<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css">body {word-wrap: break-word; background-color:#ffffff;}</style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">Alex,<br>
Actually the bot net/malware check would be voluntary for registrars. The problem with the Verisign proposal is not that, it is the completely separate and unrelated "anti-abuse" policy.
<br>
<br>
<font color="#cc0000">Milton Mueller<br>
</font><font color="#cc0000">Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
</font></div>
<br>
<br>
-----Original message-----<br>
<blockquote style="; border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">
<div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px"><b>From: </b>Alex Gakuru <gakuru@gmail.com><b><br>
To: </b>Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu><b><br>
Cc: </b>"NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu" <NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu><b><br>
Sent: </b>Wed, Oct 12, 2011 05:52:35 GMT+00:00<b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: [NCSG-Discuss] VeriSign demands website takedown powers<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Hi Milton,<br>
<br>
Considering that VeriSign databases are rightly hosted on their infrastructure and not on registrants servers, can their quarterly uninvited "anti-malaware" scans be considered as trespassing on registrants content host servers?<br>
<br>
Alex<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</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">
An issue here is what is the intended scope of the suspension service. If you look at VeriSign's actual announcement, it starts out talking about malware. But we all know that LEAs can consider copyright, gambling, and all sorts of other things to be grounds
for suspension. The idea of a "free expression impact statement" is a great one, would it apply to this case as well? Would it also be advisable to push to constrain this process explicitly to malware and such technical threats?<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
> Wendy Seltzer<br>
</div>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:57 PM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] VeriSign demands website takedown powers<br>
<div class="im">><br>
> Thanks Alex and Kathy,<br>
><br>
> This development underscores the importance of including freedom-of-<br>
> expression impact analyses in the policy review.<br>
><br>
> We at NCSG should help ICANN staff to set a good framework for that<br>
> review in the current report on registrar contacts for law enforcement,<br>
> (Resolution 3.5 at <<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201110" target="_BLANK">http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201110</a>>) that can<br>
> serve as an example and precedent for future cases.<br>
><br>
> --Wendy<br>
</div>
> ut<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">> On 10/11/2011 11:29 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:<br>
> > Tx you, Alex, for the posting.<br>
> ><br>
> > Takedowns is a growing issue, and Verisign's announcement builds upon<br>
> > meetings that international law enforcement representatives held with<br>
> > registries and registrars last year. Verisign is asking for takedown<br>
> > powers. Also, working with the Serious Organized Crime Agency of the<br>
> > UK, Nominet (.UK) has issued a draft recommendation giving it takedown<br>
> > authority in cases of alleged serious crime.<br>
> > <a href="http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest?contentId=8617" target="_BLANK">
http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest?contentId=8617</a> (public comment<br>
> > period technically over).<br>
> ><br>
> > The direction is clear - this is what law enforcement wants. The<br>
> > question we can influence, I think, will be process:<br>
> > - How can we ensure that only the most serious crime is subject to<br>
> > this rapid takedown process?<br>
> > - How can we ensure free speech/freedom of expression websites are<br>
> > exempt ("The policy should exclude suspension where issues of freedom<br>
> > of expression are central aspects of the disputed issue," Nominet)?<br>
> > - How can we ensure a very rapid appeal for when mistakes occur?<br>
> > - How can we help the good faith domain name registrants know where to<br>
> > go for help?<br>
> ><br>
> > Best,<br>
> > Kathy (Kleiman)<br>
> >> No court order necessary<br>
> >> By Kevin Murphy<br>
> >> 11th October 2011<br>
> >><br>
> >> <<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/11/verisign_asks_for_web_takedo" target="_BLANK">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/11/verisign_asks_for_web_takedo</a><br>
> >> wn_powers/><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Wendy Seltzer -- <a href="mailto:wendy@seltzer.org">wendy@seltzer.org</a> <a href="tel:%2B1%20914-374-0613" value="+19143740613">
+1 914-374-0613</a> Fellow, Yale Law<br>
> School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet &<br>
> Society at Harvard University <a href="http://wendy.seltzer.org/" target="_BLANK">
http://wendy.seltzer.org/</a><br>
> <a href="https://www.chillingeffects.org/" target="_BLANK">https://www.chillingeffects.org/</a>
<a href="https://www.torproject.org/" target="_BLANK">https://www.torproject.org/</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/" target="_BLANK">http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>