2 ms·

>>a democratic non-profit foundation > Isn't that what Nominet basically was and here we are? Nominet was a non-profit, but not a democratic one. Democracy is

>>a democratic non-profit foundation > Isn't that what Nominet basically was and here we are? Nominet was a non-profit, but not a democratic one. Democracy is not "choose your rulers", but "choose your rules". Having a board/parliament is by definition the opposite of government by/for the people. The simple fact the community has to fight against the board is proof of that. > a minimum barrier to people simply writing a script and registering literally every domain in existence That's just not true. First, because that was definitely not the argument presented when administrative fees for domain registrations were brought up. Second, because bad actors usually have a lot more resources than good actors... Sure you may stop a random teenager from registering many domains, but random teens is not who i'm afraid of personally. I don't know of a single time where economic barriers have stopped bad actors from engaging in malicious/hurtful activities. Third, because some TLDs are actually already fully free-as-in-free-beer because they're operated as a public service and they are not facing the problems you mention (to my knowledge), if only because their terms and conditions disallow parking spaces. > Probably also to provide a financial paper trail in case of abuse, illegal activity or other reasons. Not sure about that either. In most jurisdictions responsibility for illegal content falls on the hosting provider, not the registrar/TLD. In the rare cases that your TLD is going to seize your domain for whatever reason, whether there's a paper trail or not changes very little because the content is effectively taken down as was requested. Whether that's a feature or a bug depends on what kind of stuff is being censored and for what kind of reasons. Personally, i'd be interested in a more democratic take on domain seizures. I'm pretty sure most people are opposed to wikileaks/scihub having their domains seized, despite what a board may think. > or other reasons Yes, to grow a crazy lucrative business out of infinite resources nobody should be competing for. I'm calling that an anti-feature.

marcinzm 6y ago
> Nominet was a non-profit, but not a democratic one. Democracy is not "choose your rulers", but "choose your rules". Having a board/parliament is by definition the opposite of government by/for the people. The simple fact the community has to fight against the board is proof of that. That's a No True Scotsman argument since by your definition there is no large scale democracy in existence. Most people would consider a representative democracy to be a democracy.
- southerntofu 6y ago
  > by your definition there is no large scale democracy in existence Take a look at Chiapas or Rojava. They are large-scale governance systems that most people would agree fit the definition of a democracy, if only because local assemblies and women's assemblies have a lot of power. They both have some forms of representation but nothing similar to what we have here in terms of accountability. You can for example watch "Viva Zapata" documentary about autonomy in Chiapas. Also, if it hypothetically did not exist yet, would it be a reason to give another meaning to the word? If we can admit a God does not exist, should we call an AI a God because its ways are ineffable? > Most people would consider a representative democracy to be a democracy. In some places, most people would consider vaccines a trojan horse of the Illuminati and homosexuality to be a sin. Does the majority always have to be right? Isn't the tyranny of the majority precisely one of the problems with our pretend-democracies? To be fair, tyranny of the majority would be better than the current tyranny of the minority elite elected by the majority (of people who have a right to vote, which is not everyone) in a process that resembles more reality TV shows than a political argument.

marcinzm 6y ago

> Nominet was a non-profit, but not a democratic one. Democracy is not "choose your rulers", but "choose your rules". Having a board/parliament is by definition the opposite of government by/for the people. The simple fact the community has to fight against the board is proof of that. That's a No True Scotsman argument since by your definition there is no large scale democracy in existence. Most people would consider a representative democracy to be a democracy.

southerntofu 6y ago
> by your definition there is no large scale democracy in existence Take a look at Chiapas or Rojava. They are large-scale governance systems that most people would agree fit the definition of a democracy, if only because local assemblies and women's assemblies have a lot of power. They both have some forms of representation but nothing similar to what we have here in terms of accountability. You can for example watch "Viva Zapata" documentary about autonomy in Chiapas. Also, if it hypothetically did not exist yet, would it be a reason to give another meaning to the word? If we can admit a God does not exist, should we call an AI a God because its ways are ineffable? > Most people would consider a representative democracy to be a democracy. In some places, most people would consider vaccines a trojan horse of the Illuminati and homosexuality to be a sin. Does the majority always have to be right? Isn't the tyranny of the majority precisely one of the problems with our pretend-democracies? To be fair, tyranny of the majority would be better than the current tyranny of the minority elite elected by the majority (of people who have a right to vote, which is not everyone) in a process that resembles more reality TV shows than a political argument.