Re: [Pearg] Research Group Last Call for "A Survey of Worldwide Censorship Techniques"

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe,

>> 
>> Ok.  That sounds like a classic asset seizure.  It may be worth expanding on how and when physical asset seizure is effective, especially in a cloud-based world.
>> 
> 
> I’ve fixed the reference and made sure the text acknowledges it’s an in-passing mention and it now calls out cloud-like situations. See if this works or send edits? 
> 
> https://github.com/IRTF-PEARG/rfc-censorship-tech/commit/61202f9346876ba8d311c178e632d9333b70ce3c <https://github.com/IRTF-PEARG/rfc-censorship-tech/commit/61202f9346876ba8d311c178e632d9333b70ce3c>

I think that’s fine.

I think there’s a bigger threat that you should probably mention from a non-technical perspective: liability laws.  I don’t know where I came up with that idea!!!

;-)



>>> 
>>>> Finally, did I miss the part where one discusses domain name takedowns by registry, or has that not been used as a form of censorship?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> We can add it if you have citations. Would love a PR of course or suggested text.
>> 
>> I guess I would suggest starting with the references in guidance-domain-seizures-07mar12-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/guidance-domain-seizures-07mar12-en.pdf>.
> 
> Ok, that was quite a rabbit hole. I’ve been fascinating by domain seizures for a while now (ever since a legal case called, “The State of Kentucky vs. 141 domain names” where the US state of Kentucky used its own anti-gambling laws to seize the domains of 141 online gambling websites).
> 
> I agree that the draft should mention this. Here is my proposal and I’m interested in your (and others’) feedback:
> 
> * I’ll add domain registries and registrars as a “point of control” in Section 3.1.
> * I’ll add a paragraph to Section 4.1.1 (on DNS Interference) pointing to domain seizures in malware/botnet/spam, anti-fraud, and intellectual property cases.
> 
> I wanted to summarize that before actually changing the text and see what folks think.


It would strengthen your case if you can identify a domain name seizure that is based on what we commonly view as censorship.  Otherwise skip the purpose.

And I would add that we are not quite done with the definition of “censorship”.  I’ve asked for an independent opinion about whether I really am off, but I don’t see a need to continue arguing until I get that view (and I’m sure you don’t see a need to read such an argument!).

Eliot