Discuss mailing list

["Jack Ternan" <jackist AT email.com>]

Is there a registered membership?

 

Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 at 4:40 PM
From: vv AT cgs.pw
To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] [RESULTS] Allow libre material on/libre use of .libre

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
>



--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org