FW: DNS Blocking

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Milton,

thanks for sharing this.
maybe it is good opportunity to point out there will be a plenary session
in Montreal meeting about "DNS Abuse"
https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116759. a session we should attend
and where speak up.

Best,

Rafik

Le jeu. 24 oct. 2019 à 01:19, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> a
écrit :

> 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 <rhill at hill-a.ch>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 6:05 AM
> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> 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."
>
> http://www.circleid.com/pdf/Framework_to_Address_Abuse_20191017.pdf
>
> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191023/ee923445/attachment.htm>