proposed statement on domain abuse and content regulation

[Raoul Plommer]

I find this to be an excellent comment and as my personal opinion, I think
NPOC should sign on to this too, to give it the seal of approval of the
whole stakeholder group.

no one can get a Facebook account, an email, a bank account, a whatsup or
> anything other without a name or phone number or passport.
>

One is certainly able to open a Facebook account or an email with fake
details and they are not verified in almost any way. Same goes for email
accounts. I think a bank account is the only thing that actually needs a
passport or some other form of official government identification, but even
that might not hold true in every country in the world, but for that I'm
not sure of. For WhatsApp one can get a burner-SIM and use it from then
onwards, doesn't matter if there's no saldo on the number. The law
enforcement already has the ability to block illegal content through the
ISPs or ccTLD management in many countries but for most of those countries,
that requires a court order, and that is definitely a good thing.

-Raoul

On 29 October 2017 at 22:15, Adela Bodea <adebodea at gmail.com> wrote:

> I support as well this statement though there are a few issues of concern.
>
> Anyone can get a domain name with a PO BOX but no one can get a Facebook
> account, an email, a bank account, a whatsup or anything other without a
> name or phone number or passport.
> It is indeed not ICANN’s problem of what happens after, who abuses whom
> and how. There is not only fraud, and identity theft or child abuse and
> drug sell and phishing but a lot more, so if there is no one to
> hold accountable for these crimes how can we manage that?
>
> I believe someone who is able to register a domain name should be in some
> matter hold accountable if they are harming others and if they are allowed
> to be so secretive and not even have a name when registering an account how
> can domain abuse be reduced?
>
> I think these issues need experts to deal with and a bit more
> responsibility should be given to the people who decide to register a
> domain. Please correct me if i am wrong.
>
> With kind regards
>
> Adela Bodea
>
> "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination”
>                                Albert Einstein
>
> On 29 Oct 2017, at 18:21, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> I support this statement.
>
> Regards,
>
> McTim
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Dear NCSG members:
>
>
>
> In the next email I will send a proposed statement about domain abuse.
> Those
> of you involved with NCUC will recognize it, it has been circulated on the
> NCUC list and discussed extensively there.
>
> We would also like to get the endorsement of NCSG as a whole for this
> statement. So I send it to the NCSG list for you to review.
>
>
>
> --------
>
> Proposed statement on domain abuse and content regulation
>
>
>
> As civil society stakeholders concerned about individual rights and freedom
> of expression on the Internet, we think it is important to maintain a clear
> distinction between illegal content and domain name abuse. We wish to
> clarify and reaffirm ICANN’s limited mission.
>
> Domain abuse involves cases in which the domain itself is causing problems,
> such as domains that facilitate fraud and exploit confusion, support
> phishing via confusing or deceptive strings, or domains that support botnet
> command and control operations.
>
> We are concerned that the concept of “domain abuse” is being stretched to
> include various forms of allegedly “illegal” or “undesirable” content on
> webpages, listservs and email addresses associated with domain names. This
> includes the use of domain names for political speech, personal expression
> and competitive discussions. An overly-broad definition of “domain abuse”
> would require ICANN to enter the realm of decision-maker or judge on
> whether
> the webpage was a copyright-infringement or fair use, involved legal use of
> a trademark to criticize a company’s products or practices or trademark
> infringement, and whether hate speech, whose definition and legal status
> varies from country to country, was legitimate or not.
>
> We believe that content that is allegedly illegal or objectionable is not
> “domain abuse” and is best addressed through other, well-established legal
> and regulatory methods, or through cooperative and self-regulatory action
> by
> Internet service providers. Neither ICANN nor its contracted parties should
> try to make DNS policy become the nexus for global content regulation.
>
> We remind all participants that ICANN’s mission, as defined in Section
> 1.1.(a)(i) of its bylaws, is narrowly confined to policies “for which
> uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the
> openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the
> DNS.” That clearly does not include content regulation. Moreover, the
> bylaws
> contain a specific prohibition on regulating “services that use the
> Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or
> provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a).”
>
> Expansion of ICANN’s mission into content regulation will further
> politicize
> ICANN, and overload DNS policy with extraneous concerns that threaten the
> openness and interoperability of the DNS.
>
> Accordingly, we call upon the ICANN board and all ICANN policy processes to
> adopt a precise and narrow definition of domain abuse, one that is
> consistent with ICANN’s limited mission.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20171029/3665cd67/attachment.htm>