Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do

[Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>]

Yes, I'm familiar with the details. NSI did not initiate the attempt, but was complicit because of
its biased DRP and, more to the point, because tried behave as the authoritative ultimate
"switch-puller." Thus, if allowed to proceed, NSI clearly would have held final responsibility for
the harm to Juno's e-mail users. NSI's officers continue to argue their actions were the correct
ones to take. (The excuse is that this what their lawyers advised them to do.)

But would you agree, Milton, for the benefit of those who were engaged in the relevant discussion
earlier in this thread, with the following proposition? 

Given that NSI's own policies nearly eventuated such an egregious state of affairs, contemplation of
how to avoid other "alarmist" hypotheticals is not entirely out of line.

Craig Simon


Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> Excuse me, Craig, but you've got one little piece of this story wrong.
> It was a lawsuit by the owner of a trademark for electric lighting that threatened to shut down the
> e-mail service provider. NSI was complicit in this because of its abysmal DRP, but it adopted the DRP
> to shield itself against trademark owners. Let there be no doubt about where the responsibility lies.
> 
> Craig Simon wrote:
> 
> > The legacy of the Juno issue has a lot of resonance for some people. The aol.com example may seem
> > far-fetched and even ludicrous, but given a post-Juno context in which NSI continues to justify its
> > (fortunately failed) attempt to take down the DNS service of a very large and well established e-mail
> > provider, other "alarmist" hypotheticals deserve consideration.
> >
> > Craig Simon
> >
> 
> --
> m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
> syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/