Discuss mailing list

[Dominique Rehborn <dominique AT boxnet.eu>]

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



On 08/16/2011 04:41 PM, mike wrote:
> Clipped .box charter:
> 
> [clip] Prohibited contents and behavior to limit a larger spectrum
> for abusive behavior the following is strictly forbidden, legitimate
> complaints regarding these activities will result in suspension and
> revocation of all appropriate domains:
> 
> * general contents/activities considered illegal. this includes but
> is not limited to: - spamming/cracking (including through non NIC
> systems) - cracks/warez/malware/botnets/honeypots * contents
> considered illegal by the server locations laws. * SEO/marketing
> websites * pornographic, racists/extremist contents [/clip]
> 
> I guess this part concerns me the most. It seems a bit broad and
> perhaps over reaching. None of these things are clearly defined, for
> example 'extremist'. If I have a Christian Conservative web site, or
> a Militia (a people's army) website (the only kind of military
> specifically authorized under the Constitutional Republic of The
> United States of America, by the way), would that be extremist? Who
> gets to decide that 'extreme' means? Is 'extreme snowboarding'
> extreme? I mean really that's a very broad net we're trying to cast
> here.
i cannot tell, did somebody complain yet? the extreme part would be if
easily determinable you are going to plan for an attack to hurt people,
the would go domain down, if you plan for a huge but peaceful
demonstration - that is not what i mean. we're talking about people
taking these things in the public to hurt people, recruit people to fuck
up their lifes.
cases that will come to my attention and i conclude i cannot decide, i
would take it to the community.
of course if all of the communities members are scientologists, and for
me it's not clear to make out what's going on, i'll leave the case as
is. but i hope we can all agree in this example scientology is bad, it
destroys lifes, some people lovin' jeebus or guns.. as long as they
don't hurt anyone, i don't see any issue at all ever coming up.
> 
> Same with 'pornographic', 'racist'. Is a bikini pornographic? Are
> naked breasts pornographic? I don't know. It's not clear.
we're not somewhat 100 years ago, a bikini would be erotic :)
(even tho' that's only a piece of clothing)

pornography (pɔːˈnɒɡrəfɪ)
—n
1.      writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual 
excitement
2.      the production of such material

do you wear your bikini on the beach, or whatever in a somewhat
appropriate way? which is basically ever way, but a few cases, you are
masturbating while wearing your bikini (sexual excitement), that really
isn't the case when only wearing clothing. (or is it?)

i ensure you it cannot made clear without a case/example, it's a policy
trying to give a proper direction for a junkload of possible issues.
> 
> If I say something like 'My friend, who is black, and I where
> walking down the street when we ran into a Chinese fellow....', is
> that racist? I don't know, it's not clear.
why don't you ask your friend, who is a black person? seriously, you
know the difference, and so does anyone who has common sense, i know we
have to go weird places to see if the policy fits, but seriously, im not
going to give any example regarding racism.
however, once again a definition:
1.      the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics
determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an
intrinsic superiority over others

you may just ask yourself "does that sentence imply superiority over
others?"
> 
> The term 'considered illegal' is also vague. Example, The Toronto
> Police recently raided a man's house and took all his guns because
> they 'considered it illegal'. They where perfectly legal under the
> law that is on the books (not to mention a persons inherent right to
> arm himself), but the police 'considered them illegal', no actual
> written law, they just 'consider it to be law'.
valid point. im not going against the books we're about to write, im not
going to enforce strong dictatorship behavior either, i see the issue
here, but first off there is an issue of communication in your example
between those two instances and "considered illegal" is what the
majority thinks is illegal, democracy. and not just a group of people
sticking together. that is not the case in your example either.
i think this is what would be different in the first place.
there are things easy to determine, and some hard, i can't be all
explicit in a policy.

i think the way it's written down, and the way it's lived, might be a
different after all. i mean i think i can see that in our real life
democracy.. not sure.
> 
> The term 'legitimate complaints'. What constitutes a 'legitimate 
> complaint'? If I have a beef with a website and I send a complaint
> about a half a nipple showing in a photograph on the website, will it
> get shut down?
no, there is a process i tried to make clear a little more in an earlier
mail (one before yours), please check it out.
the one who complains really has to include some sort of proof, or
something i can proof is there. if it's not there, there is no case.

he said nipple. :)
> 
> I guess in short this just looks very vague and fuzzy, and perhaps
> over reaching, I could never be quite sure what kind of content I
> could put up, or where the lines are.
> 
> --Mike
> 
> On 11-08-16 07:31 AM, Dominique Rehborn wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 08/16/2011 01:19 PM, Alex Nordlund wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Dominique Rehborn
>>> <dominique AT boxnet.eu> wrote:
>>>> please folks read the charter yourself and get a proper picture
>>>> of what's behind it. There are unexplainable fears here which i
>>>> simply cannot see.
>>> 
>>> I see them pretty clearly and unfortunately I agree with Travis
>>> on this point.
>> care to explain? Because nobody yet did properly. i wonder if i
>> could have feedback of someone who actually sponsors a TLD and thus
>> facing those issues which might raise up, some people on the other
>> hand just see one side of the story, and that's kind of sad.
>>> 
>>>> Fyi, i am not a lawyer and made up this charter myself, i asked
>>>> for feedback and the rules for this OpenNIC democracy say that
>>>> one week for the proposal, in which you have time to discuss
>>>> and change the charter, and after a motion another week for
>>>> voting in which you cannot change the charter anymore, [..]
>>> 
>>> There is nothing that says you can't voice your opinion while
>>> the voting is going.
>>> 
>> of course, at any time, it just will just stop the process
>> completely if people don't raise their voice within that time which
>> is to discuss it, but rather in the voting period.
> 
>> if there are now arguments to be found which changes the charter,
>> there has to be another vote, and i have a feeling there will be
>> endless changes, because in a democracy you just simply can't make
>> everybody happy. this will clearly result in nothing.
> 
>> please raise a valid point if you reply. thanks.
>>> --- //Alex _______________________________________________ 
>>> discuss mailing list discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org 
>>> http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list 
> discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org 
> http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss

- -- 
Dominique Rehborn - dominique AT boxnet.eu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk5KlDIACgkQLPJ0YA88bG5CbQCcCpQbl7UZ8eqvU39AOpR7CD3f
JsYAn2VV5GtNHAxIsLP5363eg7P40rZw
=9KCl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----