<html class="apple-mail-supports-explicit-dark-mode"><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-width: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><font face="Arial">I do not see a human-rights conflict merely because a lawful measure is enforced against an entity formally designated under a counter-terrorism regime. </font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-width: normal; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-kerning: auto; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-feature-settings: normal; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-variation-settings: normal; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Human-rights concerns may arise where innocent third parties are affected, and those effects deserve consideration. But that is different from suggesting that the designated entity itself should be protected from the consequences of the measure, or that lawful enforcement should be delayed in order to preserve its operational capabilities</span></p><div><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-weight: bold; font-kerning: none;"><br></span></div></div><div dir="ltr">Carlos Vera </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">El sept 7, 2026, a la(s) 06:44, Niels ten Oever <00001ded0bc22afd-dmarc-request@listserv.syr.edu> escribió:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span>Hi all,</span><br><span></span><br><span>It is very sad to share the news that Autistici/Inventati is closing down under the pressure:</span><br><span></span><br><span>https://keepitfree.ai/announcements/a/i-shuts-down-stay-human/</span><br><span></span><br><span>ISOC, PIR and Identity Digital have not made a public statement yet about this (as far as I know), but I think that the optics that a Public Interest Registry prioritizes legal compliance over human rights is quite negative for the latter, and could set bad precedents.</span><br><span></span><br><span>I hope that everyone here who has influence and inroads with ISOC, PIR, and Identity Digital can bring it to their attention. I think it would look very good if we as NCSG could do a statement about it.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Best,</span><br><span></span><br><span>Niels</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>On 9/2/26 11:01, Kenechukwu Okekenta wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>I agree that the ability to seek clarifications on what happened and demand for possible review and/or corrections are acceptable safeguards, which may not be obtainable in many other jurisdictions.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Nonetheless, the issue may also have brought to limelight, the possible consequences of having a "blanket online terrorism attribution" for every resiliently dissenting voice.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I also agree that terrorism is real and should be given the attention it needs, but given the currently available details and events we have witnessed in recent past, it might be obvious that any legal framework, policy or directive that may have motivated this "blanket online terrorism attribution", may have been hastily done and didn't consider all the possible consequences of such directive.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Just as someone hinted, this may have come as a result of looking the other way, when sanctions against dissenting online voices targeted "our" perceived, "enemy".</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Therefore, I think it's important that we try not to fall for certain decisions out of mere emotions, but rather to pursue rationality, regardless of convenience. It would appear that at one point or another, we often get measured for, using the same cups we have used for others.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In any case, I look forward to a possible clarification, appeal and the decisions, that might follow.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>*Engr. Kenechukwu Okekenta fNSIG*</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>*IT **Project Coordinator, **Support Specialist, **Security Analyst,* *CDPO and Educator*</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>*LinkedIn <http://linkedin.com/in/kenechukwu-okekenta></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>*</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Wed, Sep 2, 2026, 07:25 Carlos Vera <000022318a8e4197-dmarc- request@listserv.syr.edu <mailto:000022318a8e4197-dmarc- request@listserv.syr.edu>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> I wonder whether we should also ask a different question: in which</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> other jurisdictions or institutional settings would a discussion</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> like this one be possible — and, more importantly, protected?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> Terrorism is real, and states necessarily have legal frameworks to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> confront it. Those frameworks inevitably create difficult tensions</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> when they reach Internet infrastructure: security, due process,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> proportionality, freedom of expression and continued access will not</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> always point in the same direction.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> Changing jurisdiction does not eliminate those tensions. The</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> relevant comparison should therefore not simply be which</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> jurisdiction exercises less power, but which systems provide</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> meaningful safeguards when that power is exercised: transparency,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> the ability to challenge the legal basis, independent review, appeal</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> and the possibility of correcting a decision.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> The fact that we can openly question what happened to autistici.org</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> <http://autistici.org>, examine OFAC’s legal basis and GL36, ask PIR</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> to explain the measure, and debate whether serverHold was actually</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> required does not establish that the decision was correct. But the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> possibility of having that discussion, and of challenging the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> decision through institutional and legal mechanisms, is itself an</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> important safeguard.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> I am not sure that the same discussion, with the same guarantees,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> would necessarily be possible in every alternative jurisdiction we</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> might consider.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> So the problem is therefore not jurisdiction alone, but how we</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> preserve effective counter-terrorism measures while ensuring that</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> their effects on global Internet infrastructure are legally</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> justified, reviewable and no broader than necessary.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> Carlos Vera</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> El sept 1, 2026, a la(s) 21:05, farzaneh badii <00001deb507b73c5-</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> dmarc-request@listserv.syr.edu <mailto:00001deb507b73c5-dmarc-</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> request@listserv.syr.edu>> escribió:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> This particular problem is primarily not about ICANN</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> jurisdiction. It has to do with the registry jurisdiction.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Diversifying registries jurisdiction would be a great solution.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> But lets say we need to change ICANN jurisdiction. where should it</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> go? The EU? They have a sanction regime that has now started</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> sanctioning individuals for their speech. They also have an anti-</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> terrorism regime.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Canada has its own sanctions regime. The UK, has one of the worst</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> sanction regimes with terrible terrorism laws that apply online</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> and have led to prosecution and prison. Australia also has a</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> sanction regime. Should ICANN be an international org?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> International orgs also have a sanction regime, for terrorism</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> specifically.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> When we warned against using terrorism framework to punish online</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> activities and diminish online existence, people didn’t mind it</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> because it was being used against the people they didn’t agree</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> with. When we said don’t use sanction framework for Internet</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> infrastructure it’s never proportional, people again didn’t mind</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> it and wanted to use it against the “enemy”.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Also in jurisdiction work stream 2 we worked hard to at least get</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> some OFAC licenses. Progress is slow but they are required to look</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> into obtaining an ofac license.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> The problem is our legal systems and jurisdictions “globally” .</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> The problem is terrorism framework and sanctions. This is why we</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> should speak up against using these frameworks that threaten</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> online presence, regardless of who is being deprived of access.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Registries based in the US and other countries have been</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> confiscating people’s domain names from sanctioned countries for</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> years. Registries in the US say domain name registrant should go</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> and get an ofac license. Everybody passes the ball onto somebody</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> else. There will be a surge of registration at CCTLD level.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> We weren’t successful at encouraging registries to receive ofac</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> licenses or appeal a ruling or discuss with ofac or help the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> domain name registrant with restoring access legally. Tech</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> companies usually don’t do that, except GutHub. But maybe this</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> will allow for alternative jurisdictions to become popular for</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> registering domains and maybe we should encourage domain</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> registration in multiple jurisdictions for resiliency.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> Farzaneh</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 9:32 PM Michael Karanicolas</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> <0000235aca298685-dmarc-request@listserv.syr.edu</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> <mailto:0000235aca298685-dmarc-request@listserv.syr.edu>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> I don't mean to open up any old wounds from folks who were</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> involved in</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> the jurisdiction debates in Workstream 2 (or earlier...), but</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> given</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> the directions things have been going in the U.S. it's honestly</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> irresponsible that they continue to wield this level of</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> influence over</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> the DNS, and that organizations like ICANN and PIR haven't</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> done more</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> to hedge against the inevitable abuses that are likely coming</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> down the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> pike.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 5:11 PM Kathy Kleiman</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> <00001e85639e37fc-dmarc-request@listserv.syr.edu</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> <mailto:00001e85639e37fc-dmarc-request@listserv.syr.edu>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> ></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > Hi Niels and All,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> ></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > I checked with PIR and learned the following: This was an</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> instance</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > where the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), a</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> financial</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > enforcement agency of the US Department of the Treasury</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> specifically put</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > these specific domain names on the “Specially Designated</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> National” or</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > “SDN” list. The action was taken by Identity Digital</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> (handling Registry</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > Service Provider processes), which is legally required to</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> monitor the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > SDN list for domains and if there’s a direct match, suspend</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> the name to</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > comply with US OFAC obligations as a service provider. As</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> US-based</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > companies, both ID and PIR are bound to follow US law.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> ></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > OFAC maintains an appeals process for someone seeking to get</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> their name</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > removed from the list:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > https://ofac.treasury.gov/specially-designated-nationals-</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> list-sdn-list/filing-a-petition-for-removal-from-an-ofac-list</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> <https://ofac.treasury.gov/specially-designated-nationals-</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> list-sdn-list/filing-a-petition-for-removal-from-an-ofac-list>.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > If the domain names get removed from the SDN list, the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> suspensions can</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > be lifted.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> ></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > -------------------------</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> ></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > Best regards, Kathy</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> ></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > ></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > > On 8/28/2026 11:42 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >> Hi all,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >> Who is currently our representative on the PIR board? It</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> is quite</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >> unsettling that PIR has taken away the .org registration</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> from an</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >> Italian NGO following Trump government's executive order.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >> https://sabotmedia.noblogs.org/the-server-called-</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> paranoia-defend-autistici-inventati-before-september-25/</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> <https://sabotmedia.noblogs.org/the-server-called-paranoia-</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> defend-autistici-inventati-before-september-25/></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >> Best,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >> Niels</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > >></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > --</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > Kathy Kleiman</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> > Past President, Domain Name Rights Coalition</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><span></span><br><span>-- </span><br><span>Niels ten Oever, PhD</span><br><span>Co-Principal Investigator - critical infrastructure lab - University of Amsterdam</span><br><span>Assistant Professor - Department of European Studies - University of Amsterdam</span><br><span></span><br><span>W: https://criticalinfralab.net</span><br><span>W: https://nielstenoever.net</span><br><span>PGP: 4254 ECD5 D4CF F6AF 8B91 0D9F EFAD 2E49 CC90 C10C</span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>