[Chapter-delegates] The Internet Society on the Wikileaks issue

[Veni Markovski]

Fair enough, Christian.
I just wanted to better understand what's the point in Isoc's statement.
If it is for free and open Internet, then it should be phrased better.
If it claims the domain is down, then Isoc should also be very precise
in what it means. For me, looking at the registry information, someone
hasn't done their job of changing the A records. And that is not equal
to having the domain down. Domain down would mean either no records
whatsoever, or deleting it from the PIR database.

Again - we expect more from an organization that says all the things
it says about itself in the 2011 Plan, or at least that's how it
should be.
If it was an Isoc chapter saying something like that, would you bet
what the reaction from Reston will be:)


Best,
Veni
http://www.veni.com
(via blackberry)


On 12/8/10, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net> wrote:
> Veni
>
> I read this as ISOC saying (and it could be more specific) that the DDOS
> attacks on wikieaks.org and mirrors are extra judicial from person or
> persons unknown. On the basis that wikileaks.org is not subject to a
> criminal legal procedure then technical measures are needed to keep legal
> Internet services operational. The same no doubt is true for the DDOS
> attacks today on Mastercard and Paypal and others by so called friends of
> wikileaks.
>
> The recent seizures of some .net and .com domains through a Verisign
> contractor authorised by the US Homeland Security and Serious Crimes agency
> is a distinctive policy issue and I don't read this ISOC statement as making
> any connection between this and the wikileaks saga. We may not agree or
> disagree with the process involved but the seizures are happening in the
> open and this allows opportunity for normal processes of accountability to
> come into action.
>
> The use of DDOS is entirely outside the structures for accountability and
> due process and is destabilising for the good stuff on the Net.
>
> The comment in the third paragraph "This further underscores that removal of
> a domain is an ineffective tool to suppress communication, merely serving to
> undermine the integrity of the global Internet and its operation." is I
> suppose better stated alongside the domain seizure issue rather than the
> DDOS.  But of course the domain wikieleaks.org is down still and Mastercard
> was down for a period today. Both of these downings are irrespective whether
> they have working DNS so the point that ISOC makes is not invalid even if
> vaguely phrased.
>
>
> Christian
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Dec 2010, at 16:55, Veni Markovski wrote:
>
>> Dear Anya,
>> thank you for this.
>> I have some remarks, which I hope people will accept as an attempt to
>> improve the language, coming from ISOC. In general, I am not happy with
>> the language. It looks to me as if ISOC is trying to please everyone
>> involved, and takes a position, which - at least to the current knowledge
>> of the facts - does not seem very sustainable.
>>
>> For example, in the last paragraph, ISOC says there are legal measures to
>> take down wikileaks.org (by the way, what are those legal measures?). You
>> also advice that "technical solutions should be sought to reestablish its
>> proper presence" - this excuse me, is nonsense. The domain is working, it
>> is not stopped, and neither it requires some technical solutions to start
>> working. Someone at Wikileaks (could be the same person listed here, but I
>> am not sure who is actually the contact with everydns:
>> http://pir.org/get/whois?domain=wikileaks.org&Submit=Search )  has not
>> changed the record in the DNS, but ISOC seems to not understand it? This
>> is not a "technical solution": to change an A record in the DNS, and point
>> the web site to a different IP address. By the way, Wikileaks still have
>> not fixed that, and one could always speculate why.
>>
>> ISOC also says that "appropriate actions" should be "taken to pursue and
>> prosecute entities (if any) that acted maliciously to take it off the
>> air", which against makes the allusion that there's a malicious act to
>> take it off the air. However, the majority of the people, reading this
>> statement, might believe that there are such entities, regardless of the
>> "(if any)" part. Not quite good for the relations between ISOC and the
>> usual suspects for the bigger part of the population - Amazon, PayPal,
>> Visa, Master Card, and the US Government.
>>
>> ISOC also says that the "effective disappearance" is related to freedom of
>> expression. I don't think it is the case, based on the information, which
>> is made public until now. If you have some ground for this statement, can
>> you, please share it? It is very dangerous for an organization, which
>> self-claims itself as "playing a unique role in advancing policy on key
>> areas" for the development of the Internet, and as an organization "in a
>> neutral position", and recognized by other groups "as carrying (credible)
>> perspective".
>>
>>
>> As a general note:
>> Would be good to see what impact, if any, the statement will have - if it
>> will be "picked up" by other organizations, media, policy makers, or it
>> will remain on the ISOC web site for our internal usage. I certainly would
>> have hoped that ISOC would be the organization to give opinions, and
>> views, which will be considered by many of these "other groups", but so
>> far have not spotted anyone quoting ISOC's opinion, or even asking for
>> comments. That's the serious question.
>>
>> Best,
>> Veni
>>
>>
>> On 12/7/2010 14:35, Anya Chambers wrote:
>>> Recently, we have witnessed the effective disappearance from the Internet
>>> of a website made infamous through international press coverage and
>>> political intrigue.
>>>
>>> The Internet Society is founded upon key principles of free expression
>>> and non discrimination that are essential to preserve the openness and
>>> utility of the Internet. We believe that this incident dramatically
>>> illustrates that those principles are currently at risk.
>>>
>>> Recognizing the content of the wikileaks.org <http://wikileaks.org>
>>> website is the subject of concern to a variety of individuals and
>>> nations, we nevertheless believe it must be subject to the same laws and
>>> policies of availability as all Internet sites.  Free expression should
>>> not be restricted by governmental or private controls over computer
>>> hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other
>>> essential components of the Internet.
>>>
>>> Resilience and cooperation are built into the Internet as a design
>>> principle. The cooperation among several  organizations has ensured that
>>> the impact on the Wikileaks organizational website has not prevented all
>>> access to Wikileaks material.  This further underscores that removal of a
>>> domain is an ineffective tool to suppress communication, merely serving
>>> to undermine the integrity of the global Internet and its operation.
>>>
>>> Unless and until appropriate laws are brought to bear to take the
>>> wikileaks.org <http://wikileaks.org> domain down legally, technical
>>> solutions should be sought to reestablish its proper presence, and
>>> appropriate actions taken to pursue and prosecute entities (if any) that
>>> acted maliciously to take it off the air.
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device