[Chapter-delegates] Microsoft's actions

[JOHN MORE]

+1

John More
Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 1, 2014, at 8:26 AM, Eric Burger <eburger at standardstrack.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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