Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Use of our internet must be guarded yet not censored.
e

"John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:

> From: "Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>
> >
> > At this point, the only information that PIR's database has regarding
> > <hizbollah.org> is that Network Solutions is the sponsoring registrar for
> > the domain, as well as domain creation/update/expiration information and
> > nameserver information -- similar to .COM & .NET today.
> >
> > Upon transition to a thick registry, the contact information will be stored
> > in PIR's databases, but the "ownership" of this information remains that of
> > the sponsoring registrar (like today).
>
> I understand the point, but the "ownership" concept is not going to help PIR.
>
> Did you notice that the Iraq Satellite Television Channel happened to lose
> their domain name at iraqtv.ws this week, and that somehow the domain name
> has been rendered unregistrable in the .ws TLD?  There is a reason for that.
> Did you notice that the Iraqi government domain name uruklink.net is no
> longer registered through Register.com.  There is a reason for that, too.
>
> My question was about "knowledge", not "ownership".   When you are getting
> paid for supplying technical support services, what matters is whether you
> know to whom those services are being rendered.  Right now, PIR can deny
> knowledge that it is being paid for supplying services ultimately rendered to
> Hezbollah, an OFAC-designated organization.  When the "thick" transition is
> made, they lose that deniability.
>
> I'll give you an example that perhaps you can relate to.  The technical
> contact for the .iq top-level domain is in jail in Texas for, among other
> allegations, sending computer parts to Malta.  Is it illegal to send computer
> parts to Malta?  Nope.  But the US government alleges that those parts were
> trans-shipped, with his knowledge, to destinations in Syria and Libya.
>
> What matters is what you know.  The fact that Verisign is the primary
> contractor to Hezbollah in the case of hizbollah.org doesn't get the registry
> off the hook once they know that it is *their* servers which are providing
> the authoritative answer for queries seeking hizbollah.org, thus rendering
> tangible technical support to an OFAC-designated terrorist organization in
> contravention of US law.  Does US law rule the internet?  Nope.  Does it rule
> where PIR is, and more importantly, where PIR's directors, management, and
> employees are?  It surely does.
>
> OFAC compliance can be automated, thanks to data files available from the US
> Treasury Department and third-party vendors.  There is no "oh, gee, but we
> have a lot of customers" excuse for violating OFAC regulations, and providing
> technical support on a commercial basis to OFAC designated organizations is
> not some kind of free speech issue.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html