[Chapter-delegates] Interesting comments via Robert Guerra

Thu Feb 16 10:16:51 PST 2017

Thanks for reinforcing my case – if management wanted to close the store for breach of contract by acting illegally, they would have to notify the tenant and give them a chance to defend themselves.  In most cases, management would also be required by law to report the alleged offence to the police.  What they would not be allowed to do is come in the middle of the night and change the keys so the tenant was locked out.  Which is equivalent to simply shutting down a domain on the basis of a private complaint.

As for the prostitution case – there are zoning laws for business activities, and laws regarding nuisance, either of which constitute grounds for action – by the appropriate authorities.  However, if the private brothel is legal, not in breach of zoning, and not causing any nuisance, then I don’t see how it is relevant to what actions should be taken when illegal activity is alleged.  

Let’s be clear about what happened – no one found evidence of illegal activity on these websites.  One person alleged illegal activity.  There was no examination of evidence by a neutral and qualified person, no chance of the accused to defend themselves, no right of appeal, nothing resembling any attempt to get a fair adjudication.  Instead one group decided they would be cop, judge and prosecutor, deny any chance of fairness, and then scream to the world about those companies which refused to submit.  It’s nothing more than cyber-vigilantism, and very dangerous.  ISP’s and others who collude with such actions are doing themselves and us much harm in the long run.

Regards,

Brandt Dainow

brandt.dainow at gmail.com

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow

http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow

From: Richard Hill [mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch] 
Sent: 16 February 2017 17:54
To: brandt.dainow at gmail.com; calderon.alfredo at gmail.com; 'Javier Rua'
Cc: 'ISOC Chapter Delegates'
Subject: RE: [Chapter-delegates] Interesting comments via Robert Guerra

Please see below.

Thanks and best,

Richard

From: Brandt Dainow [mailto:brandt.dainow at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 18:34
To: 'Richard Hill'; calderon.alfredo at gmail.com; 'Javier Rua'
Cc: 'ISOC Chapter Delegates'
Subject: RE: [Chapter-delegates] Interesting comments via Robert Guerra

SNIP

If I went into a shopping mall and demanded management close a shop because I believed they were breaking the law, no one would expect management to jump up and close the shop on the spot.  And I suspect it would be a breach of most rental contracts if they did.  

>RH: Actually it would be a breach of most rental contracts to conduct an illegal activity, so there would be no breach if the owner cancelled the rental contract.  And then there might be litigation regarding whether or not the conduct was in fact illegal and, consequently, whether the cancellation of the lease was allowable.

>RH: We have real cases of such situations here in Geneva, when prostitutes use residential apartments to carry out their activities, which can create a nuisance for the other tenants (lots of people coming and going at late hours in the night).  However, that specific activity in not generally illegal in Switzerland, so the lease cannot be cancelled merely on that ground.

SNIP

Regards,

Brandt Dainow

brandt.dainow at gmail.com

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow

http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow

From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hill
Sent: 16 February 2017 13:04
To: calderon.alfredo at gmail.com; 'Javier Rua'
Cc: 'ISOC Chapter Delegates'
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Interesting comments via Robert Guerra

Thanks for this. I found that it was well worth reading the CircleID post from Garth, referenced below.

Best,

Richard

From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Alfredo Calderon
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 13:53
To: Javier Rua
Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Interesting comments via Robert Guerra

Another case of compliance.

Research was done by Garth Bruen.

Published the results of a months-long study of how various U.S.-based ICANN contracted parties handle reports of domains engaged in narcotics traffic. The specific narcotics here are opioids which are synthetic versions of morphine often mixed with other chemicals or time-release mechanisms. Abuse of narcotics is a global problem, but has been particularly sharp here in the U.S. in the last few year. Cybercriminals respond to news and have become aggressively predatory in offering a variety of illicit substances on different domains.

In simple terms KnujOn collected illegal opioid selling domains and reported them in detail to registries, registrars, and ISPs. The illegal nature of these domains is particular to U.S. law so only U.S.-based companies were measured here. I may release a report later focusing on different regions and laws.

The public report is here: http://knujon.com/onlineopioidsUSfeb2017.pdf

I have blogged about the report on CircleID: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170215_narcotics_traffic_is_not_part_of_a_healthy_domain_system/

Aside from the seriousness of the issue as an abuse of the DNS, the problem from our perspective is the response from some providers in terms of policy. The good news is that MOST of the contracted parties and ISPs simply reviewed the domains against their policies and then quickly terminated them. The bad news is that some Ry/Rg incorrectly claimed the "ICANN contract prevented them from acting", that they did not have "the technical ability to suspend domains", or that they "could not find evidence of illegal activity". One domain became "hidden" after we reported it to the registrar but continues to sell Fentanyl, a very dangerous drug.

This is ultimately about failure of policy. These parties are making a choice not to investigate or suspend.

-Garth

 photo <https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucwebapp.wisestamp.com/bbfdb9f5-8428-4ef7-bd1e-dc024659da8b/FotoAlfredo.format_png.resize_200x.png#logo> 

Alfredo Calderon
eLearning Consultant 

 <mailto:calderon.alfredo at gmail.com> calderon.alfredo at gmail.com |  <http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com> http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212 | wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon 

 <http://facebook.com/calderon.alfredo>   <http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52>   <http://twitter.com/acalderon52>   <http://plus.google.com/u/0/103289446075444313762/posts>   <http://www.pinterest.com/acalderon/>   <http://www.slideshare.net/acalderon>   <http://klout.com/#/acalderon52>   <http://wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon> 

  <http://ws-promos.appspot.com/ga/pixel.png?yes__count=1&e=5732568548769792> 

Get a signature like this:  <http://ws-promos.appspot.com/r?rdata=eyJydXJsIjogImh0dHA6Ly93d3cud2lzZXN0YW1wLmNvbS9lbWFpbC1pbnN0YWxsP3dzX25jaWQ9NjcyMjk0MDA4JnV0bV9zb3VyY2U9ZXh0ZW5zaW9uJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPXByb21vXzU3MzI1Njg1NDg3Njk3OTIiLCAiZSI6ICI1NzMyNTY4NTQ4NzY5NzkyIn0=&u=393382733270453> Click here! 

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting. Thx Glenn

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511 <tel:(787)%20396-6511> 

twitter: @javrua

skype: javier.rua1

https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua 

On Feb 15, 2017, at 8:55 PM, Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn at gmail.com> wrote:

A  recent post by Robert Guerra  has cross posted this post....

For those who may have missed it, ISOC's Public Interest Registry is planning to establish by the end of the quarter a new compulsory private arbitration system that would allow copyright owners to cancel .org domain names based on allegations of copyright infringement:

 <http://domainincite.com/21517-the-pirate-bay-likely-to-be-sunk-as-org-adopts-udrp-for-copyright> http://domainincite.com/21517-the-pirate-bay-likely-to-be-sunk-as-org-adopts-udrp-for-copyright

This is also being pushed as an international best practice standard for other domain registries to adopt:

 <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/healthy-domains-initiative-censorship-through-shadow-regulation> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/healthy-domains-initiative-censorship-through-shadow-regulation

This hardly seems like a measure that's in the "public interest".  What do ISOC members think about this proposal?

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
 <https://eff.org/> https://eff.org
 <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org

Glenn McKnight
mcknight.glenn at gmail.com
skype  gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
.

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20170216/1ac9425f/attachment.htm>