[Ncsg-discuss] PIR and Autistici/Inventati

Wed Sep 2 12:01:03 EEST 2026

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.

Nonetheless, the issue may also have brought to limelight, the possible
consequences of having a "blanket online terrorism attribution" for every
resiliently dissenting voice.

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.

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".

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.

In any case, I look forward to a possible clarification, appeal and the
decisions, that might follow.

*Engr. Kenechukwu Okekenta fNSIG*
*IT **Project Coordinator, **Support Specialist, **Security Analyst,* *CDPO
and Educator*

*LinkedIn <http://linkedin.com/in/kenechukwu-okekenta>*

On Wed, Sep 2, 2026, 07:25 Carlos Vera <
000022318a8e4197-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:

> I wonder whether we should also ask a different question: in which other
> jurisdictions or institutional settings would a discussion like this one be
> possible — and, more importantly, protected?
>
>
> Terrorism is real, and states necessarily have legal frameworks to
> confront it. Those frameworks inevitably create difficult tensions when
> they reach Internet infrastructure: security, due process, proportionality,
> freedom of expression and continued access will not always point in the
> same direction.
>
>
> Changing jurisdiction does not eliminate those tensions. The relevant
> comparison should therefore not simply be which jurisdiction exercises less
> power, but which systems provide meaningful safeguards when that power is
> exercised: transparency, the ability to challenge the legal basis,
> independent review, appeal and the possibility of correcting a decision.
>
>
> The fact that we can openly question what happened to autistici.org,
> examine OFAC’s legal basis and GL36, ask PIR to explain the measure, and
> debate whether serverHold was actually required does not establish that the
> decision was correct. But the possibility of having that discussion, and of
> challenging the decision through institutional and legal mechanisms, is
> itself an important safeguard.
>
>
> I am not sure that the same discussion, with the same guarantees, would
> necessarily be possible in every alternative jurisdiction we might consider.
>
>
> So the problem is therefore not jurisdiction alone, but how we preserve
> effective counter-terrorism measures while ensuring that their effects on
> global Internet infrastructure are legally justified, reviewable and no
> broader than necessary.
>
> Carlos Vera
>
> El sept 1, 2026, a la(s) 21:05, farzaneh badii <
> 00001deb507b73c5-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> escribió:
>
> 
> This particular  problem is primarily not about ICANN jurisdiction. It has
> to do with the registry jurisdiction. Diversifying registries jurisdiction
> would be a great solution.
>
> But lets say we need to change ICANN jurisdiction. where should it go? The
> EU? They have a sanction regime that has now started sanctioning
> individuals for their speech. They also have an anti-terrorism regime.
> Canada has its own sanctions regime. The UK, has one of the worst sanction
> regimes with terrible terrorism laws that apply online and have led to
> prosecution and prison. Australia also has a sanction regime. Should ICANN
> be an international org? International orgs also have a sanction regime,
> for terrorism specifically.
>
> When we warned against using terrorism framework to punish online
> activities and diminish online existence, people didn’t mind it because it
> was being used against the people they didn’t agree with. When we said
> don’t use sanction framework for Internet infrastructure it’s never
> proportional, people again didn’t mind it and wanted to use it against the
> “enemy”.
>
> Also in jurisdiction work stream 2 we worked hard to at least get some
> OFAC licenses. Progress is slow but they are required to look into
> obtaining an ofac license.
>
> The problem is our legal systems and jurisdictions “globally” . The
> problem is terrorism framework and sanctions. This is why we should speak
> up against using these frameworks that threaten online presence, regardless
> of who is being deprived of access.
>
> Registries based in the US and other countries have been confiscating
> people’s domain names from sanctioned countries for years. Registries in
> the US  say domain name registrant should go and get an ofac license.
> Everybody passes the ball onto somebody else. There will be a surge of
> registration at CCTLD level.
>
> We weren’t successful at encouraging registries to receive ofac licenses
> or appeal a ruling or discuss with ofac or help the domain name registrant
> with restoring access legally. Tech companies usually don’t do that, except
> GutHub. But maybe this will allow for alternative jurisdictions to become
> popular for registering domains and maybe we should encourage domain
> registration in multiple jurisdictions for resiliency.
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 9:32 PM Michael Karanicolas <
> 0000235aca298685-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> I don't mean to open up any old wounds from folks who were involved in
>> the jurisdiction debates in Workstream 2 (or earlier...), but given
>> the directions things have been going in the U.S. it's honestly
>> irresponsible that they continue to wield this level of influence over
>> the DNS, and that organizations like ICANN and PIR haven't done more
>> to hedge against the inevitable abuses that are likely coming down the
>> pike.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 5:11 PM Kathy Kleiman
>> <00001e85639e37fc-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Niels and All,
>> >
>> > I checked with PIR and learned the following:  This was an instance
>> > where the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), a financial
>> > enforcement agency of the US Department of the Treasury specifically put
>> > these specific domain names on the “Specially Designated National” or
>> > “SDN” list. The action was taken by Identity Digital (handling Registry
>> > Service Provider processes), which is legally required to monitor the
>> > SDN list for domains and if there’s a direct match, suspend the name to
>> > comply with US OFAC obligations as a service provider. As US-based
>> > companies, both ID and PIR are bound to follow US law.
>> >
>> > OFAC maintains an appeals process for someone seeking to get their name
>> > removed from the list:
>> >
>> https://ofac.treasury.gov/specially-designated-nationals-list-sdn-list/filing-a-petition-for-removal-from-an-ofac-list
>> .
>> > If the domain names get removed from the SDN list, the suspensions can
>> > be lifted.
>> >
>> > -------------------------
>> >
>> > Best regards, Kathy
>> >
>> > >
>> > > On 8/28/2026 11:42 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> > >> Hi all,
>> > >>
>> > >> Who is currently our representative on the PIR board? It is quite
>> > >> unsettling that PIR has taken away the .org registration from an
>> > >> Italian NGO following Trump government's executive order.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> https://sabotmedia.noblogs.org/the-server-called-paranoia-defend-autistici-inventati-before-september-25/
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Best,
>> > >>
>> > >> Niels
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > --
>> > Kathy Kleiman
>> > Past President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20260902/b943fc5a/attachment-0001.htm>