3 ms·
don't doubt that the things you mention are dimensions here, but: a) non-US organizations/gov's have been critical of US hegemony of internet policy for some y
by cat199 8y ago
don't doubt that the things you mention are dimensions here, but:
a) non-US organizations/gov's have been critical of US hegemony of internet policy for some years - this also is a good way to attack that
b) various multinational treaty organizations have been attempting to create agreements where cross-jurisdictional legal actions are valid but haven't been very successful (see also TTIP) - some provisions in GPDR are another instance of this pattern, and would appear relevant here
c) logically, hiding website ownership also benefits large media entities as it facilitates a way to obscure ownership information across many domains, potentially making them appear more independent than they actually are
disclaimer: dont have direct insight on any of this
- guitarbill 8y agoI think you're muddying the waters unnecessarily here. c) this doesn't stand up on closer examination. it was already possible if you had the money using shell/holding companies and the various privacy guard options registrars offer. besides, GDPR is mainly about individual's privacy. b) maybe true, but irrelevant. there are plenty of domain registrars operating in Europe, which have to comply with European laws anyway. a) absolutely, and fair point. however, ICANN's behaviour shows they were right to criticise this artificial hegemony over shared or national critical infrastructure (e.g. country or region-specific TLDs).