The dark side of take down requests

[Kathy Kleiman]

Marc,
I know everyone tries their best in these situations, but your story is 
classic. I am saving it as a "must-read" for newcomers to the field. Tx, 
Kathy

<<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/20100630/b56c0d9d/attachment.html>