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

Wed Dec 8 13:40:00 PST 2010

I agree, there's something more to know about why they haven't switched ns.

But meanwhile, one would hope that, in stories like this one
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/08/131905226/wikileaks-fallout-unease-over-web-press-freedoms
that ISOC would be as much a goto source as Susan Crawford. Where's JZ on
this?
<http://www.npr.org/2010/12/08/131905226/wikileaks-fallout-unease-over-web-press-freedoms>
j

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net>
wrote:
> I suspect an ISOC statement about managing the A or rather the NS records
by a registrant is a bit too much detail?
>
> Although privately I am intrigued why wikileaks have not changed their
nameservers,  once EveryDNS pulled them, at their Registrar Dynadot (or if
the Registrar has blocked access to their account why they have not
delegated a new Registrar). It looks like they have just abandoned the
domain for the time being.  Maybe they couldn't find anybody with redundant
distributed anycast DNS willing to resolve services for wikileaks.org?
>
>
> As a separate item ISOC might well find this is a good time to start a
consultation with members on the growing issue of DNS interventions. These
could become destabilising.
>
>
> Christian
>
>
> On 8 Dec 2010, at 18:54, Veni Markovski wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
  Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
---------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20101208/a15649ae/attachment.htm>