<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Stephanie, as chair of NCSG are you able to set up a dialogue with the contracted parties in Montreal?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Bruna, are you able to help?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dr. Milton L Mueller<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Georgia Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">School of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><a href="https://internetgovernance.org/"><span style="color:#0563C1">Internet Governance Project</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Amr Elsadr<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, October 26, 2019 6:10 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: DNS Blocking<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Kathy,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I totally agree. I believe the approach these Contracted Parties have adopted is quite reasonable and balanced. They’ve also drawn clear lines distinguishing between what they believe is DNS Abuse, and what is Website Content Abuse (what
is within ICANN’s remit, and what isn’t). They’ve even clarified that spam is not in itself DNS Abuse, but that they consider it to be so when used to deliver one of the other forms of DNS Abuse. I appreciate nuances like that, and believe that pointing them
out displays thoughtfulness and sincerity in dealing with real problems. This is refreshing IMO, as opposed to using the topic of DNS Abuse as a means to advance the special interests of certain stakeholders at the expense of others, which is not uncommon
at ICANN.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, the Contracted Parties that issued this Framework have acknowledged their willingness and desire to engage with others in “raising the bar for responsible and thoughtful stewardship of the DNS”. This is why, in my previous email,
I proposed that the NCSG take advantage of the upcoming meeting in Montreal to discuss this with them before drafting some kind of position or statement. The Contracted Parties have invited other groups to a dialogue, so let's take advantage of that.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The concerns Richard Hill raised in his original email are ones on which we can seek more information on. I, for one, believe his clarifying questions are quite well put, and I pretty much had the same questions when first reading the Framework
document. So I still propose that we seek this dialogue with them, and keep an open mind.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">…, and again, I totally agree, Kathy. Compared to previous industry approaches to dealing with DNS Abuse, this certainly is progress…, and in the right direction.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Amr<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Oct 25, 2019, at 1:29 AM, Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@DNRC.TECH">kathy@DNRC.TECH</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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 :-)!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best, Kathy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 10/23/2019 1:14 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>I agree that it would be good for NCSG to draft something here, part<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>taking a position and part contributing to the clarity of the issues.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>There are two knife edge issues here. The "opioids" issue revolves<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>around diverse regulations. The "incitements" issue revolves around<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the context of reasonable free speech. Of course, the bigger issue is<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>DNS blocking per se.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I would hope that we can collectively write something where a reader<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>says "Now I see the issues more clearly", and not something where a<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>reader just says "So that is where NCSG draws the lines in the sand".<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Sam Lanfranco<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>For example, the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Quoting Stephanie Perrin <a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA"><stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA></a>:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>I agree. Richard has raised some excellent points. Do we need a<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>volunteer o draft something?<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Stephanie Perrin<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>On 2019-10-23 12:17, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>This comment came in to me and I think it deserves attention. I<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>agree with many of its points.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>NCUC and NCSG need to push back against some of the "DNS Abuse"<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>policies when they get into content regulation<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Dr. Milton L Mueller<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>School of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Georgia Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>From: Richard Hill <a href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch"><rhill@hill-a.ch></a><a href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch"><mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 6:05 AM<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>To: Mueller, Milton L <a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu"><milton@gatech.edu></a><a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu"><mailto:milton@gatech.edu></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Subject: DNS Blocking<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Dear Milton,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I presume that you have seen this recent document published by some<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>registries and registrars (like Amazon, GoDaddy, Tucows),<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>concerning their role (and ICANN's) in DNS blocking. They hope it<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>"will facilitate a productive conversation that moves the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>multistakeholder community forward towards a shared understanding<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>of DNS Abuse and Website Content Abuse and the roles registrars and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>registries serve in addressing them."<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://www.circleid.com/pdf/Framework_to_Address_Abuse_20191017.pdf">http://www.circleid.com/pdf/Framework_to_Address_Abuse_20191017.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Here are my comments.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I think that it is a good idea in general, but I have reservations<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>on two of the areas which they define as Website Content Abuse on<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>which they should act without a court order:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>(2) illegal distribution of opioids online<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>(4) specific and credible incitements to violence<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Re (2), what is an “opioid†and what is “illegal<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>distribution� If you take the UN definition, you probably wind<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>up prohibiting most everything (but I haven’t checked). If you<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>don’t take the UN definition, then which national definition do<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>you use?<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Further, as far as I know, (2) is a much bigger issue in the USA<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>than in other countries. So maybe a national solution is in order,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>rather than an Internet-wide solution.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Re (4), that’s super tricky because it touches the core of free<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>speech. What is or is not a criminal incitation to violence varies<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>widely across national jurisdictions. I would be OK if the proposal<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>is to use the US definition, which is very narrow, but that’s<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>likely not what the GAC had in mind when it stated that “those<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tasked with administering the DNS infrastructure†must do<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>something.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Note that the GAC is an informal meeting of representatives of the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>executive branch of governments. Since it is informal, it has very<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>little democratic accountability.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>In my view, any restrictions on freedom of speech must be subject<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>to democratic accountability, including review by a court of law.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>So I don’t think that (4) is a good idea: it opens a Pandora’s<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>box of censorship.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Best,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Richard<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>PS: Thanks for the excellent debunking of the Huawei-bashing.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>----------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> in an unjust state" -Confucius<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>----------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>email: <a href="mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a> Skype: slanfranco<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>blog: <a href="http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com/">http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>--<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Kathy Kleiman<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>President, Domain Name Rights Coalition<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>