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 <[log in to unmask]>:

> 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 <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 6:05 AM
> To: Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 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: [log in to unmask]   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852