Reread what I wrote regarding cultural construct.

To the best of my knowledge no. USA courts are satisfied with the private system in place. Which is USA law, if there exists a well known private dispute system the courts tend to lend it power rather than overtake it. So as long as ICANN is responsible ICANN can run it. A somewhat related case was a mainland China owner who owns taiwan.com, was sued by the government of Taiwan and the mainland owner's ownership was upheld by USA courts.

As far as foreign courts splitting DNS. They might. I don't know how though you could take DNS away from the USA as far as the courts and USA customers are concerned. It doesn't matter if it is the UN or any other foreign registrar, domestic DNS would still need to listen to USA courts.

Reread the comment

indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling

He clearly hasn't registered primarily for the purpose of selling since he is productively using it. Agreeing to sell property you are using and holding property for only the purpose of selling are different.

Well a few things..

1) USA courts rule over trademark infringement in the United States. Verizon, AT&T, Comcast... are going to go by USA court rules regarding DNS. Ultimately XYZ.com is going to point for USA customers to whatever IP addresses USA courts say it should point to regardless of what register is used as far as ICANN is concerned. A USA court is going to show some but not absolute deference to a foreign government. And for that matter ICANN is going to follow a USA court. Same as the other issues you and I have discussed.

2) Cybersquatting protection requires a trademark violation. The trademark has to exist.

3) There is nothing wrong with hinting you are willing to sell. I'm willing to sell my home for enough money and I still live here. If someone wants to pay me 130% or market (not even an insane amount) I'm out tomorrow. The fact that I would sell for over market doesn't indicate bad faith which is the other thing that needs to be proven.

This guy is acting in obvious good faith.

I find your first 3 paragraphs uninformed and full of fallacies. But they were expressed politely and inoffensively. Proving that it is quite possible to do.

___

Paragraph 4 isn't true, you don't believe in pink unicorns. The pink unicorn was always an atheist analogy.

Paragraph 5 I'm not clear what that even means. There is a fallacy of equivocation regarding the meaning of "denying the holy spirit". blasphemia cannot be translated the way you are using it.

It is high time that much like homoeopathy things which have absolutely no basis are removed from legal protections etc.

That's the argument for a state church. The state determines truth, those beliefs in accord with the state religion are encouraged and those out of accord are persecuted. The debate is about whether NZ's law damages freedom. You are arguing against freedom. Which is an understandable position but it is one that the guy who wrote the first 3 paragraphs should critique.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

a-theism meaning non theism is not the same as atheism the cultural construct. When people talk of atheism they mean the cultural construct, atheism as it exists not atheism as it might exist in theory.

No, atheism does NOT constitute a set of beliefs

Of course it does. Atheism implies belief in: empiricism, naturalism, evolution and humanism. Which is not to say all atheists believe all those things fully, the same way that not all Christians believe in the virgin birth. But it is to say that there is a nexus of beliefs around atheism.

Big Bang Theory is not atheism.

No there are many religious people who believing in the big bang. What the big bang is though is a key component in an evolutionary theology.
__

I don't think you know what the definition of a religion is.

The irony was intentional.

You've had a domain for 14 years. You haven't abused it. You have real email traffic and some real website on it. You aren't even in the grey. I would say don't worry about it. Just don't let the domain expire.

None (atheist, agnostic, no religion don't know, don't care) acts like a religion in the USA demographically. Atheism acts like a denomination. within that. It constitutes a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

I don't see any particular reason not to treat it like a religion. It walks like a duck and quacks.

Religion has a strong serial correlation between parent / child like most inherited cultural traits. There is no evidence it acts like a choice. Stop letting your biases cause you to ignore evidence because it disagrees with your ideology.

Religious intolerance and promoting a religion are not the same thing.

Let's do this for atheist.

X posts anti-atheism arguments based on Hume and presents apologetics for Christianity over atheism. He debates atheism strongly but politely. X is promoting religion.

Y posts false and inflammatory things against the Humanist society in his town. After publishing these things he publishes people's home addresses. He encourages harassment of their children at school. People feel harassed and quit the humanist society. Y is inciting.

what's this "religious intolerance" nonsense? -If enough people claimed to believe in someone, no matter how absurd it can officially be recognised as religion. Why does this deserve special rights?

One can question beliefs in ways that are respectful, humane and polite. There is no need for "i disagree and here is why" to involve rudeness. Religious beliefs are deeply held beliefs that people are going to have a lot of trouble questioning. For example in this post you immediately held a belief that racial discrimination is bad, probably based on a religious belief (and I'm including atheism as a religion) in the equality of all people. Now I agree with you on that. Were someone to question that rudely you'd call them a racist, which is precisely what you said was OK.

Did the person intend to offend?

In harassment situations yes, they intend to offend and obviously so.

Which countries did that happen in? I know of lots of countries (pretty much all of them) that have anti-child porn laws. I know of very few that have anything remotely like an open internet and don't have a healthy opposition on it. So I'd like more than say 1 example, certainly something rising to most.

As for your general comment. Anarchy scares people do to violence. Attacks and harms they or friends suffer upsets people. It quickly creates situations where the environment is seen as unsafe and there is a demand for law and order immediately. That undermines freedom. A regulated environment conversely allows for the expansion of freedoms because harms can be contained.

The USA is also a common law country.