Discuss mailing list

[Travis McCrea <me AT travismccrea.com>]

I think this would be a good time to say:

If any member in here gets sued for protecting free speech, I will
personally donate up-to $500 for your legal  battle*. DNS root servers
are the fundamental key to free speech and should be out of bounds by
law. 

Contrary to what the United States believes, no one OWNS the internet...
it belongs to us. 

*Terms and Conditions apply ;)

On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 12:47 -0400, Zach Gibbens wrote:
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part