

Site operators accused of copyright infringement should be sued in the 
appropriate courts, which can issue injunctions during or after the proceeding, 
on the basis of evidence. It is not appropriate to ask Verisign to adjudicate 
technically complex copyright claims. The outcome will be similar to what we've 
seen already: overreaching claims, seizures of legitimate sites, and a 
shoot-first, ask-questions-later approach characteristic of the IPC's members.

==

2. PRIVATE DOMAIN REGISTRATION IS A FEATURE, NOT A BUG

I am like many domain registrants a private individuals, lacking a commercial 
office, PO box or other address for use in domain registration. Compelling 
registrars to publish their customers' home addresses on the public Internet 
isn't a "best practice" -- it's a privacy disaster in the making, a gift to 
identity thieves and stalkers, and anything but common sense. We don't publish 
our home addresses on the Internet, and neither do the people who pay the bills 
at the IPC. Why should everyone else be required to, just to save the IPC's 
members the trouble of securing a court order when they believe their rights 
are being infringed?

==

For these reasons, we ask that you disregard the comments of the IPC in their 
entirety.

Thank you,

Denis Hammond

San Mateo CA 94401