The dark side of take down requests
Marc Perkel
marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG
Mon Jun 28 16:50:52 CEST 2010
It's interesting that Kathy mentioned Godaddy and take down requests. I
have a personal story about what happened with Godaddy taking out an
entire data center due to a spam complaint. I was hosted at the data
center and a friend of mine owns it and he had me make the call knowing
that I'm good at getting results. The data center was called nectartech.com.
What happened was that some customer got hacked and was sending spam.
The customer was using nectartech.com name servers as was most of their
customers. On Friday January 13th around 5:00pm Godaddy suspended the
nectartech.com domain. And it was a 3 day weekend. What happened then
was a legendary story about how I managed to get nectartech.com back
online in spite of Godaddy's suspention.
This is a great anecdotal story about what can happen when registrars go
wild with domain suspension. You can read about it all over the internet
by googling godaddy and nectartech. What I did was to record the phone
call with Godaddy support and post it on the Internet/ About 18 hours
later, service was restored.
The thread starts here:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=477562
And the recording with Godaddy is here:
http://marc.perkel.com/audio/godaddy.mp3
It speaks to the problem Kathy talks about when it comes to due process.
In this case it was resolved due to some unique skills that aren't
available to most people. But if anyone needs an example of what happens
when a registrar wrongly suspends a domain, is one says it all.
On 6/28/2010 1:33 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote:
> Carlos,
>
> Would you be in a position to assert our voices on this WG?
>
> kindly,
>
> Alex
>
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com
> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Carlos and All,
> I attended the same session and had similar concerns to those of
> Carlos. On the good side, for the first time in my recollection of
> these discussions, law enforcement at least discussed and answered
> questions about the importance of due process and data
> protection/privacy laws.
>
> on the downside, the road to registrars (and their RAA contract
> changes) is being paved with a request for every sort of
> monitoring and takedown request. Christine Jones, the respected
> General Counsel of GoDaddy, complained bitterly about this in the
> Public Forum.
>
> The other downside is that, in such an important Working Group,
> there is no NCUC representative. I know there are too many things
> going on, and too many important issues, but this one is central.
> If you can put someone on the WG (which has much more work to go),
> then NCUC's insights, understandings, and concerns for due process
> and the limits of the scope and mission of ICANN will have a much
> stronger voice than comments alone.
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
> I will be happy to try and help.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 06/24/2010 07:28 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Wendy
> Seltzer<wendy at seltzer.com <mailto:wendy at seltzer.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Carlos,
> We should include you in drafting public comments on
> the RAA report which
> attached the law enforcement recommendations.
>
>
> I second Carlos inclusion on the drafters team.
>
>
> I think at least some of the law enforcement
> representatives are concerned
> about balance, and perhaps we can acknowledge their
> concerns while
> recommending safeguards and due process requirements
> to oppose many of their
> specific recommendations.
>
>
>
> Absolutely! On our comments, please call for privacy law
> enforcement
> representatives also?
>
> kindly,
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> Best,
> --Wendy
>
>
> On 06/24/2010 06:06 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
> I have just read the transcript of the panel "Law
> Enforcement
> Amendments to the RAA ", held on 21 June, 2010
> during the Brussels ICANN
> meeting. The panel was chaired by ALAC's Cheryl
> Langdon-Orr. Everyone
> seemed to be sort of happy of sharing a discussion
> room full of police :)
>
> I do not understand the role law enforcers are
> supposed to play in
> defining ICANN policies.
>
> Law enforcers such as the FBI, Interpol etc work
> on a very simple
> paradigm: they follow orders, and the more
> information they get, the
> better to fulfill the orders they ought to follow.
> So they will always
> defend the idea that all private data should be
> recorded and made
> available to them whenever they deem necessary. It
> simply makes their
> job easier, and this is enough for them, and is
> all we will hear from
> them, whatever the nice dressing of their discourses.
>
> However, ICANN should be looking for appropriate
> policies which abide by
> internationally recognized human rights
> principles. This is the realm of
> legislators, policy-makers, regulators -- not law
> enforcers -- and these
> are the organizations ICANN should be talking to
> in deciding policies
> regarding balancing privacy rights with security.
>
> If decisions regarding the users' / consumers'
> rights to privacy are
> going to be taken on the advice of the police, I
> do not think we will
> arrive at a good end of this story.
>
> --c.a.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org
> <mailto:wendy at seltzer.org>
> Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of
> Colorado Law School
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet& Society at
> Harvard University
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100628/6525aaac/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list