Discuss mailing list

[Amunak <amunak AT amunak.net>]

The point is that there is no registration with identity verification. We don't actually have rules set for who is and isn't a member - anyone is by sending an email, which could be one person, multiple persons, organization, a bot or one person behind multiple addresses / "registrations". Until we actually have at least semi-reliable list of actual names with some identity proof you could hardly argue we have "registered members".

Amunak

On 07.11.2017 23:10, vv AT cgs.pw wrote:

We register for this mailing list and this
is where we vote and discuss OpenNIC policies.
If you don't register, you don't get to vote.

~ Ole


On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 22:22:39 +0100
"Jack Ternan" <jackist AT email.com> wrote:

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

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