[registration-issues-wg] Registrars as Censors

Derek Smythe derek at aa419.org
Mon Nov 6 19:44:25 UTC 2017


Thanks Michele, Carlton

On 2017-11-06 07:24 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> Derek
>
> I think we sort of agree.
>
> If we had to get a court order for everything then we’d never be able
> to act quickly on clear cases of “abuse”

... if at all, for most of the issues I deal with. Yet the victims
will pile up. Consider the issue of a facilitating reseller with > 100
domains all malicious and leading to gross fraud. Then a registrar
self blinding to the obvious. Michele, you assisted in mitigating in
at least one such instance - thanks :)

On 2017-11-06 07:51 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> See, what we need are sensible responses to telling problems.  And I
> truly believe the frameworks existing allows this. Cooperation is key
> here.
> 
> And when that does not happen, throw the book at 'em.

We will require a strong arm and a lot of books with some ... :)

As long a we define what is true freedom of speech/expression and the
boundaries for purpose here, we are good. In most basic terms I would
risk saying if anybody abuses the freedom of speech / expression to
harm innocent parties, the problem starts. Freedoms should be used
responsibly. But even so, there will always be grey areas in any
interpretation I can think of. That's why I'm not an expert in this area.

>From my corner I can talk about certain aspects of fraud and domain
abuse at an authoritative level, but would not hazard a specialist
opinion otherwise.

I appreciate these are complex issues, but there is a distinct danger
in oversimplifying the rules and taking a small world view on the
issue. This would be shirking our responsibilities and is a trap if we
are to truly represent all parties globally.

Derek

> -Carlton
> 
> 
> ==============================
> /Carlton A Samuels/
> /Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
> =============================
> 
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Derek Smythe <derek at aa419.org
> <mailto:derek at aa419.org>> wrote:
> 
>     I'll swing the conversation to the opposite side to put a reality
>     check into this issue. Let's talk fraud. How do these theoretical
>     policies pan out in a non-perfect world?
> 
>     What happens when we come to issues such as registrars demanding a
>     court order for issues such as the chemical "SSD Solutions" being
>     sold ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_money_scam
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_money_scam> ). This chemical
>     does not exist.  People using it to defraud have been arrested in
>     just about every part of the world. Such attempts are legal
>     nowhere. Clear case history exists. Yet the domain name is
>     something akin to "ssdsolution ..." and protected by by the
>     registrars associated proxy.
> 
>     What happens if a brand owner is serially targeted with his
>     website stolen again and again,  abused to defraud consumers, the
>     company is small and paying @2500 each time for a UDRP is not an
>     option, nor appointing an attorney in the USA. Quite frankly such
>     a company could bankrupt itself defending itself with "due
>     processes". If they chose not to bankrupt themselves,  that does
>     not leave the issue of the victims being targeted. I have had
>     conversations with more than one such company.
> 
>     What happens if we have all the policies in place to ensure valid
>     registration details, but not enforced and a party is serially
>     using garbage details via a registrar to defraud victims?
> 
>     These are not free speech issues. This is something else again.
> 
>     Law enforcement asks for victims, but if victims are not in their
>     "connected" jurisdictions, they will not even look at it. In most
>     cases, there is no due process for victims since the crime is
>     international and losses too small, but devastating and livelihood
>     depriving for the victim. In yet other jurisdictions, law
>     enforcement is more concerned about their uniforms than cyber
>     fraud, considering it a civil issue. Tell that to somebody that
>     has lost their livelihood. But according to the stated logic, due
>     process must take place. That means a victim that is virtually
>     bankrupt must now hire and international lawyer in the
>     jurisdiction of the registrar - for what purpose? The registrar
>     will not recover the losses.
> 
>     The scenarios above are common and examples only limited by the
>     time people like have available. A legitimate party will register
>     one or two domains. It's not uncommon to find serial fraudsters
>     registering over 300 domains.
> 
>     Here's the irony. Some registers do not tolerate fraud and will
>     take action if given conclusive proof. Yet a certain registrar
>     upholding the EFF's view has become the go-to registrar with their
>     free proxy services where certain bad apples have been booted by
>     other registrars.
> 
>     We need to think about this carefully. In an ideal world I would
>     agree with the EFF, if law enforcement investigates each issue, if
>     legal assistance is available to all victims of domain based cyber
>     fraud. But then much of the world is not ideal. Not even in the
>     USA, much less in other parts of the world.
> 
>     Derek Smythe
>     Artists Against 419
>     http://www.aa419.org
> 
>     On 2017-11-05 08:43 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>>     Michele:
>>     The writing framed the views of two groups of our stakeholders,
>>     not at all representing my own.
>>
>>     CAS  
>>
>>
>>     ==============================
>>     /Carlton A Samuels/
>>     /Mobile: 876-818-1799 <tel:(876)%20818-1799>
>>     Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
>>     =============================
>>
>>     On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>>     <michele at blacknight.com <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Carlton
>>
>>          
>>
>>         Freedom of speech is **not** “inalienable” and it’s
>>         definitely not an absolute right.
>>
>>          
>>
>>         Personally I think it’s interesting that different groups
>>         want to discuss this, but unless they’re going to pay our
>>         legal fees I don’t see how any 3^rd party can force a
>>         registrar (or anyone else) to not take action when they’re
>>         being fined or worse.
>>
>>          
>>
>>         Regards
>>
>>          
>>
>>         Michele
>>
>>          
>>
>>         --
>>
>>         Mr Michele Neylon
>>
>>         Blacknight Solutions
>>
>>         Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>>
>>         https://www.blacknight.com
>>
>>         https://blacknight.blog /
>>
>>         http://ceo.hosting/
>>
>>         Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072 <tel:+353%2059%20918%203072>
>>
>>         Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <tel:+353%2059%20918%203090>
>>
>>         -------------------------------
>>
>>         Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside
>>         Business Park,Sleaty
>>
>>         Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265
>>
>>         ,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>>
>>         *From:
>>         *<registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>         <mailto:registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>>
>>         on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>>
>>         *Date: *Sunday 5 November 2017 at 17:17
>>         *To: *"registration-issues-wg at icann.org
>>         <mailto:registration-issues-wg at icann.org>"
>>         <registration-issues-wg at icann.org
>>         <mailto:registration-issues-wg at icann.org>>, Charla Shambley
>>         via CCT-Review <cct-review at icann.org
>>         <mailto:cct-review at icann.org>>
>>         *Subject: *[registration-issues-wg] Registrars as Censors
>>
>>          
>>
>>         Um, well, they can summarily act under [a] general
>>         provision[s] of the Terms of Service disapproving of things
>>         like incitement, antisocial behaviours and such.
>>
>>          
>>
>>         The NCUC's position tends to a blanket restraint on any
>>         action by the registrar; the ToS may not be utilised for
>>         such actions, especially if it results - or tends to result
>>         - in decisions pertaining [web] content.
>>
>>          
>>
>>         The EFF's position is a little more nuanced: 
>>
>>         it is worried about lack of due process and accountability
>>         in the first instance and the incursion of certain
>>         inalienable rights, like freedom of speech. So they promote
>>         a process that they feel would make the action accountable
>>
>>          
>>
>>         https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/eff-icanns-registrars-dont-pick-censors-pen<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/eff-icanns-registrars-dont-pick-censors-pen>
>>
>>          
>>
>>          
>>
>>         -Carlton
>>
>>
>>         ==============================
>>         /Carlton A Samuels/
>>         /Mobile: 876-818-1799 <tel:%28876%29%20818-1799>
>>         Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
>>         =============================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     registration-issues-wg mailing list
>>     registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>     <mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     registration-issues-wg mailing list
>     registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>     <mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>
> 
> 


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list