<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi All,<br>
A strong statement is a good first step, but more is needed.
Incursions into our speech and expression are taking place
throughout the New gTLDs. To talk more about the issues, concerns,
examples and trends, please join us at the start of the NCSG
session on Tuesday for: <br>
<b><br>
DNS AND CONTENT REGULATION<br>
</b><b>Tues, 3:15pm (local time); 7:15am Eastern<br>
</b><b>In person: Capital Suite 07<br>
</b><b>Remote participation: Adobe Connect
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://participate.icann.org/abu60-capitalsuite7">https://participate.icann.org/abu60-capitalsuite7</a> <br>
</b><br>
This will be a discussion, so please bring examples,
issues/concerns of what you are seeing in the New gTLDs. <br>
Best, Kathy<br>
p.s. I'll be leading by remote participation, so special outreach
to all who want to participate remotely!<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/29/2017 7:35 PM, Sam Lanfranco
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:b77ec598-2b8f-6a7e-5d01-13e09c85237b@yorku.ca"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
All, <br>
<br>
From the beginning there has always been what amounts to a strict
demarcation, to distinguish between "domain name abuse" and
"content regulation". ICANN, by the very nature of its mandate and
its remit, must steer clear of "content regulation". This does not
downplay the difficult and complex issues around content on the
Internet, and around efforts at content regulation, but it
underscores the simple fact that ICANN is not in the business of
content regulation, and will/should never venture into that area.
<br>
<br>
There are ample other policy venues in which to address the
complex and thorny issues surrounding content regulation. Many of
us are involved in those venues as well, as venues with a distinct
remit in their own right. I join others in endorsing the proposed
statement and find nothing in the wording that I take issue with.<br>
<br>
Sam Lanfranco (ncsg/npoc)<br>
<br>
<i>On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Mueller, Milton L <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu"
target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
Dear NCSG members:<br>
<br>
In the next email I will send a proposed statement about domain
abuse. Those<br>
of you involved with NCUC will recognize it, it has been
circulated on the<br>
NCUC list and discussed extensively there.<br>
<br>
We would also like to get the endorsement of NCSG as a whole for
this<br>
statement. So I send it to the NCSG list for you to review.</i><br>
<br>
--------<br>
<br>
<b>Proposed statement on domain abuse and content regulation</b><br>
<br>
<font color="#660000">As civil society stakeholders concerned
about individual rights and freedom<br>
of expression on the Internet, we think it is important to
maintain a clear<br>
distinction between illegal content and domain name abuse. We
wish to<br>
clarify and reaffirm ICANN’s limited mission.<br>
<br>
Domain abuse involves cases in which the domain itself is
causing problems,<br>
such as domains that facilitate fraud and exploit confusion,
support<br>
phishing via confusing or deceptive strings, or domains that
support botnet<br>
command and control operations.<br>
<br>
We are concerned that the concept of “domain abuse” is being
stretched to<br>
include various forms of allegedly “illegal” or “undesirable”
content on<br>
webpages, listservs and email addresses associated with domain
names. This<br>
includes the use of domain names for political speech, personal
expression<br>
and competitive discussions. An overly-broad definition of
“domain abuse”<br>
would require ICANN to enter the realm of decision-maker or
judge on whether<br>
the webpage was a copyright-infringement or fair use, involved
legal use of<br>
a trademark to criticize a company’s products or practices or
trademark<br>
infringement, and whether hate speech, whose definition and
legal status<br>
varies from country to country, was legitimate or not.<br>
<br>
We believe that content that is allegedly illegal or
objectionable is not<br>
“domain abuse” and is best addressed through other,
well-established legal<br>
and regulatory methods, or through cooperative and
self-regulatory action by<br>
Internet service providers. Neither ICANN nor its contracted
parties should<br>
try to make DNS policy become the nexus for global content
regulation.<br>
<br>
We remind all participants that ICANN’s mission, as defined in
Section<br>
1.1.(a)(i) of its bylaws, is narrowly confined to policies “for
which<br>
uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to
facilitate the<br>
openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or
stability of the<br>
DNS.” That clearly does not include content regulation.
Moreover, the bylaws<br>
contain a specific prohibition on regulating “services that use
the<br>
Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services
carry or<br>
provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a).”<br>
<br>
Expansion of ICANN’s mission into content regulation will
further politicize<br>
ICANN, and overload DNS policy with extraneous concerns that
threaten the<br>
openness and interoperability of the DNS.<br>
<br>
Accordingly, we call upon the ICANN board and all ICANN policy
processes to<br>
adopt a precise and narrow definition of domain abuse, one that
is<br>
consistent with ICANN’s limited mission.<br>
</font><br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Milton L. Mueller<br>
Professor, School of Public Policy<br>
Georgia Institute of Technology </blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>