FW: DNS Blocking

[Kathy Kleiman]

All, you know I agree completely, but please note the focus on five 
categories of DNS abuse that we worked hard on as they are technical and 
largely provable without looking closely at content: malware, botnets, 
phishing, pharming, and spam.  The first version of the DNA work did not 
have these clear benchmarks. This is a positive step.  It's also where 
the ICANN "domain abuse" (DAAR) system focuses (reflecting concerns from 
the community about more content-oriented monitoring).

The main concern is the section: When Should a Registrar or Registry Act 
on Website Content Abuse? Here too the first draft of the DNA (Domain 
Name Association) materials a few years ago dove into a much wider range 
of content.  Now, in this new draft, the issues are narrower and more 
tailored. Again a step in the right direction.  The document states: 
"Specifically, even without a court order, we believe a registry or 
registrar should act to disrupt  the  following  forms  of  Website  
Content  Abuse:  (1) child  sexual  abuse  materials (“CSAM”); (2) 
illegal distribution of opioids online; (3) human trafficking; and (4) 
specific and credible incitements to violence. (Note: #2 is even 
narrower than the broad "rogue pharmacies" term that many of us have 
pushed back on in the past.)

There are things to critique, I am sure, but overall, this is narrower 
and much more limited than what we have seen before. That's progress :-)!

Best, Kathy



On 10/23/2019 1:14 PM, 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>:
>
>> 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>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 6:05 AM
>> To: Mueller, Milton L <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 “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.
>>
>>
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> "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
> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852

-- 
Kathy Kleiman
President, Domain Name Rights Coalition

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191024/253e025e/attachment.htm>