Discuss mailing list

[<vv AT cgs.pw>]

I'm not overly concerned about this, however, we _do_
have a registered membership so we actually are an
unincorporated association.

~ Ole


On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:38:24 +0100
Amunak <amunak AT amunak.net> wrote:

> Exactly. OpenNic can't even really receive any kind of
> legal letter, because it legally *doesn't exist*. That
> may or may not be a good thing, but "at worst" we would
> be responsible all just as individuals under our
> respective legal systems and jurisdictions.  I feel like
> the part where we worry about getting letters from
> government(s) or courts is somewhat irrelevant here.
> 
> Amunak
> 
> 
> On 05.11.2017 22:01, Jack Ternan wrote:
> > I am making a very important legal distinction.  For
> > unincorporated associations, each member is liable for
> > the acts of the other members or the group as a whole.
> > We are not such an organization. 
> > *Sent:* Friday, November 03, 2017 at 1:56 PM
> > *From:* "Jonah Aragon" <jonah AT triplebit.net>
> > *To:* discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [opennic-discuss] [RESULTS] Allow libre
> > material on/libre use of .libre
> > You just defined an organization
> > — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization
> >  
> > You’re probably mistaking it with an incorporation or
> > some kind of legal entity, which we clearly aren’t. But
> > it’s safe to say we’re an organization, with a
> > community of members and agreed upon policies. There’s
> > clearly some management in place here. 
> > Jonah
> >
> > On Nov 3, 2017, at 2:48 PM, Jack Ternan
> > <jackist AT email.com <mailto:jackist AT email.com>> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >     I want to chime in and point out that OpenNIC is
> > not an organization.  It's just a collection of
> > individuals. 
> >     *Sent:* Friday, November 03, 2017 at 2:29 PM
> >     *From:* "Jonah Aragon" <jonah AT triplebit.net
> >     <mailto:jonah AT triplebit.net>>
> >     *To:* discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> >     <mailto:discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org>
> >     *Subject:* Re: [opennic-discuss] [RESULTS] Allow
> > libre material on/libre use of .libre
> >     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  
> >     <mailto: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  
> >     <mailto: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
> >     <mailto: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
> >     <mailto: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
> >     <mailto: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  
>