ICANN Refuses to Accredit Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Due to His ‘Background’

https://torrentfreak.com/icann-refuses-to-accredit-pirate-bay-founder-peter-sunde-due-to-his-background-210303/

by input_sh • 5 years ago

743 249 5 years ago

tzfld2• 5 years ago

This is more and more like China's social credit system.

every social system has the concept of people that are not the right sort, and that are just not allowed to be part of the prestigious organizations because of some issue.

The problem with China's social credit system is that it is a codification and automation of the prejudices of the system designed to maintain power.

This example here is just the old fashioned display of the prejudices of the organization.

newsclues2• 5 years ago

The issue isn’t that there is a system for social accountability but that the system is a black box.

Accountability must be open.

Hnrobert423• 5 years ago

What do you mean “more and more”? Are there other examples of this from ICANN?

patrickaljord• 5 years ago

There's this one but one cared because he was a nazi. Now they're going against pirates. Who knows who's next.

https://www.propublica.org/article/service-provider-boots-ha...

tzfld2• 5 years ago

Not just ICANN, but like deplatformings for off-platform activities, for example.

high_derivative• 5 years ago

The main difference to me seems that some in the West are vehemently denying anything is even happening.

'There is no cancel culture. You are just being held accountable. People just don't like you. You have no right to social media. Make your own app/cloud/host..'

input_sh3• 5 years ago

Direct link to a Twitter thread from him: https://twitter.com/brokep/status/1364950213790740481

lucb1e3• 5 years ago

Most contentful/relevant tweets I think:

After the first final review of our application, ICANN made a background check of everyone involved in the application (we're a team). My first contacts with ICANN I've been very open with who I am - I mentioned they should google me. My background is.. let's say different. [...]
After the background check I get a reply that I've "checked the wrong boxes" on parts of the application. There's some boxes saying: (paraphrasing) "have anyone in the team being convicted of fraud or similar in the past 10 years".
Noone in the team has been convicted of that. Nor murder, manslaughter, theft, breaking & entering, or anything else. I was involved in a case of aiding with copyright infringement from 2005-2006. That's 15+ years ago. And not fraud or similar. [...]
However, @ICANN is of another opinion. After spending over half a year to review the application (with a bi-weekly email stating that the delay is normal, nothing to be concerned about), they decided to deny the application since "the wrong box was ticked".

What the heck: "You convicted for fraud in the past 10 years?" "Nope." "You liar, you were convicted in 2006!"

Someone needs to tell the ICANN what year it is.

Also, they didn't notice before? Not like internet people should have never heard of his name.

To be honest, the next thing he writes (being actively wanted by interpol) does sound a bit fishy, I can see why that would make a bureaucrat on the other end of the line a bit less happy to comply. Imagine someone calls up your org and you find she (or he) is wanted in multiple countries, well, I can sort of see the point there, regardless of whether it's just in this particular case.

(First tweet starting at https://twitter.com/brokep/status/1364950233382273031 )

_2d304• 5 years ago

Also, they didn't notice before? Not like internet people should have never heard of his name.

One of the craziest things about the internet to me is that everyone treats their experience of “the internet” as THE experience of “THE internet” like it’s one singular conception that we all enjoy. But, the internet is huge and diverse and full of distinct niches such that no two “internets” (as conceived of as an individual’s experience of it) are almost ever close to the same. The idea that surely the good people at ICANN would know this guy (I certainly didn’t) is so striking to me as derivative of this.

svrtknst• 5 years ago

What the heck: "You convicted for fraud in the past 10 years?" "Nope." "You liar, you were convicted in 2006!"

Also, they seemed to agree that it wasn't fraud or similar.

Also also, Sunde isn't wanted by Interpol nor was he during the application process. He was wanted in 2012, prior to his prison stint.

GoblinSlayer17• 5 years ago

I asked quite a few times very pragmatic questions: When am I allowed to be a member? Their answer: Can't say. So what's the problem with me being a member? Their answer: I could break the agreement!
Many of the people working at ICANN are lawyers. ICANN is a very IP heavy organisation (domains are trademark territory) which means a lot of people has previously worked in other IP organisations such as movie and music studios. They're all located in Los Angeles, a small world.

saalweachter• 5 years ago

The raid on TPB was in 2006. The conviction was in 2009, the sentencing in 2010, and the sentence was served in 2014. Depending on when, exactly, in 2019 the application was submitted, it may have been just inside 10 years since the conviction.

That's not to get into whether the application should have been denied or blah blah blah, just want to throw out that shifting from when the conviction was to when the raid happened is somewhat disingenuous.

boogies• 5 years ago

And a shorter update thread: https://nitter.dark.fail/i/status/1366522131811627009

notRobot• 5 years ago

They basically admitted that they don’t like me. They’ve banned me for nothing else than my political views. This is typical discrimination. Considering I have no one to appeal to except them, it’s concerning, since they control the actual fucking center of the internet.

Next-level deplatforming. From a non-profit. That essential controls the internet. Yay.

worldofmatthew6• 5 years ago

Time for anti-trust lawsuits.

joncrane• 5 years ago

In what jurisdiction(s)?

mr_toad• 5 years ago

Doesn’t work when the monopoly is created by the government.

threatofrain• 5 years ago

[deleted]

progre3• 5 years ago

He is not wanted by interpol as he was arrested in 2014 and has served his time in Swedish prison. He was asked if he was convicted of fraud which he was not.

dvdplm• 5 years ago

he concealed criminal history.

But he didn't. The box on the form said "Have you been convicted for fraud?". He hasn't, so he didn't check the box.

Maybe the ICANN-we-dont-want-to-police-the-internet-but-then-we-do-it-anyway-people need more boxes on their forms.

Shoue• 5 years ago

Did you read the whole article?

“Not only that, but they’re also upset I was wanted by Interpol.”

Note the use of "was" here.

I got some sort of semi-excuse regarding their claim that I lied on my application. They also said that they agreed it wasn’t fraud or similar really. So both of the points they made regarding the denial were not really the reason,” Sunde clarifies.

This sounds different from "concealing criminal history".

Cthulhu_• 5 years ago

Guilty until proven innocent, you mean?

Technically you're not a criminal until convicted, only suspected. Likewise, you're not a criminal if you've served your time. The US culture of "ex cons" is shameful.

LocalH• 5 years ago

OT: I really hate seeing this in threads. Perhaps HN would be better served by a "disavow" function that would remove the username from the post? A person could edit out any potentially identifying information and disavow the post, leaving the content for context.

op00to• 5 years ago

How is not being able to be a domain registrar deplatforming?

slickrick216• 5 years ago

Just be your own registrar....... oh.

thatguy0900• 5 years ago

How is it not deplatforming when you campaign to get registrars to deplatform people and then also say they can't be a registrar themselves

gadders• 5 years ago

No way, man. This isn't cancel culture. This is just a non-profit exercising their rights. If he doesn't like it, all he has to do is create his own internet and a procedure for assigning DNS names and IP addresses and then get the whole world to switch over to it. /s

zpeti• 5 years ago

Exactly. It's a free market. Come on.

yunesj• 5 years ago

Or use one of the many alternative DNS that the market already created to solve this problem?

Continuously fixing ICANN’s decisions keeps alternatives from catching on.

armada651• 5 years ago

When you're a state-sponsored monopoly the rules are a bit different whether you're a private entity or not. So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

(I know ICANN is not currently being sponsored by the US government anymore, but they were given their monopoly that way)

Accujack• 5 years ago

all he has to do is create his own internet and a procedure for assigning DNS names and IP addresses

Or, y'know, just set up a copy of the DNS system using the existing software and standards for the existing Internet, but using different root servers.

DNS is well documented and open source for the most part, so it's not as if ICANN's control of the root servers means they can't be bypassed.

donmcronald• 5 years ago

Next-level deplatforming. From a non-profit. That essential controls the internet. Yay.

And it’s pretty rich coming from ICANN after they eliminated .org price caps (coincidentally) before their associates tried to usurp the registry for private equity interests.

It’s almost funny to see these multi billion dollar grifters disparaging someone for theft (copyright infringement).

amelius• 5 years ago

I wonder what a decentralized version of DNS would look like.

bitxbitxbitcoin• 5 years ago

Consider checking out HNS.[0]

[0] https://www.handshake.org

GoblinSlayer17• 5 years ago

That's tor.

willhinsa3• 5 years ago

one that comes to mind is urbit.org :)

jbluepolarbear3• 5 years ago

I don’t see the problem. He has shown over many years that he isn’t someone to be trusted with this type of accreditation. His past convictions aside, he has shown that breaking the rules is his normalcy. He is still active with many members that still coordinate with illegal activities. Yes ICANN has too much power, but I understand and respect their rejecting Sunde.

kyboren• 5 years ago

He has shown over many years that he isn’t someone to be trusted with this type of accreditation. His past convictions aside, he has shown that breaking the rules is his normalcy.

Is the URL bar lying to me? Am I actually on Bootlicker News, where hackers are not to be trusted, overly-powerful and unaccountable institutions get "understand[ing] and respect", and rulebreaking is grounds for excommunication?

You don't see the problem because you are the problem.

RHSeeger• 5 years ago

I agree with the idea that ICANN seems to be in a reasonable way. They are based on the idea of control over companies/groups that MUST work by an agreed upon set of rules if the system is to work. Peter has proven over the years that he is comfortable breaking whatever rules he decides to. Choosing not to work with someone with that mindset seems reasonable for ICANN.

However, I do think they should come out with a clear, public statement of why those chose not to work with him.

On a tangent... I am really uncomfortable with the fact that your comment was downvoted (enough to be noticeable). I get that people may disagree with the opinion you are expressing with it, but I was under the impression that downvotes on HN are supposed to be for comments that are off topic / do not move the conversation forward / inappropriate / etc. Your comment very clearly does not fall afoul of those rules; it's an opinion to be discussed.

c7DJTLrn• 5 years ago

Never heard of a non-profit that takes bribes.

sleepyhead• 5 years ago

“Not only that, but they’re also upset I was wanted by Interpol.”

Deplatforming?

progre3• 5 years ago

https://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accreditation-qualif...

I doubt that every individual connected to these organizations have a spot free reputation, so ICANN is really putting themselves in a weird position by singling out Sunde.

newsclues2• 5 years ago

He denies that assumption in the Twitter thread

notahacker6• 5 years ago

I suspect not many of those other registrars are run by people able to use the line "they were also unhappy I was wanted by Interpol"...

chmod775• 5 years ago

It's weird to hold that against someone though. Interpol is not judiciary. It's not even proper part of any executive.

ClumsyPilot7• 5 years ago

Guilty untill proven innocent?

veeti• 5 years ago

They are a private organization and have a right to choose who to do business with. /s

4cao2• 5 years ago

Over the phone, ICANN explained that the matter was discussed internally. This unnamed group of people concluded that the organization is ‘not comfortable’ doing business with him.

It's the height of arrogance that they didn't even feel the need to come up with any better excuse, just this. And of course:

ICANN will also keep the registration fee

Hnrobert423• 5 years ago

Well, be careful. This is according to Sunde. We don’t know what they said or for that matter, if IVANN even called him.

boomboomsubban6• 5 years ago

Even without the particularly damming phone call, the ICANN looks fairly terrible in this exchange.

4cao2• 5 years ago

ICANN were asked to comment on the story but chose not to do so. If they have anything to say, they are free to issue a statement anytime. Meanwhile, what we know so far, together with their lack of response, should be more than enough to have an opinion about the whole situation.

PostThisTooFast• 5 years ago

ICANN't is a corrupt scam, and everyone who follows Internet issues knows it.

They're continually coming up with new rip-offs to get people or organizations to apply for and then keep the astronomical fee after rejecting the application. Registrars, TLD owners...

Oh yeah, the "unlimited" TLD scam was one of the most offensive. They made it look like they were finally going to do the right thing and get rid of canned TLDs... but nope.

ICANN should be abolished. What should replace it? I don't know.

roenxi• 5 years ago

Although interesting, this is overshadowed by the growing politicisation of the internet.

ICANN seems to have a representative multi-government structure that is robust against any particular government having unreasonable influence. If a few Sundes get crushed in the gears so be it.

The US tech giants are beholden to themselves and control a scary fraction of the internet's infrastructure. They are starting to flex their muscles in regard to what should and should not appear on the internet. As far as political threats go, that is where they will materialise. Or in governments copying China's strategy for engaging with technology.

TrispusAttucks• 5 years ago

Just because some other internet giant is screwing free speech harder doesn't make this any less wrong.

Battles can be fought on multiple fronts if necessary.

This isn't the first corruption coming from ICANN.

fredgrott• 5 years ago

it's not FREE SPEECH, it's FREE POLITICAL SPEECH which is in fact an oxymoron as that cannot ever exist in an efficient society even if we want it to

worldofmatthew6• 5 years ago

Corruption from ICANN is 100x worse than big tech. ICANN can just tell DNS servers not to route anything to do with you and threaten others to do the same.

Mauricebranagh6• 5 years ago

cough Is this the same ICANT that we all know and love :-)

Mauricebranagh6• 5 years ago

Sorry forgot the <sarcasm> tag

mlthoughts20186• 5 years ago

Why do you believe ICANN’s multi-government structure is somehow robust against any one government or small consortium of governments having too much power?

narag• 5 years ago

The strategy is different, and clear though. First monopolize contents, then censor. It seemed impossible to do in the web when it bloomed. Compared with tv, it was a difficult beast to tame. But free resources, convenience and having all your contacts captive work as a charm.

cinntaile• 5 years ago

I really doubt it has anything to do with thepiratebay, instead it's very likely due to his current project njal.la that provides anonymous domain names.

Invictus0• 5 years ago

Can't he sue? Surely their excuse will not hold up in court.

worldofmatthew6• 5 years ago

I think a anti-trust one to break up ICANN would be good.

Mauricebranagh6• 5 years ago

You want the ITU to run the domain system then - there are more than a few ITU members who would love that

childintime• 5 years ago

Registration fees are sure to go up, to pay for wanting to be the center of the internet.

afarrell3• 5 years ago

Open question for HN: When evaluating how much to trust a person in a business relationship, when is it wise it to consider

A. The person's past actions

B. The intent behind those actions

C. What they say now about those past actions

globular-toast• 5 years ago

Irrelevant question. This isn't about private business relationships, it's about a non-profit organisation entrusted with sole authority over public infrastructure.

ben_w• 5 years ago

And this is an important distinction because?

He’s been denied accreditation for his business to resell certain domains, not kicked off the internet.

Would it not be reasonable for, e.g. a publicly owned national electricity grid to refuse to accredit a new energy business which is run by someone who previously published “how to circumvent your electricity meter”? I don’t even know if such a thing would be illegal to publish, but even if it isn’t illegal, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for accreditation to be refused.

boomboomsubban6• 5 years ago

When you're a private enterprise you're free to do as you wish. When you control basic necessary infrastructure, you need to set and abide by any limits based on such things.

Mauricebranagh6• 5 years ago

Not normally there is the "fit and proper persons" test for company directors.

mlthoughts20186• 5 years ago

The question is asking when is it wise to (privately) do any of those particular actions.

ThePadawan• 5 years ago

If you're conducting a business relationship, why are you talking about trust in the first place?

Contracts are written and signed to ensure that trust isn't necessary, because the contracts can be enforced.

Mindwipe• 5 years ago

Enforcing contracts is expensive, and if someone obtains a significant amount of goods and services the money may not be recoverable even if there's a contractual ability to do so (as it doesn't exist), people may simply go on the run, people may engage in outright fraud.

Trust is vital in a business relationship. Contracts are a useful backup against a legitimate body, but they are not much use against someone who has literally a proven track record of going on the run from law enforcement.

mrfredward• 5 years ago

Contracts are sometimes a useful deterrent, because going to court sucks and can cost you a lot of money. They're also not a replacement for trust, because going to court sucks and can cost a lot of money.

alpaca128• 5 years ago

If your last 3 orders of Amazon didn't arrive and you had to sue them to get the money back, will you order there again or will you first try somewhere else?

Trust may not be necessary on paper but it is a huge competitive advantage, and a strong distrust is a total dealbreaker for most potential business partners.

cjg• 5 years ago

The contract is mostly there so that it's clear what each party is trusting the other to do.

Enforcing a contract is often not worthwhile.

afarrell3• 5 years ago

If you're conducting a business relationship, why are you talking about trust in the first place?

Please don't downvote /u/ThePadawan for this. It is an important foundational question. It is a hard question to answer in the same way that "If you're forging steel, why are you talking about iron crystal structures in the first place?" is a hard question to answer.

I'd be keen to read an answer from someone more articulate than I.

ClumsyPilot7• 5 years ago

Lets follow this logic - are mobile phone providers free to deny service to people that critisize them publically for traking their movemwnts and selling data? Can they collate a blocklist of people they don't like and make sure you get no service anywhere?

Can Banks, insurance firms, water and electricity companies do the same?

Can they phone up your internet provider and offer to pay them twice whatever you pay just to terminate you internet connection? Doesn't the internet provider have the right to choose whatever is best deal for them?

You can either have personal libery or corporate liberty, not both

notahacker6• 5 years ago

Let's follow the logic the other way: does someone with multiple fraud convictions have an inalienable right to a merchant account and a massive line of credit? Perhaps, in the interests of personal liberty, hospitals should be obliged to grant witch doctors and those guilty of gross medical malpractice a salary and the right to use their operating theatre?

Freedom to act and freedom not to contract sometimes conflict, and contrary to some people's beliefs, it is possible to assess things on a case by case basis. In this case, being an ICANN-accredited registrar doesn't seem to obviously be an fundamental right, and convictions for IP-related crimes doesn't seem like particularly unreasonable grounds for not giving someone a rare level of privilege in the IP-registration business.

swayvil• 5 years ago

What's popular (dictated by the powers that be, the corporations etc, via marketing etc) is justified by calling it "right". And everything else is justified by calling it "free".

That sums the present conversation I think.

cute_boi• 5 years ago

wow what a shame? Controlling the internet just because one person has a different political view? This might be reason why Domain Name price is sky rocketing :/

withinboredom2• 5 years ago

Last I checked, ICANN fees are still less than a buck per year. It's the registrars that are increasing the price.

dgudkov• 5 years ago

I guess every public internet policy should now include a clause such as "We reserve the right to not do any business with you if we don't like you, regardless of any other provision of the policy".

At least, it will be honest.

PS. Variations may include: "...if we don't like you OR we don't like anyone you like...".

buro9• 5 years ago

That's already in most policies without qualifying it's because they don't like you.

Here's an example:

We also reserve the right to modify or discontinue the Service at any time (including, without limitation, by limiting or discontinuing certain features of the Service) without notice to you. We will have no liability whatsoever on account of any change to the Service or any suspension or termination of your access to or use of the Service

The right is reserved, no need to give any reason.

toyg6• 5 years ago

Sunde understands the value of propaganda, so it's fairly obvious he expected this outcome. He wanted to highlight the undemocratic and corrupt nature of one of the most critical parts of our global infrastructure, and he did it.

Ironically, this was a better proof of transparency than what most "problematic" people would subject themselves to. If any vanilla oligarch wanted to be in those circles, he would just pay some squeaky-clean individual to be his stooge, and then make it known, after registration, who the real power is. Sunde could have configured himself as a freelance consultant to his friends, and he would not have appeared on any radar. This would have made his business work, but it would not have advanced the perennial conversation about ICANN's original sins, which have become more and more untolerable with the years.

ICANN were pretty stupid to just veto his admission. That's not how you deal with institutional critics. They could have simply brought him in, then informally and formally vetoed anything he wanted to do. They have experience with people who tried to blow up things "from inside" in the past, so clearly they've developed countermeasures ready for that scenario. Or they could have given him something, enough to behold him, so he'd have an incentive to stay in the tent and piss outside rather than the other way around.

This attitude proved Sunde is fundamentally right on the subject matter, like him or not as a person.

nabla9• 5 years ago

I have no ill will against Sunde, I have used Piratebay from the start.

But denying application because you have a conviction is completely fair and expected. They have that box in the application for reason.

Sunde choose pirate life. Crying about how you can't be respected businessman and convicted pirate is just pathetic.

pantalaimon• 5 years ago

Any conviction in any country?

FpUser4• 5 years ago

"But denying application because you have a conviction is completely fair and expected. They have that box in the application for reason."

Nope. Whatever he did he had paid for it. With the very rare exceptions those checkboxes should not be allowed at all.

GoblinSlayer17• 5 years ago

Then broaden rules to disrespect people and you're set.

bborud3• 5 years ago

I'd have to agree. If you are going to become a trusted party in a context where people have to trust that you are willing to follow rules, even when you may disagree with them, then you will have a problem with someone whose identity is to not follow rules.

I'm sure Sunde would agree that he doesn't follow the rules if he disagrees with them. And proudly so.

One may have one's own opinion on why he did this and whether or not anyone turning it into publicity gold by being outraged is a naive moron, but one would, of course, keep those opinions to oneself. :-)

hvdijk• 5 years ago

They don't have "that" box in the application (whether you have a conviction). They have a different box in the application (whether you have a conviction for fraud or similar) that according to the story, ICANN agree Sunde did not need to check.

mrweasel• 5 years ago

He has been punished for his wrong doing, which had nothing to do with DNS. The least ICANN could do it tell Sunde exactly what they are affaird he’ll do to misuse an accreditation. Some one with an accreditation sold Sunde and team piratebay.org, so they can’t be worried that he’ll register a ton of pirate domains, he can easily get those elsewhere.

People shouldn’t be punished for life, especially not by excluding them from areas that are completely unrelated.

input_sh3• 5 years ago

That box said fraud or similar in the last 10 years. Even if you agree that his TPB charges fit the "and similar" part, he wasn't charged with anything in the last decade, since 2008 is over 10 years ago.

ineptech• 5 years ago

Some of the existing board members tried to sell the .org registry to speculators for a quick buck. That seems worse.

honkycat• 5 years ago

How far into the future should a criminal be an outcast? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Forever?

Zak• 5 years ago

As I understood the article, the application asks about convictions for fraud. Sunde was convicted of criminal copyright infringement, which is not fraud nor substantially similar.

A "no convicted felons" rule might be entirely reasonable, but it doesn't appear they have one, and they should not move the goalposts after an application (with a fee) has been submitted.

oscargrouch• 5 years ago

Sorry to say that, but this is 'ur-fascism' at its best.

The difference here is that the nazi's pre-condemned anyone who were of a give ethnic background(jews) or believe (communists).

Unlike them, you are praying that the society condemn over prejudice, people based on their past behavior, placing a star on their chest and denying them basic rights, which may start with "innocent" rights like these being taken from them.

You can only punish people when a considered criminal activity occurs, never assuming someone have ill intentions over their past behavior and therefore should be denied the rights of whatever is being negotiated.

Don't forget either that with such laws and ethical triggers in place governments, companies and individuals might just game the system and threat someone by forcing him into prison for bogus reason destroying his life even after he is free. (And how can we call this dystopian reality freedom?)

BTW The Sunde prison is exactly this case, but there are even more proeminent cases as Assange or Snowden.

Your are talking only about ICANN here of course, but the core of the issue you are defending here will inevitable lead to the consequences i'm exposing above.

Griffinsauce3• 5 years ago

Punishing people for having been punished is not "completely fair". It's irrational, vindictive and counter productive.

Convicted people do not simply disappear when you take away their options.

seph-reed• 5 years ago

he'd have an incentive to stay in the tent and piss outside rather than the other way around.

Thanks for this one. I could always use more comically vulgar metaphors.

toyg6• 5 years ago

Blame Lyndon B. Johnson (and Edgar J. Hoover, the guy he was referring to) in 1971.

1vuio0pswjnm7• 5 years ago

"They have experience with people who tried to blow up things "from inside" in the past, so clearly they've developed countermeasures ready for that scenario."

Who are some people who tried to "blow things up from inside"?

This sounds like it would make for an interesting HN discussion.

I vaguely recall a CEO they had who, after leaving, asked to see the books and was stymied.

toyg6• 5 years ago

You are probably thinking of Karl Auerbach. He was not CEO, but he was elected to the board when ICANN at least pretended to have a democratic element. Once he got in, he asked to see the books, which he was entitled to do; ICANN leadership refused, and the matter had to be settled through the courts, which took almost two years (and presumably, a chunk of ICANN cash for legal fees); Auerbach won. Around the same time, Andy Müller-Maguhn, journalist and CCC member was elected in the same role for the European region, and again started asking questions of transparency. ICANN leadership decided that this democracy thing had gone too far, and promptly eliminated publicly-elected members from its board (around 2002/2003, if i remember correctly).

jMyles• 5 years ago

Disturbing perhaps, but not surprising.

And, given the arrival of ENS, IPFS, etc., probably not of any enormous consequence either.

Centralized services in the vein of ICANN are clearly on the way out.

KingOfCoders• 5 years ago

The EU needs to control - preferably democratically - its own part of the internet.

argvargc• 5 years ago

That, and end users need to control - preferably democratically - all of it.

thinkingemote• 5 years ago

Would anyone be surprised if a defence of "why worry? Just make your own non-profit global corporation to control IP address space allocation" is being expressed amongst some here? Or would that be a bit of a stretch?

shadowgovt2• 5 years ago

Probably worth noting that several people are, in fact, suggesting distributed DNS as the solution here.

Whether a rival private corporation or a distributed federation, competition is the only option if one doesn't trust a government to take the responsibility over.

exo762• 5 years ago

This illustrates the need Handshake project. They created an alternative root for DNS - basically a fully distributed ICANN replacement.

rasengan• 5 years ago

Definitely agree here. Essentially, ICANN is deplatforming Peter.

varjag• 5 years ago

Good call by ICANN.

Traster• 5 years ago

I'd like to hear a statement from ICANN regarding this before I jump to any conclusions, so far TF seem to just be repeating whatever Sunde tells them without any other sources. There's about a thousand different reasons I could see ICANN rejecting Sunde's company depending on how the appliction process went.

1337shadow• 5 years ago

That's funny given all the scammers they have accredited, ie. when your domain expires and goes under "infinite lock" because 2 registars lock it for as long as they can and then transfer it to the other.

user3939382• 5 years ago

This was my reaction. They've let cybersquatters go nuts ruining the domain registration system for years. UDRP is fine for big businesses but what about everyone else? Why do they allow companies to run bots on the dictionary and register thousands of names at wholesale rates that go years without an active site?

I spoke with Vint Cerf when he was the head of ICANN about GoDaddy's abusive policies that blocked customers from transferring domains, they went years without doing anything about that as well.

Peter Sunde is not the problem.

flyinghamster• 5 years ago

And don't get me started on the willingness of registrars to look the other way and pocket the cash when spammers register "word salad" domain names by the bajillion for their snowshoe[0] spam operations.

[0] https://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Glossary#233

isitdopamine2• 5 years ago

He lied on the form, everything else is anecdotal.

Qwertious• 5 years ago

What was the lie?

isitdopamine2• 5 years ago

The accreditation form requires applicants to tick a box if they have been convicted for fraud or something similar. Sunde didn’t tick this box, as he was convicted for criminal copyright infringement. This ‘error’ was swiftly noticed by ICANN, which is also uneasy with other parts of the Pirate Bay founder’s history.

known• 5 years ago

I think ICANN is wrong IMO

longtailofsighs• 5 years ago

My guess is that ICANN knows full well that he's going to appeal the decision and win and they are probably fine with that. It gives them coverage to respond to intellectual property interests, and the governments they hold sway over with "See! We tried!".

It's an unfortunate waste of registrant fees in expensive legal consulting, it's a waste of people's time, and it demonstrates the power that IP holds within the ICANN community.

zoobab2• 5 years ago

Just put DNS in a blockchain with some cost to buy a domain forever, and voila, problem solved.

troquerre• 5 years ago

ICANN corruption is wel-known at this point after the .org fiasco. A lot of DNS industry folks are now giving decentralized DNS alternatives more attention. I wonder if we’re reaching a tipping point — it’s not unimaginable to me that in 10 years ICANN’s influence over DNS is significantly reduced as decentralized alternatives take over

kzrdude• 5 years ago

Why do the pirate bay founders get treated like pariah while other "business men" like the people in Kazaa - like for example Zennström and Friis who went on to create Skype - are treated like everyone else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazaa#History

ICANN Refuses to Accredit Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Due to His ‘Background’

Related Stories