I support this statement.

Regards,

McTim

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear NCSG members:
>
>
>
> In the next email I will send a proposed statement about domain abuse. Those
> of you involved with NCUC will recognize it, it has been circulated on the
> NCUC list and discussed extensively there.
>
> We would also like to get the endorsement of NCSG as a whole for this
> statement. So I send it to the NCSG list for you to review.
>
>
>
> --------
>
> Proposed statement on domain abuse and content regulation
>
>
>
> As civil society stakeholders concerned about individual rights and freedom
> of expression on the Internet, we think it is important to maintain a clear
> distinction between illegal content and domain name abuse. We wish to
> clarify and reaffirm ICANN’s limited mission.
>
> Domain abuse involves cases in which the domain itself is causing problems,
> such as domains that facilitate fraud and exploit confusion, support
> phishing via confusing or deceptive strings, or domains that support botnet
> command and control operations.
>
> We are concerned that the concept of “domain abuse” is being stretched to
> include various forms of allegedly “illegal” or “undesirable” content on
> webpages, listservs and email addresses associated with domain names. This
> includes the use of domain names for political speech, personal expression
> and competitive discussions. An overly-broad definition of “domain abuse”
> would require ICANN to enter the realm of decision-maker or judge on whether
> the webpage was a copyright-infringement or fair use, involved legal use of
> a trademark to criticize a company’s products or practices or trademark
> infringement, and whether hate speech, whose definition and legal status
> varies from country to country, was legitimate or not.
>
> We believe that content that is allegedly illegal or objectionable is not
> “domain abuse” and is best addressed through other, well-established legal
> and regulatory methods, or through cooperative and self-regulatory action by
> Internet service providers. Neither ICANN nor its contracted parties should
> try to make DNS policy become the nexus for global content regulation.
>
> We remind all participants that ICANN’s mission, as defined in Section
> 1.1.(a)(i) of its bylaws, is narrowly confined to policies “for which
> uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the
> openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the
> DNS.” That clearly does not include content regulation. Moreover, the bylaws
> contain a specific prohibition on regulating “services that use the
> Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or
> provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a).”
>
> Expansion of ICANN’s mission into content regulation will further politicize
> ICANN, and overload DNS policy with extraneous concerns that threaten the
> openness and interoperability of the DNS.
>
> Accordingly, we call upon the ICANN board and all ICANN policy processes to
> adopt a precise and narrow definition of domain abuse, one that is
> consistent with ICANN’s limited mission.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>