<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>All, you know I agree completely, but please note the focus on
five categories of DNS abuse that we worked hard on as they are
technical and largely provable without looking closely at content:
malware, botnets, phishing, pharming, and spam. The first version
of the DNA work did not have these clear benchmarks. This is a
positive step. It's also where the ICANN "domain abuse" (DAAR)
system focuses (reflecting concerns from the community about more
content-oriented monitoring). <br>
</p>
<p>The main concern is the section: When Should a Registrar or
Registry Act on Website Content Abuse? Here too the first draft of
the DNA (Domain Name Association) materials a few years ago dove
into a much wider range of content. Now, in this new draft, the
issues are narrower and more tailored. Again a step in the right
direction. The document states: "Specifically, even without a
court order, we believe a registry or registrar should act to
disrupt the following forms of Website Content Abuse: (1)
child sexual abuse materials (“CSAM”); (2) illegal distribution
of opioids online; (3) human trafficking; and (4) specific and
credible incitements to violence. (Note: #2 is even narrower than
the broad "rogue pharmacies" term that many of us have pushed back
on in the past.)</p>
<p>There are things to critique, I am sure, but overall, this is
narrower and much more limited than what we have seen before.
That's progress :-)!<br>
</p>
Best, Kathy<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
<span style="left: 221.75px; top: 783.68px; font-size: 20px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.881053);"></span></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/23/2019 1:14 PM, Sam Lanfranco
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1571850880.5db08a80df206@oldmymail.yorku.ca">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I agree that it would be good for NCSG to draft something here, part
taking a position and part contributing to the clarity of the issues.
There are two knife edge issues here. The "opioids" issue revolves
around diverse regulations. The "incitements" issue revolves around
the context of reasonable free speech. Of course, the bigger issue is
DNS blocking per se.
I would hope that we can collectively write something where a reader
says "Now I see the issues more clearly", and not something where a
reader just says "So that is where NCSG draws the lines in the sand".
Sam Lanfranco
For example, the
Quoting Stephanie Perrin <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA"><stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I agree. Richard has raised some excellent points. Do we need a
volunteer o draft something?
Stephanie Perrin
On 2019-10-23 12:17, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
This comment came in to me and I think it deserves attention. I
agree with many of its points.
NCUC and NCSG need to push back against some of the "DNS Abuse"
policies when they get into content regulation
Dr. Milton L Mueller
School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hill <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch"><rhill@hill-a.ch></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch"><mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch></a>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 6:05 AM
To: Mueller, Milton L <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu"><milton@gatech.edu></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu"><mailto:milton@gatech.edu></a>
Subject: DNS Blocking
Dear Milton,
I presume that you have seen this recent document published by some
registries and registrars (like Amazon, GoDaddy, Tucows),
concerning their role (and ICANN's) in DNS blocking. They hope it
"will facilitate a productive conversation that moves the
multistakeholder community forward towards a shared understanding
of DNS Abuse and Website Content Abuse and the roles registrars and
registries serve in addressing them."
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.circleid.com/pdf/Framework_to_Address_Abuse_20191017.pdf">http://www.circleid.com/pdf/Framework_to_Address_Abuse_20191017.pdf</a>
Here are my comments.
I think that it is a good idea in general, but I have reservations
on two of the areas which they define as Website Content Abuse on
which they should act without a court order:
(2) illegal distribution of opioids online
(4) specific and credible incitements to violence
Re (2), what is an “opioid†and what is “illegal
distribution� If you take the UN definition, you probably wind
up prohibiting most everything (but I haven’t checked). If you
don’t take the UN definition, then which national definition do
you use?
Further, as far as I know, (2) is a much bigger issue in the USA
than in other countries. So maybe a national solution is in order,
rather than an Internet-wide solution.
Re (4), that’s super tricky because it touches the core of free
speech. What is or is not a criminal incitation to violence varies
widely across national jurisdictions. I would be OK if the proposal
is to use the US definition, which is very narrow, but that’s
likely not what the GAC had in mind when it stated that “those
tasked with administering the DNS infrastructure†must do
something.
Note that the GAC is an informal meeting of representatives of the
executive branch of governments. Since it is informal, it has very
little democratic accountability.
In my view, any restrictions on freedom of speech must be subject
to democratic accountability, including review by a court of law.
So I don’t think that (4) is a good idea: it opens a Pandora’s
box of censorship.
Best,
Richard
PS: Thanks for the excellent debunking of the Huawei-bashing.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
----------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
----------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a> Skype: slanfranco
blog: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com">http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com</a>
Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Kathy Kleiman
President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
</pre>
</body>
</html>