Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] vote for .box

discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] vote for .box


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Amrit Panesar <apanesar AT 4195tech.com>
  • To: me AT travismccrea.com, discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] vote for .box
  • Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:35:15 -0700
  • List-archive: <http://lists.darkdna.net/pipermail/discuss>
  • List-id: <discuss.lists.opennicproject.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 8/16/2011 1:05 PM, me AT travismccrea.com wrote:
> Seriously guys... it's not censorship... its "restriction for the
> usage of a TLD". Get it right! ;)
>
> Common sense has NO GROUNDS in a legally binding document
> especially one that a person uses for their branding. If I get a
> .box domain, I want to know that it is not going to be taken down
> due to some difference in "common sense" which by reading your
> writing we CERTAINLY have a different opinion on what "common
> sense" is.

This is true, in an extreme condition, common sense for Ku Klux Klan
members would be to kill every black person that they crossed paths with.

> Not only that, but you seem to have little desire to simply adopt a
> more standard charter and stop trying to enforce your charter which
> is highly scary. The fact that you will not back down in this makes
> me question your ability to manage a zone for your TLD anyway... At
> this point I am concerned that even if you change the charter back,
> that you will simply uphold these abusive policies regardless.

I agree with statement as well. I would recommend the adoption of a
more conventional charter, less restrictive of what content can be
published on said domain, especially if this is going to be a general
purpose domain.

Quite frankly, I believe that there should be no restrictions on any
content for a general purpose domains. The internet is not something
to be, selectively censored.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOSv6yAAoJEA/K84XwmW5adJ4IAKcLd+CWZS/v0naT0EM92A8Y
cQXeNQ7UQzqfKm6jqp9fQ5VCXj5379whfQ8RKohR9tXjDAnILGopWczzzgmIllFm
ThMDY2gFCynSXC/Q5gnUlxELDDOmSMtqLPPFutlLO555GluwA+HkkIq3hYAtM/So
CE2oLa6uO3NhpXHJKEcF2NGtLMGKJSLwknNs3MK4JzyoBg+JWt88ussp4Ud5HlRI
/U3gVlwvOGPSJ3yGZsiI3I/5sLelwhpRzc2hfyULMaMFe3uhapnYYzl+6d1+6Ixb
EirFmM3qnM4mjlqR7DQyIw8JUP1aahhcHSxEgfrlXE+8us22mN9TuUJkNui6/sA=
=8XlY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page