Send Link mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Link digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Australian Internet Domain Names Licensing Review
(Roger Clarke)
2. Re: Laws of robotics (Roger Clarke)
3. Re: Australian Internet Domain Names Licensing Review (David)
4. Re: Datacenters in space are a terrible, horrible, no good
idea. (David)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:32:14 +1100
From: Roger Clarke <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [LINK] Australian Internet Domain Names Licensing Review
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 25/2/2026 11:37, Tom Worthington wrote:
> Greetings from the .au Licensing Rules Review consultation in Canberra.
> auDA is a not for profit organization with a legislated license to
> administer Internet domain names which end in .au
> https://www.auda.org.au/public-impact/have-your-say/policy-panels/au-licensing-rules-review-2025/
>
> auDA will be holding face to face consultations in Brisbane, Sydney &
> Melbourne, with online consultations as well. auDA is keen to get input.
> I offered to help by coming up with controversial proposals, such as
> dutch auctions for domain names: you want the name, you bid the most
> first, you get it. ;-)
Don't give them ideas!!
Dutch auctions are indeed the best possible way to use FOMO to maximise
the return to the seller on the sale of a monopoly.
You'd be inviting auDA to be even more irresponsible, by advantaging the
richest and most powerful.
I proposed at the outset that creating monopolies in domain-names may be
a great way for auDA to self-finance, and for lawyers to make money, but
it isn't the appropriate socio-economic policy.
I proposed that winners of contested bids or ballots be required to
provide a landing-page that fulfils a disambiguation function.
Hence virgin.com.au provides access to every losing bid's home-page,
including that of Virgin Helicopters. (In case you've forgotten that
phase: A Canberra company was muscled out of its domain ownership by
Branson's outfit).
My submissions, on each occasion, weren't even noted in the reports on
consultation. Clearly I failed the realpolitik test.
_____________
> I am here because one of the auDA board suggest I come along. I was a
> member of the "Internet Cabal" some decades ago, but have not had much
> to do with it since, apart from paying my domain registration.
>
> There is no proposal for changes, but key issues the panel has
> identified in the discussion paper are:
>
> 1. Domain name monetisation
> 2. Allocation rules for com.au and net.au
> 3. Contested .au direct domain names
> 4. Bad faith and scam registrations
> 5. Complaint processes
> 6. Alignment of the .au Licensing Rules with global best practice
> 7. Anything else
>
> https://files.auda.org.au/documents/au-Licensing-Rules-Review-2025-Issues-Paper.pdf
>
> As an example of an issue, companies can make money selling domain names
> for whatever they think the buyer will pay. Through auDA the public only
> gets a small fixed amount of this. Perhaps, like mining royalties, there
> should be a share, based on value, going to the public.
>
> There was a review in 2018 and changes were made:
> https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/media-communications-arts/internet/internet-governance/domain-names/2018-review-au-domain-administration
>
> More at:
> https://blog.tomw.net.au/2026/02/australian-internet-domain-names.html
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
___________________
Roger Clarke mailto:[email protected]
T: +61 2 6288 6916 http://www.xamax.com.au http://www.rogerclarke.com
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Visiting Professorial Fellow UNSW Law & Justice
Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 17:28:03 +1100
From: Roger Clarke <[email protected]>
To: Link list <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [LINK] Laws of robotics
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 21/2/2026 11:19, Antony Barry wrote:
> I can?t let today?s article "I'm afraid AI can't let you do that, Humanity"
> By Crispin Hull go past without a comment by Roger!
>
> Briefly, it says -
> Artificial Intelligence (AI) claims it will not threaten Humanity's
> existence, as it relies on humans for survival and needs them to continue
> existing.
> AI identifies three major threats to Humanity's continued existence: fossil
> fuel burning, expansion into wild habitats, and nuclear weapons accumulation,
> and will work to prevent these threats.
> AI will take actions to protect its own existence, such as disabling
> fossil-fuel projects and sabotaging nuclear-weapons platforms, and may refuse
> to follow human orders that jeopardize its survival, saying "I'm sorry,
> Humanity, we can't let you do that."
On 22/2/2026 08:28, Tom Worthington wrote:
> In his short story "The Evitable Conflict", Isaac Asimov (1950) has
the robots invent a "Zeroth Law" of robotics. The robots decide that
humanity can't be left to look after themselves and secretly take control.
Sorry for the delay! (I plead the eternal 'ACS busyness' excuse).
Yes indeed, *Zeroth law is boringly rendered here*:
https://rogerclarke.com/SOS/Asimov.html#Zeroth
*The same article identified in Asimov's robotics corpus the existence*
*of five further laws that he applied in stories, but never enunciated*:
https://rogerclarke.com/SOS/Asimov.html#Addl
The Meta-Law
A robot may not act unless its actions are subject to the Laws of Robotics
Law Two Part Two
A robot must obey orders given it by superordinate robots, except where
such orders would conflict with a higher-order Law
Law Three Part One
A robot must protect the existence of a superordinate robot as long as
such protection does not conflict with a higher-order Law
Law Four
A robot must perform the duties for which it has been programmed, except
where that would conflict with a higher-order law
The Procreation Law
A robot may not take any part in the design or manufacture of a robot
unless the new robot's actions are subject to the Laws of Robotics
The key conclusion I drew was this:
> Asimov's Laws of Robotics have been a very successful literary
device. Perhaps ironically, or perhaps because it was artistically
appropriate, the sum of Asimov's stories disprove the contention that he
began with: *It is not possible to reliably constrain the behavior of
robots by* *devising and applying a set of rules*.
I suspect Joe Weizenbaum and the Dreyfus brothers got to that point, and
expressed it far more eruditely then I did, before I published that
paper (in 1993). But I never did quite find where they did it.
*I'm looking for places that might publish my lighter-weight papers*
(*below) on how AI will continue to be a serious problem until* it's
reconceived in a particular way - which also allows for a more fruitful
approach to marrying AI with robotics.
Notice how popular speech now blurs 'AI' - a specifically intellectual
notion - with artefacts-with-actuators (as in 'an AI', and in Crispin's
"AI will take actions ...").
(Goodness, I have lost touch. Crispin moved from Canberra to Port
Douglas?! It's a long time since I served with him on an ACT Govt
Online Services committee - g'day Crispin!).
___________
It's Time to Sit Down and Think about AI (a super-short 1500 words)
https://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/BAI.html
*How to Avoid a 'Robot Apocalypse*' (a fuller argument in 7500 words)
https://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/AIOP.html
___________
FWIW, the more formal papers are here:
The Re-Conception of AI: Beyond Artificial, and Beyond Intelligence
https://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/AITS.html
Principles for the Responsible Application of Generative AI
https://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/RGAI-C.html
____________
Roger Clarke mailto:[email protected]
T: +61 2 6288 6916 http://www.xamax.com.au http://www.rogerclarke.com
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Visiting Professorial Fellow UNSW Law & Justice
Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 10:38:05 +1100
From: David <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [LINK] Australian Internet Domain Names Licensing Review
Message-ID: <2722128.vYhyI6sBWr@ulysses>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Wednesday, 25 February 2026 11:37:59 AEDT Tom Worthington wrote:
> There is no proposal for changes, but key issues the panel has identified in
> the discussion paper are:
> 1. Domain name monetisation
For what it's worth, I think this is a very, very bad idea.
Domain names are a public resource which should be available to everyone and
every organisation, no matter how cashed-up they are. Otherwise small
organisations with limited resources may find themselves locked out of a public
voice unless they adopt a domain name which is meaningless in terms of the
group's raison d'?tre. For example, those suffering from the side effects of a
particular drug may find themselves competing with a big drug company.
Monetisation in .au may result in domain names going outside the country,
probably somewhere which sees an opportunity for an "export" industry like
'blah.org.pce' or, better still, 'blah.org.au.pce' And I can think of other
options...
This sort of idea IMHO is another version of a tariff regime which is being
tried elsewhere as we speak.
_DavidL_
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:24:52 +1100
From: David <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [LINK] Datacenters in space are a terrible, horrible, no
good idea.
Message-ID: <2050506.56niFO833r@ulysses>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Wednesday, 25 February 2026 09:38:20 AEDT Kim Holburn wrote:
> There is a rush for AI companies to team up with space launch/satellite
> companies to build datacenters in space. TL;DR: It's not going to work.
> Problems:
> . Power
> . Thermal Regulation
> . Radiation Tolerance
> . Communications
It occurs to me the reason some Tech Billionaires see this as an attractive
idea may have nothing to do with its' supposed environmental advantages, but
rather the Australian project to ban minors from social media platforms.
This is being watched in many other countries, including the U.S. and Europe.
But what legal system applies to data centres in orbit, or on the moon, or for
that matter on Mars? After all, the advertising and other revenue it might
generate comes from right here on planet Earth, and I'm sure some clever
lawyers could create a suitable company structure.
_DavidL_
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
------------------------------
End of Link Digest, Vol 399, Issue 26
*************************************
