Relevant to the cause?

[farzaneh badii]

I am not in the advisory council anymore. Someone has to raise this issue.

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 7:37 PM Mitch Stoltz <mitch at eff.org> wrote:

> 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 x142https://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>
> 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>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sent from my mobile
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>
>>> On Mon, 13 May 2019, 22:32 dorothy g, <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>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dorothy Gordon
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Dorothy Gordon
>>
>> --
>> Collin Kurre
>> Digital Program Officer
>> ARTICLE 19
>>
>>
>
> --
> Dorothy Gordon
>
>
> --
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190516/10048fad/attachment.htm>