https://www.article19.org/resources/icann-why-the-dns-and-content-moderation... *As the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) embarks on a development of a **policy* <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/preliminary-issue-report-on-a-policy-development-process-on-dns-abuse-mitigation-08-09-2025>* on domain name system (DNS) abuse mitigation, Michaela Nakayama Shapiro, Programme Officer in ARTICLE 19’s Global Team Digital, considers its possible implications for freedom of expression online. * ICANN oversees domain name system (DNS) infrastructure. The DNS acts like the internet’s phonebook, translating human-readable addresses (like article19.org) into the numbers computers use to communicate. The design, implementation, and management of internet infrastructure – specifically, the domain name system (DNS) – is critically important to ensuring the free and full exercise of human rights online. *The way these systems are managed has profound freedom of expression implications, and can, for instance, force domain providers to moderate and take down websites based on their content*. ICANN is currently developing a new set of policies, the outcome of which could either facilitate <https://www.article19.org/resources/icann-new-ceo-and-the-opportunity-to-rei...> or hinder free expression online. *Where we are now* At the most recent ICANN meeting in October, nearly every session focused on one pressing question: *‘What should be done about DNS abuse?’* There were almost a dozen sessions dedicated to this topic, reflecting how urgent the community considers it. The term ‘DNS abuse’ refers to the threats to the security and the stability of the DNS Those discussions are not new to ICANN. But the community is reaching a turning point: impatience with the slow pace of policymaking is leading stakeholders to demand immediate action. There is a real concern that *without clear action from ICANN, governments might step in and impose their own rules, potentially disrupting how the global internet is governed.* But first, what exactly is DNS abuse and how does it relate to human rights? The answer is more complicated than one might think. *Why DNS abuse matters to freedom of expression* The entities responsible for managing domain name registration – whether as a *registry* at the top-level maintaining the database of all domain names for a particular top-level domain (such as .com, .uk., or .org) or as a *registrar,* facilitating the purchase and registration of domain names (the ‘article19’ portion of article19.org) – operate largely invisibly. Whereas social media companies are top-of-mind when it comes to content moderation,* registries and registrars also operate as gatekeepers for content,* whether through their own internal decision making processes or in compliance with requests from governments and other actors. Similar to the debate over the responsibilities of social media companies for the content posted on their platforms, an ongoing debate exists among regulators and policymakers regarding the responsibilities of registries and registrars for the domains they operate. The problem is that registrars and registries are often limited in what they can do. *If they wish to block a particular activity or content, often their only recourse is to take down the entire domain name. *Removing a domain can block all content, including lawful speech. For instance, suspending the entire NYTimes domain because of one disputed article would block access to everything else on the site, from recipes to election coverage. *Having a narrow definition for DNS abuse is one way of preventing overreach in mitigation that could infringe upon lawful speech and content online. *However, until recently,* ICANN had no definitive definition for the term ‘DNS abuse.’* Defining DNS abuse is trickier than it seems. But after years of consensus building, ARTICLE19 together with the ICANN community successfully advocated for the establishment of a clear and concise definition. At ICANN, DNS abuse now covers five categories <https://www.icann.org/en/icann-acronyms-and-terms/domain-name-system-abuse-e...> : 1. *Phishing* – tricking people into giving sensitive information. 2. *Malware distribution* – spreading malicious software. 3. *Botnets* – networks of infected computers controlled remotely. 4. *Spam (as a means of abuse)* – unsolicited messages used for harm. 5. *Pharming* – redirecting users to fake websites. Yet, even with the categories outlined above, the line between what categorically constitutes DNS abuse and other online issues (like copyright infringement or general security threats) remains dangerously thin. There remains* a clear need to distinguish between technical abuse (as laid out in ICANN’s definition of ‘DNS abuse’) and ‘content’ abuse *– the definition of which varies across operators and jurisdiction. We are therefore left with the question: *what else can ICANN do to address the DNS abuse without overreaching and running the risk of censorship?* *What next at ICANN?* ICANN is in the early stages of developing a policy <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/preliminary-issue-report-...> on DNS abuse mitigation, which presents an opportunity for the forum to showcase the importance of the multistakeholder model of internet governance. It can also serve as a means of ensuring concrete human rights safeguards are integrated into DNS abuse mitigation policy. ARTICLE 19 recommends the following for any ICANN policy on DNS abuse mitigation: - Calls to ‘revisit’ ICANN’s definition of DNS abuse in light of technological advancements (such as the use of AI to aid in phishing attacks) *must be considered with extreme caution.* Currently, such advancements may be amplifying the *scale *of attacks, but they are not fundamentally different from the categories of abuse already defined by ICANN. - Regardless of the evolving abuse landscape, *there is a clear need to distinguish between technical abuse and ‘content’ abuse *– the definition of which varies across operators and jurisdictions. This would go far in ensuring that enforcement mechanisms do not lead to overblocking of legitimate online content. - Any ICANN policy on DNS abuse mitigation *must include clear due process elements *to ensure that those whose domains have been suspended (or otherwise blocked) have clear and accessible processes for seeking remedy or challenging decisions. A standard dispute and recourse mechanism would go far in protecting the rights of internet users and domain holders. Finding a solution that balances the safety and security of the DNS, and safeguarding the rights of all internet users to freedom of expression and privacy online is paramount. The good news is that these goals are not as contradictory as they may appear. This process is an opportunity for the ICANN community to demonstrate the strength of its consensus-building and show that it can develop comprehensive DNS abuse mitigation policy with strong human rights safeguards. McKnight, MA Virtual School of Internet Governance Chief Information Officer www.virtualsig.org *YOUR SOURCE FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE EDUCATION * *Mobile 437-237-4655*