Discuss mailing list

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

We weren't talking about malware, we were talking about illegal activity on 
the domains after a "warning" from an organization which may or may not be 
governmental and may or may not involve a warrant. Likewise, another 
individual asked that hateful and neo-Nazi material be banned on a proposed 
political TLD. I hope this isn't the future of OpenNIC too...
 
--

-Dan Q


On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:13:27 -0500, Jonah Aragon <jonah AT triplebit.net> wrote:

> All I’m saying is that malware is very clearly a separate issue, but you 
> seem to be in favor of lumping everything together into some dystopian 
> censorship view where we’ll bend over to remove any content that may be 
> remotely offensive, which is not the case. Further discussion is needed on 
> this topic.
> 
> Jonah
> 
> > On Nov 3, 2017, at 3:08 PM, Daniel Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > From the Web site:
> > 
> > "Looking for an open and democratic alternative DNS root? Concerned about 
> > censorship?
> > OpenNIC might be the solution for you!
> > 
> > DNS Neutrality
> > 
> > No corporation should be able to say what websites are or aren’t 
> > available to us. By using our volunteer-provided DNS servers you no 
> > longer have to question your ISPs motives, and can rest assured that your 
> > connection to the Internet is not being censored by your DNS servers."
> > 
> > If this is our charter, there is no justification whatsoever to privately 
> > seize non-peered domain names without a warrant by a court of law. We 
> > will not seize .indy domains because the government of Turkey sent us a 
> > nasty letter or Donald Trump complaint that we were "hosting" "fake news" 
> > on the non-"darknet." We will not seize .pirate domains because the MPAA 
> > doesn't approve of "kodi" in the name. We will not seize .libre domains 
> > at the request of a media campaign against a neo-Nazi group trying to 
> > find refuge. We will not require query logging in every country at the 
> > request of the NSA/GHCQ or marketing firms. This is contrary to the 
> > purpose of OpenNIC and we will be no better than ICANN and our ISPs, and 
> > our entire website will have to be re-written with a new mission 
> > statement.
> > 
> > Again, from the Web site:
> > 
> > "Looking for an open and democratic alternative DNS root? Concerned about 
> > censorship?
> > OpenNIC might be the solution for you!
> > 
> > DNS Neutrality
> > 
> > No corporation should be able to say what websites are or aren’t 
> > available to us. By using our volunteer-provided DNS servers you no 
> > longer have to question your ISPs motives, and can rest assured that your 
> > connection to the Internet is not being censored by your DNS servers."
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > -Dan Q
> > 
> > 
> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 14:29:53 -0500, Jonah Aragon <jonah AT triplebit.net> 
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> You’re confusing can’t and won’t. We can enforce any policies we choose, 
> >> we’re an independent organization and we’re fully capable of enforcing 
> >> our bylaws. Whether we would or not is a different matter. 
> >> 
> >> I think I’d side more towards Jeff on this topic however. Our members 
> >> should have an expectation of safety on the network. Content blocking is 
> >> one thing, but preventing malware and actual entities that are making 
> >> malicious efforts to harm people’s computers is different. The right to 
> >> free speech can only go so far, we aren’t being forced to enable C&C 
> >> centers or other nefarious domains. 
> >> 
> >> Jonah
> >> 
> >>> On Nov 3, 2017, at 14:20, Daniel Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> +1. What's next, mandatory logging of all servers for the NSA?
> >>> 
> >>> Also, I will repeat my last message:
> >>> 
> >>> 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 Fri, 3 Nov 2017 01:24:25 +0100, Amunak <amunak AT amunak.net> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> I don't think we should make too many limiting rules. For one, if 
> >>>> (when)
> >>>> OpenNIC grows it'll be impossible to realistically check domains for
> >>>> legality or even malware and such. And when we do it only when 
> >>>> requested
> >>>> to take down the content, is it really fair? And who gets to decide if
> >>>> the rules are truly broken? I don't think T2 (or even T1) server owners
> >>>> should be pressured to do any blocking. If they want to do so, and
> >>>> disclose it then sure. Especially if it's to follow the laws of their
> >>>> respective countries or to protect OpenNIC infrastructure. But force
> >>>> them to do so? Not really. (Just a sidenote: I thought one goals of
> >>>> OpenNIC was openness, privacy and no censorship - if we don't uphold
> >>>> these values are we better than ICANN and why do we really exist?)
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> --------
> >>> 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