Discuss mailing list

[<vv AT cgs.pw>]

OK. Point taken. :)

In the Societies Act that is applicable where I live,
the identity is defined as name and address. Probably
most jurisdictions are the same. So, an email address
is likely not a valid identity most places.

~ Ole

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 23:15:50 +0100
Amunak <amunak AT amunak.net> wrote:

> 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  
>