[Ncsg-discuss] PIR and Autistici/Inventati
Niels ten Oever
00001ded0bc22afd-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Mon Sep 7 14:41:13 EEST 2026
Hi all,
It is very sad to share the news that Autistici/Inventati is closing
down under the pressure:
https://keepitfree.ai/announcements/a/i-shuts-down-stay-human/
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.
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.
Best,
Niels
On 9/2/26 11:01, Kenechukwu Okekenta wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
> <http://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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <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/
>> <https://sabotmedia.noblogs.org/the-server-called-paranoia-
>> defend-autistici-inventati-before-september-25/>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Best,
>> > >>
>> > >> Niels
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > --
>> > Kathy Kleiman
>> > Past President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
>>
--
Niels ten Oever, PhD
Co-Principal Investigator - critical infrastructure lab - University of
Amsterdam
Assistant Professor - Department of European Studies - University of
Amsterdam
W: https://criticalinfralab.net
W: https://nielstenoever.net
PGP: 4254 ECD5 D4CF F6AF 8B91 0D9F EFAD 2E49 CC90 C10C
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list