DNS Blocking

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

I generally welcomed the Framework document shared by the Contracted Parties. They could have easily engaged in these practices without giving any notice, but instead, gave other stakeholders some insight to their thoughts on how they believe they should best handle DNS Abuse issues.

Having said that, I share the exact same concerns that Richard expressed to Milton, and appreciate that these issues concerning web content fall outside of ICANN’s remit, as explained in the Framework document.

ICANN 66 begins in about a week. My advice would be to not rush in to writing up any statement until after the meeting. Perhaps folks who will be there can take up the drafters of the Framework on their offer to discuss this further, and do so in Montreal? They did say that ICANN, although not involved in this, provides a forum to have different stakeholders get together and share thoughts. We might want to come up with some clarifying questions first, get as many answers from the Registries and Registrars involved as we can, then decide how to proceed.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 23, 2019, at 9:35 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote:
>
> Indeed that is my hope as well Sam, because I am sure we will find we have differing perspectives on the issues depending on the regulatory and political environment in which we live.  It is hard to get a truly global perspective to be perfectly aligned, let's aim for clarity and insight and understanding.
>
> Cheers
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2019-10-23 13:14, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>
>> I agree that it would be good for NCSG to draft something here, part
>> taking a position and part contributing to the clarity of the issues.
>> There are two knife edge issues here. The "opioids" issue revolves
>> around diverse regulations. The "incitements" issue revolves around
>> the context of reasonable free speech. Of course, the bigger issue is
>> DNS blocking per se.
>>
>> I would hope that we can collectively write something where a reader
>> says "Now I see the issues more clearly", and not something where a
>> reader just says "So that is where NCSG draws the lines in the sand".
>>
>> Sam Lanfranco
>>
>> For example, the
>> Quoting Stephanie Perrin
>> [<stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA)
>> :
>>
>>> I agree. Richard has raised some excellent points.  Do we need a
>>> volunteer o draft something?
>>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>
>>> On 2019-10-23 12:17, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>>
>>> 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>](mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch)[<mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch>](mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch)
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 6:05 AM
>>> To: Mueller, Milton L
>>> [<milton at gatech.edu>](mailto:milton at gatech.edu)[<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>](mailto: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 â?oopioidâ? and what is â?oillegal
>>> distribution�?  If you take the UN definition, you probably wind
>>> up prohibiting most everything (but I havenâ?Tt checked).  If you
>>> donâ?Tt 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), thatâ?Ts 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 thatâ?Ts
>>> likely not what the GAC had in mind when it stated that â?othose
>>> 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 donâ?Tt think that (4) is a good idea: it opens a Pandoraâ?Ts
>>> box of censorship.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> PS: Thanks for the excellent debunking of the Huawei-bashing.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
>>  in an unjust state" -Confucius
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
>> email:
>> Lanfran at Yorku.ca
>> Skype: slanfranco
>> blog:
>> [http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com](http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com/)
>> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191024/e30e2d6a/attachment.htm>