Relevant to the cause?

[Mitch Stoltz]

I find the new registry agreements deeply troubling. They effectively 
give registries the authority, even the obligation, to determine if web 
content is legal, truthful, "fraudulent," etc. and to wield domain 
suspension as a remedy for all manner of speech regulation. There's so 
much popular anger at platforms like Facebook over their content 
moderation right now that I can't understand why registries want to get 
into that business. And yet many of them seem eager.
      Mitch

Mitch Stoltz
Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142
https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/

On 5/14/19 5:04 AM, dorothy g wrote:
> Dear Collin, Have you been following the discussion around the nature 
> of changes in the Registry agreements, that allow registries to become 
> content police?
>
> best
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:30 AM Collin Kurre <collin at article19.org 
> <mailto:collin at article19.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi everyone,
>
>     Thanks for getting this conversation started, Farell! Jumping in
>     to share some additional context useful for our Stakeholder Group:
>
>     The USA may have chosen to avoid regulation up to this point, but
>     many countries have done the opposite. Efforts to regulate content
>     are particularly relevant to the DNS, as there are an abundance of
>     "voluntary" or legally mandated DNS filters currently deployed by
>     ISPs around the world. [0] It's difficult to gauge the extent of
>     DNS blocking as many of these agreements are not made publicly
>     available for scrutiny by consumers or civil society.
>
>     At the end of the day, DNS blocking is a half-baked solution.
>     Often times it's merely an inconvenience for people seeking banned
>     content [1]. At best it thwarts access to allegedly unlawful
>     content without addressing the offense in itself. Moreover, the
>     widespread implementation of new protocols like DNS-over-HTTPS
>     (DoH) or -TLS (DoT) by US-based companies like Google, Cloudflare,
>     and Mozilla will likely disrupt this status quo, once again
>     raising questions about centralization and jurisdiction.
>
>     So far, regulatory measures floated to address this evolving
>     technical landscape generally range from bad to worse in terms of
>     freedom of expression and access to information. These include
>     blocking IP addresses to prevent users from connecting to entire
>     servers, or deploying allowlists instead of blocklists. These
>     issues aren't yet at the forefront of discussions within ICANN,
>     but we should be aware of them to anticipate changes on the horizon.
>
>     Best,
>     Collin
>
>     [0] See for example:
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_blocking_in_the_United_Kingdom#ISP_Default_network_blocking
>
>     [1] Consider The Pirate Bay's infinite mirrors: https://proxybay.ist
>
>     On 13/05/2019 22:53, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>
>>     I agree with Dorothy.  ALso extremely relevant to us as we
>>     volunteer in this MS group:  was the decision not to regulate the
>>     Internet a sound one?  If not what needs tweaking and how?  Not
>>     so much to do with the DNS, it is true...but any kind of monopoly
>>     breakup may have some relevance to us.
>>
>>     cheers Stephanie
>>
>>     PS the future does tend to take its own sweet time to reveal
>>     all....look at how long it has taken people to realize what FB is
>>     doing with all our data!
>>
>>
>>     On 2019-05-13 17:24, dorothy g wrote:
>>>     This is beyond privacy, it is to do with hegemony and control
>>>     without accountability. It is to do with how we should organise
>>>     our digital future. As to influence, the future will reveal all.
>>>
>>>     On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:50 PM Seun Ojedeji
>>>     <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Sent from my mobile
>>>         Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>
>>>         On Mon, 13 May 2019, 22:32 dorothy g, <dgdorothydg at gmail.com
>>>         <mailto:dgdorothydg at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             Thanks Farell, There are many excellent articles on this
>>>             topic but from a co-founder this will have a lot of
>>>             influence.
>>>
>>>
>>>         SO: While I do not downplay the privacy issues, I don't
>>>         think the article of a co-founder who already cashed out of
>>>         FB would add the much significant influence expected.
>>>
>>>         Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>             On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:03 PM Farell FOLLY
>>>             <farell at benin2point0.org
>>>             <mailto:farell at benin2point0.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>                 Dear All,
>>>
>>>                 I found this article about facebook and privacy
>>>                 particularly interesting. It has nothing to do
>>>                 directly with domain names but It can educate more
>>>                 on how and why users should take more care about
>>>                 their data and how it is processed.` Also, it
>>>                 pointes out the danger of monopoly versus a multi
>>>                 stakeholder approach.
>>>
>>>                 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                 @__f_f__
>>>
>>>                 Best Regards
>>>                 ____________________________________
>>>
>>>                 (Ekue) Farell FOLLY
>>>                 NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee
>>>                 linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>>                 <http://linkedin.com/in/farellf>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             -- 
>>>             Dorothy Gordon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     Dorothy Gordon
>
>     -- 
>     Collin Kurre
>     Digital Program Officer
>     ARTICLE 19
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dorothy Gordon

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190516/becea90f/attachment.htm>