Subject: Re: [hrpc] Censorship

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:08:49 -0700

Hi Alexandre,

>I think the organisations in charge should gracefully remove .su from
>DNS and provide an alternative like .aspiring-country to all those who
>try to become such.  Also consider the term 'Union State' used between
>Bel-Rus.

There is a news article about .io: 
http://r.elandsys.com/r/78117  Neither of the two DNS identifiers are 
the work of the I*TF.  Why should this IRTF group be part of the 
discussion space?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 17:58:59 +0100

Le 21/03/2022 à 17:08, S Moonesamy a écrit :
> There is a news article about .io: http://r.elandsys.com/r/78117 
> Neither of the two DNS identifiers are the work of the I*TF.  Why 
> should this IRTF group be part of the discussion space?

I did not know the .io problem - thanks!

Can I suppose that the .io problem is not as accute because of the 
following reason: they are not at war.

Can I dare to think for a moment that it is not because there are many 
similar problems that they are not problems?

Is the potential solution to the problem of .io to remove .io and 
replace it by something else?  Or is the solution to give the .io to 
somebody else?

As for IRTF and .su:

Hmm, it might be that a research could be performed to understand the 
human rights implications of using a wrong (false) domain name .su - 
this '.su' represents nothing, a non existent object; but because 
nothing is really 'nothing', it can be said that it has been populated 
by some people who might want .su to actually mean something.  Maybe the 
space was free because of inattention and someoe occupied for cheap.  
And there lies a problem.  The domain is in use out of lack of 
knowledge.  A crispation already exists there in that use of .su.

Maybe it is too much away from what IRTF might be interested in doing.

In that case, I still wonder where else could this wrongness and 
possible evolution towards righteousness (migration, smooth for users, 
the humans) of .su could be discussed.  The idea would be to delete .su 
but migrate the websites to some other domain, such that the humans (end 
users) still access the content.

There are also aspects of the .fr (written in russian) domain that could 
be discussed as well about human rights and entitlements (.fr in russian 
text stands for Federation of Russia, but in latin characters it stands 
for France; this potential confusion, that nobody seems to do, might 
have some implications; it might be that new names should be proposed 
such as to balance a 'primacy' such as to not hurt anyone's feelings; 
were they to be called '.fra' for France and '.fedru' for Russia, or 
even '.rusfed' in their own language, then there would be no confusion 
problem; other solutions are possible; all these might have impacts on 
human rights.

Alex

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 10:42:37 +0100

> should this IRTF group be part of the discussion space?

Today I received an incident report in some conenctivity.  It comes from 
an .io email address.  But the report has nothing to do with the Indian 
Ocean area.

Not only there is disconnection at IP layer but there is disconnection 
in our semantic understanding of what .io should mean, in the first place.

At one  point one wonders what trust to put at all in these domain names 
such as .io and .su, and probably others.

Alex

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 04:37:09 -0700

Hi Alexandre,
At 09:58 AM 21-03-2022, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>Can I suppose that the .io problem is not as 
>accute because of the following reason: they are not at war.

A change request should not be dependent on 
whether the entities involved in the matter are at war.

>Can I dare to think for a moment that it is not 
>because there are many similar problems that they are not problems?

Yes.

>Is the potential solution to the problem of .io 
>to remove .io and replace it by something 
>else?  Or is the solution to give the .io to somebody else?

I have not given any thought to a solution as it 
would most likely be ill-informed.

>As for IRTF and .su:
>
>Hmm, it might be that a research could be 
>performed to understand the human rights 
>implications of using a wrong (false) domain 
>name .su - this '.su' represents nothing, a non 
>existent object; but because nothing is really 
>'nothing', it can be said that it has been 
>populated by some people who might want .su to 
>actually mean something.  Maybe the space was 
>free because of inattention and someoe occupied 
>for cheap.  And there lies a problem.  The 
>domain is in use out of lack of knowledge.  A 
>crispation already exists there in that use of .su.

The ccTLD must have some value to the 
persons/organizations who registered domain names 
under it or else they would not have registered those domain names.

>In that case, I still wonder where else could 
>this wrongness and possible evolution towards 
>righteousness (migration, smooth for users, the 
>humans) of .su could be discussed.  The idea 
>would be to delete .su but migrate the websites 
>to some other domain, such that the humans (end 

There was some discussion within ICANN about what 
to do about that ccTLD.  I haven't had time to keep track of the discussion.

>There are also aspects of the .fr (written in 
>russian) domain that could be discussed as well 
>about human rights and entitlements (.fr in 
>russian text stands for Federation of Russia, 
>but in latin characters it stands for France; 
>this potential confusion, that nobody seems to 
>do, might have some implications; it might be 
>that new names should be proposed such as to 
>balance a 'primacy' such as to not hurt anyone's 
>feelings; were they to be called '.fra' for 
>France and '.fedru' for Russia, or even 
>'.rusfed' in their own language, then there 
>would be no confusion problem; other solutions 
>are possible; all these might have impacts on human rights.

The above could be about universal acceptance or digital sovereignty.

At 02:42 AM 22-03-2022, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

>Today I received an incident report in some 
>conenctivity.  It comes from an .io email 
>address.Â  But the report has nothing to do with the Indian Ocean area.
>
>Not only there is disconnection at IP layer but 
>there is disconnection in our semantic 
>understanding of what .io should mean, in the first place.

It's an identifier which people use.  The meaning depends on branding.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 12:41:23 +0100

I will not be able to answer, not because I dont want to.

I will not discuss this privately, as I think it is more important.

Thank you for the message.

Alex

Le 22/03/2022 à 12:37, S Moonesamy a écrit :
> A change request should not be dependent on whether the entities 
> involved in the matter are at war.
>
>> Can I dare to think for a moment that it is not because there are 
>> many similar problems that they are not problems?
>
> Yes.
>
> I have not given any thought to a solution as it would most likely be 
> ill-informed.
>
>> As for IRTF and .su:
>>
>> nothing is really 'nothing', it can be said that it has been 
>> populated by some people who might want .su to actually mean 
>> something.  Maybe the space was free because of inattention and 
>> someoe occupied for cheap.  And there lies a problem.  The domain is 
>> in use out of lack of knowledge. A crispation already exists there in 
>> that use of .su.
>
> The ccTLD must have some value to the persons/organizations who 
> registered domain names under it or else they would not have 
> registered those domain names.
>
>> possible evolution towards righteousness (migration, smooth for 
>> users, the humans) of .su could be discussed.  The idea would be to 
>> delete .su but migrate the websites to some other domain, such that 
>> the humans (end users) still access the content.
>
> There was some discussion within ICANN about what to do about that 
> ccTLD.  I haven't had time to keep track of the discussion.
>
>> There are also aspects of the .fr (written in russian) domain that 
>> could be discussed as well about human rights and entitlements (.fr 
>> in russian text stands for Federation of Russia, but in latin 
>> characters it stands for France; this potential confusion, that 
>> nobody seems to do, might have some implications; it might be that 
>> new names should be proposed such as to balance a 'primacy' such as 
>> to not hurt anyone's feelings; were they to be called '.fra' for 
>> France and '.fedru' for Russia, or even '.rusfed' in their own 
>> language, then there would be no confusion problem; other solutions 
>> Today I received an incident report in some conenctivity.  It comes 
>> from an .io email address.Â  But the report has nothing to do with 
>> the Indian Ocean area.
>>
>> Not only there is disconnection at IP layer but there is 
>> disconnection in our semantic understanding of what .io should mean, 
>> in the first place.
>

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 13:02:26 +0100

I received clearance to post.

> registered those domain names.

In the case of .su, there is no value, and there is pure outlaw, to 
register it to start with.  The .su stands for Soviet Union, an entity 
which no longer exists.

In the case of .io, there is certainly value to persons or organisations 
to register domain names under it.  I can think of a webserver in an 
island in the Indian Ocean, for example.  The island exists, the Indian 
Ocean exists, so there is value  in a potential website .io.

> ccTLD.  I haven't had time to keep track of the discussion.

ICANN... yet another organisation to look  at for this topic, in 
addition to ISOC Internet Policy and IRTF HRPC.

Please, which ICANN email list?  Is it public for all?

> The above could be about universal acceptance or digital sovereignty.

Sounds reasonable.

But one would look at digital sovereignty to follow real-world 
sovereignty, to make the second follow the first.

For example, in the real world the sovereignty of France is not at 
competition to that of Federation of Russia.  That is the same in both 
languages.  So, in the digital world that should be expressed 
similarly.  But the current digital situation is that .fr wrtiten in 
Russian is different than .fr written in latin (I will not say which 
'primes' over another).  To improve the situation, there should be 
disambiguation.  In both ways of expressing the country name (digital 
and real), there should be no 'primacy'.   That disaminguation will show 
in great detail about how respect can be used, if I can say so (sorry if 
'respect' is too strong).

> It's an identifier which people use.  The meaning depends on branding.

Branding?  Internet is more than just brands and commerce, I think?

The identifier that people use is a reflection of more real-world concepts.

Alex

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 08:36:08 -0700

Hi Alex,
>Please, which ICANN email list?  Is it public for all?

There was a question (or comment) during a meeting with the ICANN 
Board.  The information about that meeting was publicly-accessible.

>competition to that of Federation of Russia.  That is the same in 
>both languages.  So, in the digital world that should be expressed 
>similarly  But the current digital situation is that .fr wrtiten in 
>disambiguation.  In both ways of expressing the country name 
>(digital and real), there should be no 'primacy'.   That 
>disaminguation will show in great detail about how respect can be 
>used, if I can say so (sorry if 'respect' is too strong).

I understood what you meant.

Yes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy