Discuss mailing list

[Zach Gibbens <infocop411 AT gmail.com>]

While the legal notice is rather broad, with international treaties,
national, state/ territorial / Provincial laws and so on.
Some things apply a little common sense, for example, here in the US,
we have the DMCA, which covers common carrier rights in copyright
affairs (it's rare I'd get a chance to praise the DMCA, but I must say
this common carrier bit was fairly well thought out (esp since the
MAFIAA just wants bigger pockets) in protecting ISP's, DNS, Mail &
Webhosting providers (Which OpenNIC should qualify as a DNS Nameserver
Provider)) there are provisions in it about removing content or
suspending service in a timely manner (which they don't define well,
if at all, thankfully case law so far is in our favor too) but with
how lawsuit happy this country is, I'd want to include in my terms
that you should follow follow your laws (if you host your own servers)
and any agreements you've made on hosting your website (if you have a
webhost, like linode, netfirms, or even if a member offers their own
space) because if I were sued, I'd have to prove I made a reasonable
effort to contact them, or remove their content/suspend service, and
did not deliberately aid in hosting illegal/copyrighted content, or
even knowingly host it, lest I be sued to a point where I must shut
down my nameserver over the lawsuit
while nobody (afaik) has been sued for running a DNS server, there was
a point in time where nobody was sued for a ton of other things too,
I'd keep it fairly loose myself, like "Under the ToS, you agree to
follow the laws of your country, and be reachable within 48 hours if
needed, or risk a temporary suspension of service. I will not decide
what is illegal in your country, or contact you more than needed, and
will attempt to contact you prior to carrying any action against your
service" (this isn't saying "No Illegal Activities" as much as it's
saying I can't be responsible for your actions, so I've gotta do what
I must to not become responsible too, and I think it's strong enough
to get people to think, to cover my rear, while pretty much allowing
whatever somebody wants, and even giving them a chance to remove it,
even temporarily, or contact the complainant, to resolve the matter,
or tell me why I should ignore this (and I may ignore it, but if I
can't I'd reply kindly that I can't just ignore this complaint and
such) it's a sticky matter to be in, if it ever happened, so just
telling people what laws I have to follow is more of the point (the
law actually states 48 hours for notice, but I think 72 hours should
be the bare minimum, but it takes me 48 to read all my email while
doing everything else, plus their 48 hour notice, it's even better for
them)

Then when I finally get (and I promise it's coming, working on the
server & charter today) .ham going, I would aim for including terms
(actually more like guidelines) to aid in ham operators following
their requirements for their license (for example, we can't obscure
our messages (so no encryption) and copyrighted works must be kept off
air (there is some bit with permissions, but no real fair use in
transmitting a copyrighted work, over ham radio, unlike the common
carrier provisions I tried to describe above) so I'd ask everyone to
simply avoid having copyrighted work (that they don't have permissions
for) off the index page and a way to warn/separate those connecting to
the server from RF (however, since my role would be DNS, it's not
encrypted (in a manner obscuring traffic, DNSSEC verifies traffic,
same idea as gpg signing verses gpg encryption) so from that point on,
it's not my concern, just some courteous guidelines, that you may
ignore at your own (and your visitors) risk

Also, while I like Travis point about thinking of how a TLD should
take off, unless your hosting the TLD, it's not really an issue for
you
(now if the servers don't work, and the only domains in the TLD are
pointing to an unresponsive admin, as is the root of this thread, I
think we should remove it after some time (7-10 business days, this is
a hobby for most of us after all, work and family have a priority too,
and we all go for a vacation at some point, ideally that's still
enough time for them to respond, and it'll take at least another two
days to discuss whether to drop it or have another Tier1 server pick
it up) sometimes the smaller projects are easier to fix (for example,
how long was the wiki down, and did cakePHP get integrated again, it
was a project resource, admins were working on it, and it still took
time to debug) so I think as long as admins aren't unfairly being
restrictive (hence another reason why we have charters and vote them
in) and are paying the price to run a TLD it shouldn't matter (and if
they're being unfairly restrictive, there is always peering, I
basically have three local tlds I manage (work and two at home) for
testing sites, bind set to still resolve opennic, that's not all that
hard either)
(sorry, this got long winded, been following this since the beginning,
just finally got time to reply to all the other comments)

As to to the actual status of the BZH zone, I think we should hold a
vote, send them one more message before it starts, letting them know
we'll cancel the vote if they reply before the vote closes (and
perhaps give a deadline for progress, or at least require a progress
report once every 24 hours) failure to meet that requirement means the
vote carries, to either remove or move a tld to a more reliable
server. (and if we were voting right now, I'd vote to remove BZH
unless that happens, it's not being utilized beyond the unresponsive
admin) I think something like this should be policy, a limited amount
of detail to join, a limited reason to vote out a TLD (and a Tier1
server has an issue hosting it, say so, we'll vote to move it or
temporarily drop it (temporarily being till a new tier1 picks it up,
if they never do, well, then we know it's worth dropping I guess)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net> wrote:
> Regarding this...  That is exactly the reason why I am inspecting any zone
> file for existing domains before I would consider voting to remove the TLD.
>  In the case of the BZH zone, if there had been any questionable domains
> registered in the zone, I would have pointed this out ... but as it stands,
> every domain I found was pointed back to the BZH admin's own IP address.
>  It's always a good thing to have a lot of different eyeballs inspecting any
> proposed changes, which is exactly why the discussion and voting periods are
> so critical - it gives everyone a chance to notice if there's going to be
> any impact.
>
>
> On 09/18/2011 08:02 PM, Travis McCrea wrote:
>>
>> What if there was someone who signed up for a .bzh TLD and then the
>> owner goes missing and the server goes down or something... we have a
>> person without a TLD until it gets noticed. Of course, this can happen
>> with a TLD with 500 people on it all the same, but it's LESS LIKELY to.
>> If I have a project that no one is using (or very few people are)... I
>> am more likely to forget about it and go onto something else. Plus if
>> there are 500 users on that TLD if something goes wrong we will know
>> about it sooner and can quickly work to resolve (lol pun) the issue.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>