<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
So was it ICANN that actually did the seizing?<br>
<br>
On 11/26/2010 7:25 PM, Michael Haffely wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinwyiLGzey9o+ihYxHEVqm0fr+bi16r7=Yd1yx=@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">The concerning part about the report from today is
that the domain owner never received any complaint or due process
before the domains were seized. It appears that no Cease and
Desist, warrant, suit, or other criminal complaint was brought up
before the domain was taken. What if (for an example) this
behavior is taken up by the Patent and Copyright "trolls". What
happens to an individual/nonprofit/organization when they have
their domain yanked out from under them? <br>
<br>
If ICANN is to seize domains from their rightful owners by demand
of a law enforcement agency we need to have a clear, *rapid*
appeals process to prevent abuse by corporations, law enforcement
agencies, and governments. <br>
<br>
<br>
-Mike H.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Andrew
A. Adams <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:aaa@meiji.ac.jp">aaa@meiji.ac.jp</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
Very similar moves are happening in the UK, with Nominet (UK
non-profit with<br>
the .uk (and .gb) country-code delegation) engaging with the
UK's SOCA<br>
(Serious and Organised Crime Agency *) to remove 1200 "sites
engaged in<br>
selling counterfeit goods" recently and now doing a more
explicit deal with<br>
the police to take down the DNS registration for sites
"alleged to be<br>
involved in criminal activity".<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/25/nominet_crime/"
target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/25/nominet_crime/</a><br>
<br>
(*) The SOCA is a rather dodgy organisation, IMHO. When it was
set up the<br>
then home secrewtary made a big thing of it not being actually
police and<br>
therefore not bound by the requirements that the police have
to respect the<br>
human rights of citizens. THat's a recipe for a secret police
operating<br>
extra-judicially and here we see exactly that kind of
approach.<br>
<br>
I am very worried by these kinds of moves. Zittrain's "The
Future of the<br>
Internet" and Mueller's "Networks and States" concerns about
censorship<br>
becoming the norm not the exception online seem to be coming
true. While I'm<br>
not in favour of criminals having free reign, the trouble is
that all the<br>
hard won freedoms such as due process, balance of rights, etc.
seem to be<br>
being thrown out in the digital domain.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Professor Andrew A Adams <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:aaa@meiji.ac.jp">aaa@meiji.ac.jp</a><br>
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,
and<br>
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information
Ethics<br>
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.a-cubed.info/"
target="_blank">http://www.a-cubed.info/</a><br>
</font></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>