U.S. Government Seizes BitTorrent Search Engine Domain and More

[Marc Perkel]

So Verisign can seize any domain or just domains registered through
them? Can GoDaddy or other registrars do the same?

On 11/26/2010 8:34 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> The latest info that I've seen is that Verisign assigned new DNS
> servers at the Registry level, and then locked the domain so that even
> the Registrar can't update it.  So now it looks like it may have been
> VeriSign who "seized" them.  No word on ICANN's role in this
> situation, if any.
>
>
>
> On Nov 26, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>> So was it ICANN that actually did the seizing?
>>
>> On 11/26/2010 7:25 PM, Michael Haffely wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Mike H.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Andrew A. Adams <aaa at meiji.ac.jp
>>> <mailto:aaa at meiji.ac.jp>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Very similar moves are happening in the UK, with Nominet (UK
>>>     non-profit with
>>>     the .uk (and .gb) country-code delegation) engaging with the
>>>     UK's SOCA
>>>     (Serious and Organised Crime Agency *) to remove 1200 "sites
>>>     engaged in
>>>     selling counterfeit goods" recently and now doing a more
>>>     explicit deal with
>>>     the police to take down the DNS registration for sites "alleged
>>>     to be
>>>     involved in criminal activity".
>>>
>>>     http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/25/nominet_crime/
>>>
>>>     (*) The SOCA is a rather dodgy organisation, IMHO. When it was
>>>     set up the
>>>     then home secrewtary made a big thing of it not being actually
>>>     police and
>>>     therefore not bound by the requirements that the police have to
>>>     respect the
>>>     human rights of citizens. THat's a recipe for a secret police
>>>     operating
>>>     extra-judicially and here we see exactly that kind of approach.
>>>
>>>     I am very worried by these kinds of moves. Zittrain's "The
>>>     Future of the
>>>     Internet" and Mueller's "Networks and States" concerns about
>>>     censorship
>>>     becoming the norm not the exception online seem to be coming
>>>     true. While I'm
>>>     not in favour of criminals having free reign, the trouble is
>>>     that all the
>>>     hard won freedoms such as due process, balance of rights, etc.
>>>     seem to be
>>>     being thrown out in the digital domain.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp <mailto:aaa at meiji.ac.jp>
>>>     Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
>>>     Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
>>>     Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20101126/344d1109/attachment-0001.html>