[NCUC-DISCUSS] email in response to ICANN blogpost
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Jun 28 18:03:15 CEST 2017
Hello Niels,
We can agree to disagree as I personally would also agree that *dark web"
is a place for much more significant bad stuff.
A few useful references for anyone who cares:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-deep-dark-web-and-how-do-you-access-it
"Dark Web or Dark Net is a subset of the Deep Web
<https://darkwebnews.com/news/how-mysterious-is-the-deep-web/> where there
are sites that sell drugs, hacking software, counterfeit money and more."
https://darkwebnews.com/help-advice/access-dark-web/
I sure would agree with farell on the argument that it's probably a content
area that may be out of scope for ICANN[1] but that isn't the point the
proposed NCUC is making.
Regard
1. Though I think it's a good educating resource for internet users.
On Jun 28, 2017 5:44 PM, "Niels ten Oever" <lists at digitaldissidents.org>
wrote:
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170628/c069ddd6/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list