FW: DNS Blocking

[Rafik Dammak]

 I forgot to share there was also a webinar on DNS abuse last week as
preparation for the plenary session. You can find the recordings and
material here  https://meetings.icann.org/en/montreal66-prep-week .

Best,

Rafik


On Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 09:44 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20191023/1081b2f5/attachment.htm>