Discuss mailing list

["Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com>]

We can't force domains we peer with internationally to not host malware or 
comply with our definition of "legal" - this is the hosting provider's job.

--

-Dan Q


On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 15:53:20 -0600, Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net> wrote:

> Not so much usage enforcement, however I *would* like to open the 
> discussion towards building a common set of rules that should be 
> globally applied to all TLDs.  Sort of like a starting point for the 
> charters, things that we as a group believe should be followed but 
> perhaps we haven't actually written any rules on it.  For example, let's 
> say we all agreed on a policy against intentionally damaging content 
> (like someone hosting malware that is infecting people's computers) -- 
> in this case such a policy would strengthen the support of spamhaus 
> blacklisting certain .bit domains.
> 
> Offhand the sort of global policies I'm thinking of would be along the 
> lines of...
> - Do not host content which is illegal in the country it is hosted.
> - All domains will be registered free of charge. (We seem to get a lot 
> of people with the bright idea of making money by charging for new 
> domains, so let's just squash that stupid idea right at the door.)
> - Domain owners need to keep their contact email up to date.  If the 
> domain owner cannot be reached within a reasonable amount of time, the 
> TLD administrator may terminate the domain.  Domain owners also need to 
> watch the mailing list for any global notices and should not expect a 
> personal notification of every issue.
> - Registering a domain does not guarantee access to that domain. 
> Maintainers will do their best to keep DNS services up to date, but shit 
> happens...
> 
> And so on.  Just some of the common-sense things that we shouldn't have 
> to explain, and yet we still get asked.  I know there are some very 
> well-written charters out there that would be a good starting point for 
> the rest of us, and I think it would be beneficial to have an umbrella 
> charter for all of opennic which could be modified as needed.  Nothing 
> so restrictive that it might impact the intended content of one of the 
> TLDs, but there are probably a handful of items that really should apply 
> to all TLDs equally.
> 
> Anyone else have thoughts on this?
> 
> 
> On 11/01/2017 05:43 PM, vv AT cgs.pw wrote:
> > Well that brings a little sanity to this discussion.
> > Thanks Jeff.
> >
> > On a related note, I'm still scratching my head
> > over why it's so important to have a TLD be for
> > specific uses only. There seems no point in that
> > if there is no one policing usage. And how many
> > here are in favour of forming a "TLD Usage Policing
> > and Enforcement Department"? I suspect not many. :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >         Ole
> >   
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:46:02 -0600
> > Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net> wrote:
> >
> >> As the maintainer of .free/.libre, I've been watching the
> >> threads on this subject with a bit of curiosity.  I am
> >> surprised that not one person actually *asked* for my
> >> opinion on the subject.  On the other hand I'm not
> >> surprised at all that there was absolutely no discussion
> >> on the matter -- personally I believe this signifies that
> >> most people here feel there is really nothing to discuss
> >> on the matter.
> >>
> >> So let's discuss two points here.  First off is your
> >> inference that your repeated suggestions on IRC towards
> >> the .libre charter were ignored. However you failed to
> >> mention that the first time I was actually online when
> >> you made this suggestion, we did have a brief discussion
> >> on the matter in which I immediately told you that I have
> >> been planning on reviewing ALL of the charters under my
> >> purview and updating the contents as needed.
> >> Unfortunately time has been limited lately as I have some
> >> paying projects I've been working on. That doesn't mean
> >> your suggestions were ignored or disregarded, it simply
> >> means what it is... I'll get to it when I have the time.
> >>
> >> The next issue I want to mention is your fixation on a
> >> dictionary definition of libre and how it supposedly
> >> changes the meaning of the domains registered under the
> >> TLD.  Your unwavering commitment to this incorrect point
> >> of view is what derailed our discussion on IRC and
> >> prevented any real discussion of changes to the charter,
> >> so let me reiterate my point of view...  The .libre TLD
> >> was voted on as a *direct* replacement for .free.  It was
> >> not voted on as "something with a different meaning that
> >> needs a new charter".  In fact the vote was
> >> between .libre and .liber, which probably also has a
> >> different definition if you want to look at the strict
> >> definitions, however none of that matters.  ICANN has
> >> registered .free and it's only a matter of time before
> >> they start officially using it, so the vote was for a
> >> suitable *direct* replacement for .free.  At the time of
> >> the vote there was no discussion regarding changes to the
> >> charter, but the members of opennic did vote to continue
> >> the spirit of .free under a new TLD rather than dropping
> >> it completely.  The point is that we could have voted on
> >> anything as a replacement.  If we had instead chosen to
> >> go with ".monkey" would you be arguing that the charter
> >> needs to be changed to require bananas on every domain?
> >> You were part of the discussion when the vote happened,
> >> so you know what considerations were made, and you are
> >> aware that the new TLD was chosen as something that is
> >> widely recognized to have a *similar* meaning as .free
> >> (noting that we already knew it was not an *exact*
> >> replacement).  Again, the dictionary definition was never
> >> the point, we simply wanted to have a replacement for a
> >> somewhat popular TLD which would take on the same
> >> purpose, including the existing charter and registered
> >> domains.  If you were discussing a new TLD with a charter
> >> that was still being developed then there might be a
> >> reason for this debate, but my opinion is that
> >> since .libre was only created as a direct replacement
> >> for .free, the only discussions we should be having would
> >> have to be related towards the definition of "free" which
> >> was the original and true intent of those domains.
> >>
> >> With all of that said, I'll turn back once again to your
> >> original proposal, which was in regards to loosening or
> >> better defining the restrictions on commercial use
> >> of .libre domains.  As mentioned above, nobody ever
> >> *asked* me what I thought of the proposal, and it would
> >> have saved you an awful lot of trouble if you had.  I
> >> actually think it's a good idea and would be beneficial
> >> in clearing up the charter language. The only question
> >> here is WHICH charter...  The suggestions you have
> >> written below are ALSO mostly describing the exact
> >> purpose of .oss domains.  As I am also the maintainer of
> >> that TLD, this gives me something else to think about --
> >> should I still maintain two separate TLDs, or should I
> >> consider the new name for .free as being more inclusive
> >> and able to absorb the purpose and intent of both TLDs?
> >> It's always a tough choice to consider the removal of a
> >> TLD from opennic, and I have a lot of nostalgia towards
> >> one of our very first TLDs created, but I also recognize
> >> that opennic should grow and change to meet the needs of
> >> our members.  If .oss already serves the purpose of the
> >> potentially commercial but free products as described
> >> below, then what purpose would it serve to also allow the
> >> same rules under .libre? However if "libre" now
> >> encompasses the full spirit of what .free and .oss were
> >> intended to be, then does it really make sense to
> >> maintain them separately?
> >>
> >> Of course before I make any radical changes I will start
> >> a new discussion and put it to a vote, but hopefully you
> >> understand why making any changes to the .free charter
> >> are not as simple as "the new word means this".  There's
> >> a lot to think about before changing any of the charters,
> >> and I need to weigh the consequences of those changes and
> >> how they might relate towards other existing TLDs.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/29/2017 06:15 AM, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Here are the results of the vote:
> >>>
> >>> YES (4):
> >>> Daniel Quintiliani
> >>> Jonah Aragon
> >>> Al Beano
> >>> Rouben
> >>>
> >>> NO (1):
> >>> Christopher
> >>>
> >>> The results are 4-1.
> >>> Again the vote is a *nonbinding recommendation* to the
> >>> maintainer of the .libre TLD to add the following to
> >>> the charter:
> >>>
> >>> "Libre exception to noncommercial use - Commercial use
> >>> of a .libre domain is permitted if the primary purpose
> >>> is the hosting of, promotion of, or the site itself is:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Free content released under a license created or
> >>> approved by the Free Software Foundation, 2) Open
> >>> source content released under a license created or
> >>> approved by the Open Source Initiative, 3) Content
> >>> released under a license or waiver created or approved
> >>> by Creative Commons, 4) Content in the public domain 5)
> >>> Content released under a public domain equivalent
> >>> license."
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> -Dan Q
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --------
> >>> 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