[Chapter-delegates] Microsoft's actions

[Eric Burger]

Tread carefully here. Would we rather have Interpol, the FBI, or GCHQ “protect” us from the C&C networks that were hiding behind No-IP? Such a statement could be interpreted that rather than having people and corporations trying to police ourselves, one would rather have governments provide police “protection” on the Internet.

I am NOT trying to justify Microsoft’s actions - they clearly screwed up. The USG also screwed up by giving Microsoft a the equivalent of a Letter of Marque to attack No-IP. That is NOT a positive precedent. However, we must be VERY careful how we comment on this. From many governments’ perspectives, this played out *as* a MS-model move (pardon the pun).

On Jul 1, 2014, at 2:55 AM, Elver Loho <elver.loho at gmail.com> wrote:

> Does ISOC HQ intend to release a statement on Microsoft's
> anti-multistakeholder-model actions?
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/06/millions-of-dymanic-dns-users-suffer-after-microsoft-seizes-no-ip-domains/
> 
> Best,
> Elver
> .ee
> 
> elver.loho at gmail.com
> +372 5661 6933
> skype: elver.loho
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140701/0e185e5d/attachment.asc>