[NCUC-DISCUSS] email in response to ICANN blogpost

[Michael Oghia]

+1 Farell. Having said that, I appreciate Seun's request for clarification.

Best,
-Michael

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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-hid
>> den-services
>> >     <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-dark-web-the-land-of-h
>> idden-services>
>> >     >
>> >      <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-dark-web-the-land-of-hi
>> dden-services
>> >     <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-dark-web-the-land-of-h
>> idden-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/1xB19ycvHPH9TagLjEiAnOpbk
>> Lbx9jdD49y3CAKVLoac/edit
>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xB19ycvHPH9TagLjEiAnOp
>> bkLbx9jdD49y3CAKVLoac/edit>
>> >     >
>> >      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xB19ycvHPH9TagLjEiAnOpb
>> kLbx9jdD49y3CAKVLoac/edit
>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xB19ycvHPH9TagLjEiAnOp
>> bkLbx9jdD49y3CAKVLoac/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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170628/46fd9830/attachment-0002.html>