<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>Hello all</div>
<div>Support this statement too</div>
<div>Kind regards</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div dir="auto" style="font-size:85%; color:#575757">Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-------- Message d'origine --------</div>
<div>De : Sam Lanfranco <lanfran@YORKU.CA> </div>
<div>Date : 29/10/2017 23:36 (GMT+00:00) </div>
<div>À : NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU </div>
<div>Objet : Re: proposed statement on domain abuse and content regulation </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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 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 </div>
</body>
</html>