[NCUC-DISCUSS] email in response to ICANN blogpost
Farell Folly
farellfolly at gmail.com
Wed Jun 28 17:52:56 CEST 2017
Good point and analysis Niels.
And the truth is ICANN should stay neutral on such things.... judging such
uses of domain names or dealing with contents is still not its mission.
Regards
@__f_f__
Computer Security | Internet of Things
https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
________________________________.
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
Le 28 juin 2017 17:45, "Niels ten Oever" <lists at digitaldissidents.org> a
écrit :
> Hi Seun,
>
> On 06/28/2017 05:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 2017 5:25 PM, "Niels ten Oever" <lists at digitaldissidents.org
> > <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 06/28/2017 05:20 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I am not a very active participant of the NCUC but but do follow
> > > happening and as a member I find this of interest to me. I read
> > through
> > > the blog post and it was a good read; it seem quite educating and
> > makes
> > > a lot of sense. I may understand why a certain service provider
> > may not
> > > like the content but am not sure I understand the reason why NCUC
> is
> > > making a statement against the blog post.
> >
> > Did you read the statement? Which argument did you not find
> compelling?
> >
> >
> > SO: I quote the following from the article:
> > "...... Tor serves many good purposes, but also attracts Dark Web users
> > wanting to keep their activities or marketplaces
> > secret /and /untraceable...."
> >
> > It seem to me that the blog highlights the good and bad of a
> > tool/service. However your statement seem to indicate that the blog only
> > highlights the bad stuff. (ref: We sincerely hope you can correct the
> > negative language in your article)
> >
>
> There is an inherent difference between Tor and the Dark Web. In the
> blog he says: Dark Web = Bad, Tor = Partially Good.
>
> The dark web is simply not bad. That is the problem with the blog.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Overall, I know the views of members may not necessarily matter
> > here (as
> > > it seem the EC makes the decision), i will suggest that you provide
> > > authoritative source for the definition of "dark web" and "deep
> > web" in
> > > your statement.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_web
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_web>
> >
> >
> > SO: Good if that is authoritative then it may be good to include that as
> > a reference in the statement.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > On Jun 28, 2017 4:59 PM, "Niels ten Oever"
> > <lists at digitaldissidents.org <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>
> > > <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org
> > <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > This morning the ICANN VP for Security and IT published a
> > blogpost which
> > > appeared in this mornings newsletter, as well as on ICANNs
> website
> > > concerning the Dark Web.
> > >
> > >
> > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-dark-web-the-land-of-
> hidden-services
> > <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-dark-web-the-land-of-
> hidden-services>
> > >
> > <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-dark-web-the-land-of-
> hidden-services
> > <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-dark-web-the-land-of-
> hidden-services>>
> > >
> > > A number of us got together and drafted an email to the author
> > to give
> > > him an opportunity to correct the falsehoods that are stated
> > in the
> > > blog.
> > >
> > > We have two options:
> > >
> > > 1. Send the letter on behalf of the NCUC
> > > 2. Sign the letter in your personal capacities.
> > >
> > > Let's discuss it here, but feel free to already sign (as a
> > fallback
> > > option).
> > >
> > > You can find the draft letter here:
> > >
> > >
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xB19ycvHPH9TagLjEiAnOpbkLbx9j
> dD49y3CAKVLoac/edit
> > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xB19ycvHPH9TagLjEiAnOpbkLbx9j
> dD49y3CAKVLoac/edit>
> > >
> > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xB19ycvHPH9TagLjEiAnOpbkLbx9j
> dD49y3CAKVLoac/edit
> > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xB19ycvHPH9TagLjEiAnOpbkLbx9j
> dD49y3CAKVLoac/edit>>
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Niels
> > >
> > > --
> > > Niels ten Oever
> > > Head of Digital
> > >
> > > Article 19
> > > www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
> > <http://www.article19.org>
> > >
> > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> > > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> > > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> > <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> > <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> > <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
> > > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> > <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
> > > <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> > <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Niels ten Oever
> > Head of Digital
> >
> > Article 19
> > www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
> >
> > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> >
> >
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170628/10f29279/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list