4 ms·

> You Warrant to ISRG and the public-at-large that You have not participated in the seizure of a domain name that had ongoing lawful uses. Is this meant to ref

by comex 11y ago

> You Warrant to ISRG and the public-at-large that You have not participated in the seizure of a domain name that had ongoing lawful uses. Is this meant to refer to the domain you're requesting, or does it literally mean that any person or organization that has ever participated in the seizure of any domain name that had ongoing lawful uses is banned? (For example, this would ban Microsoft, as well as arguably the entire U.S. government, from legally requesting certificates. The cases in question were a bit reprehensible, but it seems like an oddly specific requirement.) ...While this is of course standard for contracts, I also like the use of all caps and bold in the warranty disclaimer, which makes it extremely difficult to read, despite the U.C.C. clause that semi-not-really requires it being intended to ensure that signatories were aware of such terms! Let's Encrypt is a forward thinking organization; even if it's not terribly important, can't you take a stand against such absurdity and satisfy the conspicuousness requirement in a way that actually makes sense?

Spooky23 11y ago
What does participate mean? If I was an intern at the FBI, is that sufficient to be deemed unworthy?
- dublinben 11y ago
  Did you participate in the seizure of lawful domains, or simply work on completely unrelated cases? It seems clear enough.
  - sp332 11y ago
    Definitions: “You” or “Your” — The organization and individual or individuals requesting, accepting, or using a Certificate issued by ISRG. It encompasses both the singular and the plural and is used in each instance both jointly and severally to concurrently refer to both natural persons as well as organizations and entities, regardless of the structure or form of such entity.
    - chc 11y ago
      That would only appear to affect the FBI itself (i.e. if You == FBI), not individual employees of the FBI who were not involved in the seizure. But that could still be a lot of individuals (e.g. any secretary who shuffled papers involved in the seizure).
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    I interned at the FBI and made photocopies of a list of seized domains.
joshmoz 11y ago
Will see if we can clarify re: your first point. Probably have to live with the caps but will ask about that too. Thanks for the feedback.
- capnrefsmmat 11y ago
  The bold caps are nearly unreadable. All caps is advocated against by many sources, like Typography for Lawyers (http://typographyforlawyers.com/all-caps.html http://typographyforlawyers.com/all-caps.html), which specifically calls out bold caps. Even the Mozilla Public License abandoned all-caps for conspicuous text: http://lu.is/blog/2012/08/19/a-quick-note-on-conspicuous-text-also-known-as-all-caps/ http://lu.is/blog/2012/08/19/a-quick-note-on-conspicuous-tex... Bryan Garner, a noted expert on legal writing (and editor of Black's Law Dictionary), agrees: > And the worst conventions in contracts? > Caps for contract text that is required to be “conspicuous.” The 9th Circuit has rightly noted that “lawyers who think their caps-lock keys are instant ‘make conspicuous’ buttons are deluded.” http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/4_vignettes_lead_to_a_single_moral_about_writing_better_briefs http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/4_vignettes_lead_...
dragonwriter 11y ago
> For example, this would ban Microsoft, as well as arguably the entire U.S. government, from legally requesting certificates. It would also prohibit many current and former employees of Microsoft and the U.S. government, and domain name registrars (both themselves, and current and former employees) whose participation was necessary to effect such seizures, even though they had no discretion in them, and law firms (both themselves, and current and former employees) involved in seizure, from getting certificates. I also think the entire idea is unsound; the mere fact that a domain name had some ongoing lawful use shouldn't make seizing it a bad thing; I mean, if the primary use of it was for users exchanging, say, child pornography, but it also had a minor and incidental, but certainly ongoing, use for the same users to exchange perfectly lawful messages, is being involved -- even as a direct and primary actor -- in seizing the domain something which should result in an actor being punished by having a higher cost to participate in the emerging TLS-only internet community the way the Let's Encrypt policy suggests?
- mynameisvlad 11y ago
  I don't see how the company's actions would affect the employees. If they directly participated in the seizure? Sure. But a random software developer at Microsoft, or a random CSR at the registrar shouldn't be affected by that clause.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > If they directly participated in the seizure? The exclusion language in the agreement does not specify direct participation, merely participation. But even the most direct participation is going to involve a large number of employees performing job functions as directed, and include firms (and employees at those firms) participating under a direct, non-discretionary legal mandate.
    - mynameisvlad 11y ago
      Sure, but you're not participating if your company participates, that's my point. An individual is separate from the company they work for. Microsoft as an entity can't request a certificate, sure. An employee that was involved in the seizure can't, sure, same deal. But an employee that had absolutely no involvement in the seizure but happens to work for the company? Nothing in that language says that they'd be banned. I also highly doubt the scale you're talking about. I doubt that "many" employees are involved in a seizure. It's a sensitive matter, in the best interests of everyone to keep it as contained as possible.

by comex 11y ago

Spooky23 11y ago

What does participate mean? If I was an intern at the FBI, is that sufficient to be deemed unworthy?

dublinben 11y ago
Did you participate in the seizure of lawful domains, or simply work on completely unrelated cases? It seems clear enough.
- sp332 11y ago
  Definitions: “You” or “Your” — The organization and individual or individuals requesting, accepting, or using a Certificate issued by ISRG. It encompasses both the singular and the plural and is used in each instance both jointly and severally to concurrently refer to both natural persons as well as organizations and entities, regardless of the structure or form of such entity.
  - chc 11y ago
    That would only appear to affect the FBI itself (i.e. if You == FBI), not individual employees of the FBI who were not involved in the seizure. But that could still be a lot of individuals (e.g. any secretary who shuffled papers involved in the seizure).
- tedunangst 11y ago
  I interned at the FBI and made photocopies of a list of seized domains.

joshmoz 11y ago

Will see if we can clarify re: your first point. Probably have to live with the caps but will ask about that too. Thanks for the feedback.

capnrefsmmat 11y ago
The bold caps are nearly unreadable. All caps is advocated against by many sources, like Typography for Lawyers (http://typographyforlawyers.com/all-caps.html http://typographyforlawyers.com/all-caps.html), which specifically calls out bold caps. Even the Mozilla Public License abandoned all-caps for conspicuous text: http://lu.is/blog/2012/08/19/a-quick-note-on-conspicuous-text-also-known-as-all-caps/ http://lu.is/blog/2012/08/19/a-quick-note-on-conspicuous-tex... Bryan Garner, a noted expert on legal writing (and editor of Black's Law Dictionary), agrees: > And the worst conventions in contracts? > Caps for contract text that is required to be “conspicuous.” The 9th Circuit has rightly noted that “lawyers who think their caps-lock keys are instant ‘make conspicuous’ buttons are deluded.” http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/4_vignettes_lead_to_a_single_moral_about_writing_better_briefs http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/4_vignettes_lead_...

dragonwriter 11y ago

> For example, this would ban Microsoft, as well as arguably the entire U.S. government, from legally requesting certificates. It would also prohibit many current and former employees of Microsoft and the U.S. government, and domain name registrars (both themselves, and current and former employees) whose participation was necessary to effect such seizures, even though they had no discretion in them, and law firms (both themselves, and current and former employees) involved in seizure, from getting certificates. I also think the entire idea is unsound; the mere fact that a domain name had some ongoing lawful use shouldn't make seizing it a bad thing; I mean, if the primary use of it was for users exchanging, say, child pornography, but it also had a minor and incidental, but certainly ongoing, use for the same users to exchange perfectly lawful messages, is being involved -- even as a direct and primary actor -- in seizing the domain something which should result in an actor being punished by having a higher cost to participate in the emerging TLS-only internet community the way the Let's Encrypt policy suggests?

mynameisvlad 11y ago
I don't see how the company's actions would affect the employees. If they directly participated in the seizure? Sure. But a random software developer at Microsoft, or a random CSR at the registrar shouldn't be affected by that clause.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > If they directly participated in the seizure? The exclusion language in the agreement does not specify direct participation, merely participation. But even the most direct participation is going to involve a large number of employees performing job functions as directed, and include firms (and employees at those firms) participating under a direct, non-discretionary legal mandate.
  - mynameisvlad 11y ago
    Sure, but you're not participating if your company participates, that's my point. An individual is separate from the company they work for. Microsoft as an entity can't request a certificate, sure. An employee that was involved in the seizure can't, sure, same deal. But an employee that had absolutely no involvement in the seizure but happens to work for the company? Nothing in that language says that they'd be banned. I also highly doubt the scale you're talking about. I doubt that "many" employees are involved in a seizure. It's a sensitive matter, in the best interests of everyone to keep it as contained as possible.