[gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Fwd: NCUC FF Statement
I'm taking the liberty of forwarding Christian's NCUC statement on Fast Flux to the list. Hope that's ok Christian. Great statement. A reminder to all. As we discussed during the phone call, the people who are summarizing our list will incorporate anything posted up through this Friday (Aug 22) in their work. So feel free to post anything that you feel needs yet to be said. The NCUC statement follows -- inline in this email, and as the original Word document as an attachment. Thanks Christian! mikey - - - - - [NCUC Statement follows] Non-Commercial Users Constituency Statement on Fast Flux HostingThe NCUC formally collects constituent input via its email discussion list as well as through a variety of informal communications. DefinitionsThe working group has struggled considerably to define the term "fast flux," largely because the term already has a preexisting meaning within the computer security community. Discussions have, however, made clear that the group needs terms in order to have productive discussion on this issue. Specifically, the group must be able to distinguish between those technical measures which it may be possible to effectively identify and regulate and the more difficult to measure elements such as intent and legality. Additionally, the working group ought to have some terms to distinguish between those malevolent uses that are universally reviled and other uses, which might be effected by remedial measures. Legality has proven to be an inadequate benchmark, since the Internet is by nature global, and ICANN should not take it upon itself to resolve international conflicts of laws. Moreover, determinations of legality often turn on elements such as intent, which the DNS community is ill-disposed to assess. Because of the inherent need for these distinctions, and because of the baggage associated with the terms "fast flux" and "fast flux hosting" it would be best to craft new terms to describe these concepts. As far as semantics are concerned, the working group's task is not to find the meaning of the terms we have been using but rather to find terms that will facilitate a meaningful discussion. Benefits and HarmsThe techniques of using domains with a short time to live or using a large network of computers to host content at a single domain are not inherently moral, immoral, beneficial or harmful. These qualities come not from the technologies themselves, but from the ways in which they are used. ICANN should be particularly wary of any attempt to ban a technology because of one use associated with it. Insofar as fast flux can be used by criminals to evade authorities or to make a website appear more trustworthy than it is, it contributes to these harms. It would, however, be a mistake to equate the nefarious activities with the technology. Even if fast flux were completely eliminated these activities would still persist on-line. Moreover, this technology (FFH) has demonstrated significant legitimate uses. Fast flux has been shown to be helpful in combating a denial of service attack and also with facilitating anonymous speech. Both current and future uses may be significantly impaired by attempts to ban the use of this technology. Unfortunately, it is difficult to assess how these uses may be impacted by ICANN measures, both because of the inherent difficulty in anticipating new technology and because of the difficulties of trying to communicate with speakers who may be currently using similar techniques to speak anonymously. ICANN should take particular care to protect anonymous speech. Anonymous speech allows free expression by parties who might otherwise be subject to scorn or retribution for expressing unpopular opinions. This right to express one's true opinions without fear of reprisal is fundamental to the shared ideals of free speech, privacy, and basic human dignity. These rights are recognized and protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even where the strongest legal protections for free speech exist, the right to speak anonymously is still needed to protect against attacks by individuals, ensure open and honest discourse, and to allow speakers to contribute ideas without sacrificing privacy. For this reason, the U.S. Supreme court has explicitly ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to speak anonymously. ICANN should not take it upon itself to usurp this governmental function and second guess which human rights should be guaranteed to individuals and which should be terminated. Potential RemediesAny attempt to remedy the harms that accompany fast flux hosting should be evaluated with due consideration to the limits of what ICANN can and should do. ICANN must be vigilant to recognize the limited scope of its authority and mandate. ICANN is not a police force, government regulator or court of law. It is ill suited to determine which countries' laws should control on-line activity, determine when those laws have been breached, or create new rules intended to combat social ills. There are significant dangers inherent in making any private entity, including ICANN, responsible for determining when anonymous speech is or is not permissible. Democratic societies have constitutions, elections, and courts to carefully balance the rights of the speaker against the rights of others. Private entities do not have the same incentives and legal compulsions to protect the rights of individuals. Because of this, private censorship is the single greatest threat to free speech on the Internet. Many plaintiffs have already considered registrars and ISPs as potential private censors. They have filed suit against these entities because they objected to certain speech on-line. AOL, Network Solutions, and Dynadot are among those targeted by such suits. Sometimes these plaintiffs seek to have the content removed or rendered harder to access. Sometimes they are merely seeking a defendant with deep pockets. In all cases, however, the plaintiffs assert that Internet companies should censor the content of their customers. Because of these problems, ICANN should be extremely wary of proposed solutions that discourage anonymous communications on the presumption that such communications are inherently malevolent. Informational approaches are preferable to those which prevent anonymous speech, and precautions should be included in any solution to ensure that we are not creating a precedent of censorship within the DNS community. voice: 651-647-6109 fax: 866-280-2356 web: www.haven2.com Attachment:
NCUC Statement.doc
|