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.
"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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :-)
> 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.
> 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).
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
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)
>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.
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.
>“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".
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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..'
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.
Readit News
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.
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.
Thanks for this one. I could always use more comically vulgar metaphors.
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.
People shouldn’t be punished for life, especially not by excluding them from areas that are completely unrelated.
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.
Nope. Whatever he did he had paid for it. With the very rare exceptions those checkboxes should not be allowed at all.
Convicted people do not simply disappear when you take away their options.
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.
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. :-)
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).
[0] https://www.handshake.org
(I know ICANN is not currently being sponsored by the US government anymore, but they were given their monopoly that way)
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.
Continuously fixing ICANN’s decisions keeps alternatives from catching on.
Deleted Comment
Deplatforming?
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.
>“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".
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Battles can be fought on multiple fronts if necessary.
This isn't the first corruption coming from ICANN.
Deleted Comment
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.
> 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 )
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
'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..'
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.
Accountability must be open.
https://www.propublica.org/article/service-provider-boots-ha...