[NCUC-DISCUSS] email in response to ICANN blogpost
Arsène Tungali
arsenebaguma at gmail.com
Wed Jun 28 18:23:52 CEST 2017
Hi everyone,
I find this discussion particularly interesting and thanks Seun for raising some concerns which attracted my attention, in the middle of the ncuc policy meeting happening now.
I believe this is an important discussion and i take it from whether the NCUC should endorse and sign that email or just leave it for individual members who are willing to join Niel in signing it. Hope i m not coming too late.
I know the EC has decided to sign on our behalf but i would have requested this to be well discussed on the list before it can be signed. I do apologize if this is not how things work here.
Most of us are busy with the icann meeting and might not have enough time for a good anlysis of the blog post as well as the email drafted by Niel. I am sure many of our members would have loved to argue on this if they had enough time. The email, as a reponse is a good thing, though i personally find it very strong and would suggest it to be diluted, the same way it asks the writer of the blog to try to not be strong in his views with regards to the subject.
Personally i do find the blog very very informative as it gives a different view of the dark web and i look forward to reading the next blog as he promised. I also salute the facts presented by Niel in the email as another way of seing the dark web.
Regards,
Arsene
-----------------
Arsène Tungali,
about.me/ArseneTungali
+243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
> On Jun 28, 2017, at 6:03 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 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/1xB19ycvHPH9TagLjEiAnOpbkLbx9jdD49y3CAKVLoac/edit
>> > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xB19ycvHPH9TagLjEiAnOpbkLbx9jdD49y3CAKVLoac/edit>
>> > >
>> > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xB19ycvHPH9TagLjEiAnOpbkLbx9jdD49y3CAKVLoac/edit
>> > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xB19ycvHPH9TagLjEiAnOpbkLbx9jdD49y3CAKVLoac/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/e22d28ed/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list