bwoodcock

14 ms·

31.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
That's the assertion Sony makes, but that doesn't actually make it true. Quad9 doesn't do any blocking, Quad9 relies entirely upon third-party expert malware analysts to define the blocks. Quad9 only decides what _not_ to blo
32.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
No, that doesn't work. If anybody could say what should happen globally, and nobody would argue about it, then we wouldn't need courts and borders. The whole point of courts and borders and jurisdictions is to resolve disputes. W
33.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
That's not the point here. The music companies all know that they make way more money on music that gets pirated than music that doesn't; lots of studies have borne that out. The point of this ruling is that it lets them extract
34.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
No, actually, that was where things stood BEFORE this injunction. The phone company is an intermediary party, with a relationship to at least one of the parties to an alleged infringement. The whole point of this injunction is that it app
35.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
This is why we picked Switzerland as our domicile. https://www.reuters.com/article/swisscom-court-idUSFWN20M0KT The problem is that we're the only ones with standing to challenge the Hamburg injunction, so if we d
36.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
The problem is that this precedent applies not just to DNS operators, but to literally _any_ unrelated bystander. Sony make very clear in their complaint that Quad9 has no relationship with any party to the alleged infringement. That's
37.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
A) You just moved the goalpost. B) That's a straw-man, as we have not asked for anyone's trust; quite the opposite. C) We serve the public, everyone. Is your argument that the US and UK governments are excluded from the definitio
38.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
Quad9 is not sponsored by either the Manhattan DA nor the City of London Police. Both are users of Quad9, neither is a sponsor of Quad9.
39.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
We did just turn up a third Zurich location two weeks ago, in Equinix ZRH4, so our presence there is pretty robust; on par with New York, London, Singapore, San Jose, and Los Angeles.
40.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
Because that's a combination of features that less than a hundred-thousandth of a percent of users have ever expressed an interest in. And we don't have infinite resources.
41.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
If your ISP is sending your queries to the US, perhaps you should ask your ISP why they're doing that? Did you read the applicable law section of the privacy policy? And you honestly don't think that's better than US law?
42.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
Have you sent a traceroute and the results of a chaos query to your ISP, so they can fix whatever routing problem you're encountering? There's nowhere in the continental US that's more than 5-6ms away from a Quad9 server clu
43.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
Not by chance, no, had to wait for a new block to open, and apply at the beginning of allocation of the new block.
44.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
We give you malware blocking if you want malware blocking, and we give you malware if you want malware. It's completely up to each user which way they want it. Somewhat over 99% of users prefer the malware blocking; a few want the ma
45.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
Nope, SWITCH was engaged after the country decision was made. The country selection process took the better part of five years. SWITCH was engaged in July of 2019. SWITCH has contributed labor, but has put up no money. Quad9 is, as alwa
46.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
In what was was today's announcement not exactly what you're saying it should have been? It explained exactly how and why the data isn't being collected, no?
47.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
It seems like perhaps you haven't actually looked at what the announcement was about? The entire point of the relocation was that the laws you're discussing were found not to apply. https://www.quad9.net/privacy&#x
48.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
https://www.quad9.net/privacy/compliance-and-applicable-law/
49.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
The irony being that for us (Quad9) the majority of the tinfoil-hat complaints are that companies donating to a non-profit make it _less_ trustworthy. Can't win either way. :-)
50.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
Hi. I'm Bill Woodcock, the eponymous "woody" of "woodynet." And executive director of PCH, and chairman of Quad9's board. They are three separate corporations, which exist for different reasons, and under di
51.
by bwoodcock 6y ago
Actually, most Quad9 users (in so far as we know, since we only know from those who contact us) are already running their own local caching resolver, and many of them are doing QNAME minimization, which is excellent. They use us to keep the
52.
by bwoodcock 7y ago
Well, first of all, you’ve got the same one vote as all other registrants, so you’re neither more nor less represented than any other .ORG registrant. If you feel that the existing language in the charter, that part of which was largely der
53.
by bwoodcock 7y ago
Actually, there are a bunch of large non-profits that register one domain per local chapter, and have thousands of .ORG domains. There aren’t a lot of speculators in .ORG compared to other gTLDs, because there’s a perception, probably corre
54.
by bwoodcock 7y ago
Most countries have minimum citizenship requirements for board members, to avoid scams where a company does something bad and there are no board members within their jurisdiction to be held to account. The U.S. is no different than most oth
55.
by bwoodcock 7y ago
Exactly. If any of you want to suggest language that you feel better conveys the goal, please propose it. We’d like to make the charter as clear and unambiguous as possible.
56.
by bwoodcock 7y ago
Not at all... .ORG has always been defined the same way, and that’s always included individuals, families, informal projects, just as much as formally-chartered charities, NGOs, and IGOs. No change is being proposed here. Instead, a formali
57.
by bwoodcock 7y ago
You could create a corporation with the rules (and problems) that you’re proposing, but in a cooperative the rules are fixed: one vote per organization. Your family .ORG domain gets the same one vote as Microsoft.ORG, as your kids’ soccer l
58.
by bwoodcock 7y ago
Actually, the whole point of choosing the cooperative form is to avoid doubt and risk in governance. We don’t have to make the choices you’re positing, because our rights are actually enshrined in law. Cooperatives are one of the oldest for
59.
by bwoodcock 7y ago
Hi. I’m one of the CCOR board members, and I’ll try to answer any questions I can. No such thing as a dumb question. Yes, the cooperative is of all .ORG registrants, and exists to protect our collective interests. There’s no way to have abs
60.
by bwoodcock 7y ago
Tricky question. I'm the chairman of Quad9's board of directors. So _I_ trust the organization. But I'd urge everyone else not to trust _any_ organization, but instead to do as much to protect yourself as possible, using a

More ›