<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000; font-size:12pt;"><div><span><div><i>"To be clear, I am against registrars deciding<br> do de-register domains based on domain content or politics,"</i></div><div><i></i><br></div><div>There needs to be an organisationally (RIPE/ICANN) imposed list of prohibited content, with the ability to review action or inaction. If there are internationally agreed prohibited items, this removes the misuse you speak of (oppression of political dissidents etc.)</div></span></div><div><br><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;" webmail="1">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Police<br>
From: " " <<a href="mailto:phishing@storey.xxx">phishing@storey.xxx</a>><br>
Date: Tue, August 22, 2017 6:05 pm<br>
To: "ox" <<a href="mailto:andre@ox.co.za">andre@ox.co.za</a>><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000; font-size:12pt;"><div><i>"To be clear, I am against registrars deciding<br> do de-register domains based on domain content or politics,"</i></div><div><i></i><br></div><div>There needs to be an organisationally (RIPE/ICANN) imposed list of prohibited content, with the ability to review action or inaction. If there are internationally agreed prohibited items, this removes the misuse you speak of (oppression of political dissidents etc.)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div> <blockquote id="replyBlockquote" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;" webmail="1"> <div id="wmQuoteWrapper"> -------- Original Message --------<br> Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Police<br> From: ox <<a href="mailto:andre@ox.co.za" target="_blank">andre@ox.co.za</a>><br> Date: Tue, August 22, 2017 3:21 pm<br> To: <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" target="_blank">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a><br> <br> Hi All,<br> <br> I would like to propose a serious (and possibly long) conversation<br> about policing abuse. In depth, as it relates to DDOS, AS jacking, pump<br> n dump and everything Internet abuse.<br> <br> Questions posed by Matthew Prince,<br> <a href="http://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295" target="_blank">http://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295</a><br> <br> "Prince wants to spark a conversation about how tech should respond to<br> abhorrent content, and whether content should be policed by registrars,<br> browsers, or social networks" <br> <br> This is relevant to all of us, as well as RIPE (all registries) and<br> anyone involved in Internet Abuse as it is far reaching.<br> <br> the NY Times wrote about how social media platforms (including<br> multinationals like Google) are businesses and quoted Kendra Admas:<br> "legal talismans"<br> <br> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/magazine/how-hate-groups-forced-online-platforms-to-reveal-their-true-nature.html" target="_blank">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/magazine/how-hate-groups-forced-online-platforms-to-reveal-their-true-nature.html</a><br> <br> My initial comment is that I support what Ronald said<br> (Educate/Education) - To be clear, I am against registrars deciding<br> do de-register domains based on domain content or politics, I am<br> against hosting companies policing content (this is a job for law<br> enforcement) and as the USA seems to be changing.<br> (Corporations are becoming more fascist - Google deciding what may be<br> searched (no user options) Registrars deciding what random domain<br> names may publish on websites, Hosting companies (even here in EU)<br> deciding what <a href="http://example.com" target="_blank">example.com</a> may say on a website.<br> <br> We are obviously at or close to a tipping point. <br> <br> It does not help that many important tech companies are mostly all<br> based/operated from the USA and that these tech companies are now<br> exposed as powerful policing authorities - who will enforce (or try to<br> enforce) their opinions/mono culture/pseudo laws on the planet.<br> <br> For example: There was a disagreement with Google recently. - this<br> disagreement was not related to politics, social discourse or anything<br> of even much importance. It was a disagreement on the interpretation of<br> a double blind clinical trial (posted on Eureka Alert) - Google has<br> decided to devalue (and even remove) search results based on whether<br> Google thinks it "agrees" with an opinion or not. I have also had<br> disagreements with Google. It is simply an impossible battle as Google<br> staff themselves are not "free" to express themselves - and if a<br> certain policy team says "xyz" then "xyz" it is and basta! The google<br> staffers that agree with you have no authority (and will never even<br> think of) over the "policy team" - so, these 'policy teams" in various<br> multi nationals are shaping the planet in their image and we are all<br> just along for the ride?<br> <br> It is my argument that this type of behavior is in fact also Internet<br> Abuse. - The Internet is all about inter operation, co operation and if<br> something is not legal, why not have laws and law enforcement deal with<br> it? <br> <br> All societies have laws, we all have real Police. Why should companies<br> be deciding what is legal and what is not?<br> <br> Our Police and our Laws have become something secondary to these global<br> companies. Countries like China has clearly refused this acceptance and<br> I think it is time that many other countries also stand up and simply say "no". <br> <br> Andre<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> </div> </blockquote></span>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>