Discuss mailing list

[kevin <krattai AT gmail.com>]

I would be fine to be wrong, although also in that document as you point
out, specifically laid out at the beginning, is this gem:

"In addition to the Conditions of Use, you will also be subject to (1)
the ARSI Acceptable Use and Anti-Abuse Policy, which _also_ [emphasis
mine] governs use of domain names registered in ARSI TLDs;"

The language is far too vague.  If OpenNIC used such language in their
generic TOS, what conclusion might people come to?  Would that
specifically be stated within the .oss or .pirate or .free or any other
TLD, and then suggested that it only refers to OpenNIC content, or would
such document be labelled differently and only be a part of the OpenNIC
main page?  How might such a document be used in the future to assert
claim over content on the TLDs owned by Amazon?

My bias is, I don't trust Amazon. I think that's clear.  In the same
token, do others trust Amazon so freely?  If so, then so be it.  I have
no vested interest in a .free domain.  I certainly wouldn't register a
domain on an Amazon owned .free TLD with such vague documents.  I have
been witness to far too many instances where corporate portals (and a
TLD is no different than a portal) have such language and have in fact
asserted exclusive ownership of content.

I have said my peace on this and accept what ever the OpenNIC membership
decides.  If my emails have appeared to be fear mongering, than I
apologize.  I am only stressing that before we concede to
release .free , that we consider that it may not be valuable, necessary,
or otherwise inclement of us to do so.

Cheers,

Kevui

On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 03:34 +0000, Jonah Aragon wrote:
> That TOS is for ARSI's sites, they are asserting their copyright to
> anything on their registry's websites, or the websites of the TLDs
> (for example: nic.free), or their mobile applications. This language
> is specifically laid out at the beginning of the document, nothing
> seems to claim the ownership content of say, jonah.free (hypothetical
> website) hosted with somebody other than Amazon. That would not be
> legal.
> 
> 
> If Amazon was hosting the sites themselves then such a policy could
> apply (like Facebook), but that isn't the case in that specific
> document. The Copyright notice is clearly for ARSI's respective
> websites which isn't really a concern.
> 
> 
> Jonah
> 
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:28 PM kevin <krattai AT gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>         Actually Jonah, the document is _specifically_ .free TOS.
>         
>         ARSI, which "owns" the .free TLD, therefore is asserting their
>         rights to
>         said content.
>         
>         That said, I'm not a lawyer.  So I would refer to EFF for that
>         matter.
>         In the mean time, I wouldn't be so quick to think that Amazon
>         is simply
>         asserting freedoms to those who register a domain on a TLD
>         that they
>         own.  Given their track record.
>         
>         Cheers,
>         
>         Kevin
>         
>         On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 03:18 +0000, Jonah Aragon wrote:
>         > Stop! Before we all start spreading rumors about .free
>         terms... that
>         > copyright policy only applies to:
>         >
>         >
>         > Amazon Registry Services, Inc. (“ARSI”) provides information
>         about
>         > ARSI’s Top Level Domains (“TLDs”) through websites of ARSI,
>         including
>         > www.amazonregistry.com and the websites for each of the
>         TLDs, which
>         > are located at http://www.nic.free and mobile applications
>         > (collectively, the “Sites”).
>         >
>         >
>         > "Sites" (with a capital S) refers to their registry's
>         websites.
>         >
>         >
>         > This policy does not apply to registered .free domains.
>         >
>         >
>         > Jonah
>         >
>         >
>         > On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:16 PM Zac
>         <opennicproject AT dearzac.com> wrote:
>         >
>         >         This seems like something the EFF would care about.
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >         On 2016-12-03 21:09, Jeff Taylor wrote:
>         >
>         >         > Yikes, that's really bad.  Sounds exactly like
>         facebook.
>         >         >
>         >         > So how do you propose we fight against them?
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         > On 12/03/2016 08:05 PM, kevin wrote:
>         >         >
>         >         > > wow!
>         >         > >
>         >         > > OK, this is more than just a "good fight" on
>         principle.
>         >         > >
>         >         > > Has anyone read the Amazon .free TOS?
>         >         > >
>         >         > > http://nic.free/pdf/FREE-en-ConditionsOfUse.pdf
>         >         > >
>         >         > > "COPYRIGHT
>         >         > > All content included in or made available
>         through any Site, such as
>         >         > > text, graphics, logos, button icons, images,
>         audio clips, digital
>         >         > > downloads, data compilations, and software is
>         the property of ARSI or
>         >         > > its content suppliers and protected by United
>         States and international
>         >         > > copyright laws. The compilation of all content
>         included in or made
>         >         > > available through any Site is the exclusive
>         property of ARSI and
>         >         > > protected by U.S. and international copyright
>         laws"
>         >         > >
>         >         > > I say we hold strong to .free
>         >         > >
>         >         > > Kevin
>         >         > >
>         >         > > On Sat, 2016-12-03 at 20:49 -0600, kevin wrote:
>         >         > > > Yes, yes, that I know, Jeff.  :)
>         >         > > >
>         >         > > > What I was specifically speaking to was that
>         ICANN could then sell
>         >         > > > off .OSS and .pirate and all the others and
>         what will we do ...?
>         >         > > > Scramble to find a new .tld ?
>         >         > > >
>         >         > > > Of course, I'm speaking from a principle point
>         of view when I saw we
>         >         > > > ignore .free, for the reasons I spoke.
>         >         > > >
>         >         > > > At the end of the day, if everyone with
>         a .free is willing to move over
>         >         > > > to a .lib(re/er), then ...  hey ...  no
>         biggie.  :D
>         >         > > >
>         >         > > > Kevin
>         >         > > >
>         >         > > > On Sat, 2016-12-03 at 19:37 -0700, Jeff Taylor
>         wrote:
>         >         > > > > On 12/03/2016 07:16 PM, kevin wrote:
>         >         > > > > > As for ICANN, they could simply look at
>         all OpenNIC tlds and grab them
>         >         > > > > > for ICANN use.
>         >         > > > > Actually that's not true.  We generate our
>         own root zone for opennic,
>         >         > > > > and that script forces opennic TLDs to take
>         precedence and override any
>         >         > > > > conflicting ICANN domains.  So even in our
>         current situation where
>         >         > > > > Amazon's .free has made it into the ICANN
>         root, we opennic users still
>         >         > > > > have full access to our existing domains.
>         The only way for the ICANN
>         >         > > > > TLD to get into our root zone is if I remove
>         the references to opennic's
>         >         > > > > TLD first.  If we voted to create our
>         own .com zone, we could do it
>         >         > > > > because we maintain full control of the zone
>         files used by opennic from
>         >         > > > > top to bottom.  If we wanted to maintain
>         ICANN's .com zone, but replace
>         >         > > > > google.com with our own domain, we could do
>         that too.
>         >         > > > >
>         >         > > > > In case you don't realize it, I wrote the
>         scripts and have been
>         >         > > > > maintaining opennic's root zone for a number
>         of years.  Most people
>         >         > > > > never hear about this because for the most
>         part everything runs smoothly
>         >         > > > > and your queries always return the results
>         that you expect (yes there
>         >         > > > > have been some hiccups and I do what I can
>         to try to make the scripts
>         >         > > > > more bulletproof when something breaks).  If
>         I had ever betrayed that
>         >         > > > > trust, you can bet that everyone would have
>         known about it!
>         >         > > > >
>         >         > > > > However the point is that the root zone is
>         an absolutely critical piece
>         >         > > > > of the DNS infrastructure, and changes to
>         the root can have significant
>         >         > > > > affects on how you see the whole internet.
>         We can shape that view
>         >         > > > > however we want, and ICANN cannot simply
>         reserve our existing TLDs and
>         >         > > > > shut us down.  The initial purpose of
>         opennic was to show that ICANN
>         >         > > > > does not HAVE to be the ones in control of
>         the internet, and that anyone
>         >         > > > > can set up a DNS service to do the same
>         thing as them, but without the
>         >         > > > > huge costs.  We've been here for over 16
>         years and have a world-wide
>         >         > > > > presence.  They may try ignore us, but the
>         proof is here that ICANN is
>         >         > > > > not actually as important as they would like
>         to think.
>         >         > > > >
>         >         > > > > --------
>         >         > > > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss
>         list.
>         >         > > > > You may unsubscribe by emailing
>         discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>         >         > >
>         >         > >
>         >         > > --------
>         >         > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>         >         > > You may unsubscribe by emailing
>         discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         > --------
>         >         > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>         >         > You may unsubscribe by emailing
>         discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >         --------
>         >         You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>         >         You may unsubscribe by emailing
>         >         discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>         >
>         > --------
>         > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>         > You may unsubscribe by emailing
>         discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         --------
>         You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>         You may unsubscribe by emailing
>         discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org

-- 
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/kevinrattai/

https://plus.google.com/+KevinRattai/

https://community.spiceworks.com/people/kevinrattai