Discuss mailing list

[Philipp Schafft <lion AT lion.leolix.org>]

Good morning again,

On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 12:44 +0300, Dmitry S. Nikolaev wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> First of all, thanks for the letter and opinion.
> 
> Second, I will try to answer.

*nods*


> > Is that gratis/free of charge, or is that related to freedom?
> Meaning that no money payments required at all (completely free).

Then I would go for "gratis" or "free of charge". I think "gratis" would
be nicer here as it is used in the Free Software movement a lot and I
think OpenNIC shares a good number of users with it.


> > The difference is not clear to me.
> Difference is that "rules" must be followed, "notes" is "notes" -
> information to the user.

Hm. That sounds a bit strange to me. To me this is also related to the
next one.

But ok, you answered the question. Maybe someone else will have an
opinion on that.


> > Also it's not exactly clear if they are binding or for discussion
> (in individual cases).
> Sorry, don`t understand the question. Can you rephrase or explain more
> detailed ?

There are normally two types of rulings: universally binding ones (you
ALWAYS must adhere) and ones that are more a kind of default (this is as
long as nothing else has been agreed on). The way you word I would
consider it the second form. If it's the first one I would love to see
it in a clearer way. I think your intention was not to sound like "this
is forbidden and you're a bad guy if you do that". Maybe a native
speaker can help here as well.


> > Can you please define who's definition of "humanity" you refer to as
> well as who's standards for "morality"? Please also see [0].
> Just by starting to list all such words, you can write several pages
> of
> text and still miss something. That`s why i wrote this text.
> 
> Ok, let`s do examples of "the public interest, the principles of
> humanity and morality":
> 
> - drugs

Totally depending on your jurisdiction. Think about the ongoing
discussion on Marijuana.


> - terrorism

Terrorism is what is made of something. It's on the victim's side.
Someone might be a murderer of 10 people. Media and politics decide if
that person is just a murderer or a terrorist. That's the problem here.


> - porn with children

Definition of "porn" ranges from "anything but the eyes visible" to "the
navel is visible". The definition of the maximum age of a child ranges
from 8 to 23. What is your definition?
Beside from that, there are no real international standards at all about
child protection.


> - killings

This is an accepted one in most counties. At least if the victim is a
attractive, white male with some money.
Many counties around the world have no consensus on killing wives,
children, old people, outsiders, people of different colour, people of
different religion, political unwanted people, ...


> - religious intolerance

Many countries on this planet do not even separate government and
religious groups, including the one I'm living in. There is really no
standard on what tolerance is in this context nor do many countries
really implement it.


> - racism

I was once asked by a bank for my colour. They didn't accept "savanna".
Again, there is no international consensus here.


> - nazism (fascism)

This is what most people live in and most people consider there own form
of it perfectly fine. So who's are you going to ban?


> And so on.


Funnily you have only discussed things that have been on this list just
a short while ago. I kind of feel left out with topics like environment
preservation, protection of other beings, protection of
future/preserving a life-worthy world for the next generation,
protection of the poor, ...


> All of this  is condemned by mankind and called "principles
> of humanity and morality".

As I have shown above there is no general consensus. And the common
subset is about infinitesimal [small].

I do not argue that there are standards that are good to adhere.
Basically my points at those two:

Whoever will read your text will either understand it as "I'm fine." or
"what does they mean?". Both not helpful.
And:
Why is it part of the NIC's job to enforce general rulings. There is a
legal system for this implemented virtually in all nations that covers
those problems just fine. I really like the concept of separation of
powers.


> > That is not a term I have ever heard. If I take apart that I think
> > you talk about HTTP services provided using the domain name in
> > question, I would guess it's kind of a whois like service.
> You can help me with rephrase this. I don't mind. Maybe on my not so
> good english it`s sound not correct.
> The meaning is the same as previous item. But it was about domain
> name and here is about content that domain provide.

I would maybe go for something like "content provided using the domain
[name]". This is agnostic to any usage and/or protocol.


> > You refer to "the world community". But all of the terms lack of an
> international definition. And: Who could define them?
> Ok, if the definition is so necessary, then I can use "UN"
> (http://www.un.org/).

The UN is a big and strong organization. But it still didn't unite all
people living under our sun. For the good or for the bad.


> > About the length of a domain name you write ...
> I think that 32 symbols it`s more than enow for the domain name. I
> don`t
> want people to create something like
> djahgfwroighsuiehgihsdijghvjaisdhfgswreuighaedasifghrqaeiurfq.RUS
> Only varchar(32)    utf8_general_ci

Sure. My concern was more on the 1..n-symbol domains.


> > Next you write about the expire procedure. This is all fine with me,
> > but I think a native speaker should re-work the sentence
> I don`t have native speakers... It`s a pity :(
> Albongo said that he can help but I think he still don`t have enow
> time
> for this because I don`t received anything from him.

He surely is busy as hell as the others of us. E.g. it also took me
longer to send you the mail as expected. (ref: My statement on IRC about
this.)


> The main idea of expiry is if someone stopped using domain name it can
> be avail to be registered again after some time if anyone wants this
> domain name.
> So I wrote two phase of expiry:
> - 6 months
> - plus one week
> If 6 months and one week passed  and the domain holder do not prolong
> registration on the domain name - it will be avail for registering by
> anyone.

I agree with the general idea. Also the intervals are perfectly fine
with me. It's just a bit unclear to me what stages/states there are and
what there relation is.


> > What is a "domain holder"
> I took this concept from other OpenNIC charters.
> "domain holder" is a person who have registered domain name in TLD.

ok.


> > In "Disputes" you write "trademarks". Is this any specific
> > registration service or any? What about de facto trademarks (e.g.
> > "OpenNIC")?
> Same as previous, I took this concept from other OpenNIC charters.
> I don`t understand what you mean by "specific registration". The
> meaning that if some trademark what to register domain name and it
> already registered, so they can dispute a domain.

There is no world-trademark-register. It's up to the individual nations.
Sometimes it's they split it by region. Sometimes there are more central
ones like one for the EU (wich does not replace the national ones).
So you can even end up with the same thing registered by two different
bodies in to different registers.

And there are de facto ones that aren't registered at all. "OpenNIC" was
my example of this.


> > Some more general notes about the structure
> I will think about it and see what I can do.
> 
> P.S. Despite the fact that you said that you are not a lawyer for me
> you are talking as a lawyer and

Thank you very much. But I can assure you I'm not. :)


> treat the rules as a real contract.

It is after all. Or parts of one.


> You can read other charters:
> - https://wiki.opennic.org/opennic/dot/o
> - https://wiki.opennic.org/opennic/dot/libre
> - https://wiki.opennic.org/opennic/dot/cyb
> - https://wiki.opennic.org/opennic/dot/chan
> and so on. I think you can say the same about them. So don`t be so
> picky.

I know about them. I never said that those comments do not apply to them
as well. I have also expressed on them and parts of them in the past.

Why not make your charter a better one that stands out with quality?


With best regards,

> With best regards, Dmitry S. Nikolaev
> virus_net
> 
> On 26.09.2017 11:23, Philipp Schafft wrote:
> > Good morning,
> >
> > I'm refering to http://subnets.ru/rus.www/charter/ at the version of
> > when this email was written.
> >
> > I'm not a lawyer. I can not and do not provide any legal services.
> This
> > is just my personal opinion. I'm also not speaking for any group or
> > institution.
> >
> > About the charter, going from top to bottom:
> >       * You write "Registrations is available to everyone and
> completely
> >         free.". What do you mean by "completely free"? Is that
> >         gratis/free of charge, or is that related to freedom?
> >       * You use "rules" and "notes" that needs to be "considered" by
> the
> >         user. The difference is not clear to me. Also it's not
> exactly
> >         clear if they are binding or for discussion (in individual
> >         cases).
> >       * You write "domain name must not use words that are contrary
> to
> >         the public interest, the principles of humanity and morality
> (in
> >         particular, words of obscene content, appeals of an inhumane
> >         nature, insulting human dignity or religious feelings and so
> >         on);". Can you please define who's definition of "humanity"
> you
> >         refer to as well as who's standards for "morality"? Please
> also
> >         see [0].
> >       * In "information at domain pages (and/or files accessible via
> >         domain name) must not include incitement to violence, drugs,
> >         terrorism and other illegal activities condemned by the
> world
> >         community;" you write about "domain pages". That is not a
> term I
> >         have ever heard. If I take apart that I think you talk about
> >         HTTP services provided using the domain name in question, I
> >         would guess it's kind of a whois like service. I would be
> happy
> >         if you could improve this a bit.
> >       * Ibidem you talk about about different terms that require a
> >         definition. You refer to "the world community". But all of
> the
> >         terms lack of an international definition. And: Who could
> define
> >         them? There is not a single organization that is both
> >         acknowledged by and acknowledging all nation there are. And
> this
> >         is not even considering contentious territories.
> >       * About the length of a domain name you write "domain name
> must be
> >         1 symbol length minimum and not be more than 32 symbols
> >         length;". I just think this is a very open rule. I
> personally
> >         prefer to reserve short domains for special use. But this is
> all
> >         personal taste. Also I assume by symbol you mean character
> in
> >         any encoding that is supported by the relevant standards.
> >       * Next you write about the expire procedure. This is all fine
> with
> >         me, but I think a native speaker should re-work the sentence
> >         (please split it into smaller ones).
> >       * In "Termination / Revocation" you talk about domain holders
> to
> >         be considered members. What is a "domain holder"? Is it any
> >         legal entity (private person or legal body)? What about
> groups
> >         that do not generate a legal body but still work as a
> uniform
> >         group (such as a German GbR[1]) what about an body and it's
> >         departments? I would prefer something like "any private
> person
> >         or legal body of any jurisdiction".
> >       * In "Disputes" you write "trademarks". Is this any specific
> >         registration service or any? What about de facto trademarks
> >         (e.g. "OpenNIC")?
> >       * In "Anonymity" you seem to define a "member" (ref: "domain
> >         holder") more closely. However this doesn't really answer my
> >         question above.
> >
> > Some more general notes about the structure:
> >       * You define several groups that can interact with the system.
> >         (the general public), "domain holders", "members", the
> >         administrative team, "OpenNIC", "OpenNIC community",
> "legitimate
> >         court", (disputes), ...; I would be glad if you could define
> >         them in a separate section ("Definitions") with all there
> >         properties and then in the rules just refer to them. This
> would
> >         make it much more easy to read.
> >       * You use "become available for registration" or eq. in
> several
> >         places. Sometimes with given time periods between steps,
> >         sometimes without. I think it would be good to define this
> in a
> >         central place. Maybe like "if for any reason a domain
> becomes
> >         available for registration there is a time of nn days
> between
> >         the event and the public availability. This time can be used
> for
> >         anyone to raise a veto or claim the domain based on relevant
> >         rulings."
> >       * You link at several places services. I thin it would be good
> to
> >         move this to an individual section like a imprint, OR
> provide a
> >         imprint along with the charter and only sign the charter.
> >       * There is no date or revision number in the document. It's
> hard
> >         to reference a specific version.
> >
> > I hope this input helps you some. :)
> >
> > With best regards,
> >
> >
> > [0] email <1501063277.4826.77.camel AT people.fellig.org>: Philipp
> Schafft,
> > 2017-07-26, "Re: [opennic-discuss] TLD policy change discussion"
> > [1] §§ 705 et seqq. BGB
> >


-- 
Philipp.
 (Rah of PH2)