Verisign Anti-Abuse Domain Use Policy withdrawn (was VeriSign demands website takedown powers)

Fri Oct 14 05:36:42 CEST 2011

Verisign Anti-Abuse Domain Use Policy status update:

 <http://j.mp/rcJBez>
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-com-net-name-request-10oct11-en.pdf

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam at gmail.com>wrote:

>  Hi Victoria, all
>
> Just felt like pointing out what is surely one of the greatest resource
> site for *US* telecom law and politics: cybertelecom<http://www.cybertelecom.org/>(replete with case law and generally up to date). Surely it is widely known,
> but in case a few listers didn't know of it, it is certainely a great find.
> Definitely thorough with regard USA while also in depht from a global
> perspective.
>
> See here for a compendium of sort on free speech<http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/firsta.htm>/1st
> amendment: http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/firsta.htm
>
>
> See here for same but relating to DNS <http://www.cybertelecom.org/dns/> :
> http://www.cybertelecom.org/dns/
> Navigation links should ease up search but i would recommand restricting a
> google search to the site for very efficient result ("search queries" site:
> cybertelecom.org).
>
> Nicolas
>
>
>
> On 10/13/2011 11:37 AM, Victoria McEvedy wrote:
>
>  I’m assisting ORG on its comments to Nominet and it would be very useful
> to have some input from the lawyers and others on this list. In particular
> –it would be useful to have some extracts from recent US
> authorities/academic works on Free Speech/the First Amendment and the right
> to receive and impart information online and in a domain name context
> particularly. Any references/cites to helpful recent US case law or papers
> on these issues would be helpful.  ****
>
> Thanks and best,  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Victoria McEvedy****
>
> Principal ****
>
> McEvedys****
>
> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]****
>
> ** **
>
> 81 Oxford Street, ****
>
> London W1D 2EU. ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122****
>
> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721****
>
> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169 ****
>
> * *
>
> *www.mcevedy.eu  *
>
> * *
>
> Authorized and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972***
> *
>
> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.****
>
> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
> is created by this email communication. ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>]
> *On Behalf Of *Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU
> *Sent:* 12 October 2011 22:58
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] VeriSign demands website takedown powers****
>
> ** **
>
> An impact statement would be timely and highly desirable.****
>
>  ****
>
> Although I am sympathetic to certain law enforcement concerns, the vague
> language Verisign used in the RSEP filing is troubling. The anti-abuse
> policy it proposes seems to be a broader framework for denying, canceling or
> transferring domains - malware is just one of the grounds, and others
> include any "request from law enforcement or a government or
> quasi-government agency" (i.e. not just court orders). It seems to have
> consulted only with registrars (understandable), NCFTA and the Anti-Phishing
> Working Group (APWG), an association composed largely of industry and law
> enforcement bodies. There are no further details as to the principles or
> criteria to be used to determine "abusive", "non-legitimate" and similar
> broad/subjective thresholds.****
>
>  ****
>
> The only reference I saw, in my quick read of the RSEP, is the possibility
> of a "protest mechanism" for (one presumes) a restoration of the domain, but
> it's not clear what that will look like.****
>
>  ****
>
> The Nominet recommendations are somewhat clearer - e.g. limitation to
> "serious criminal activity" and the possibility of appeal - but still of
> concern. For example, and as Kathy and others point out, who would determine
> whether and what freedom of expression issues exist in a dispute?****
>
>  ****
>
> I support us issuing a public statement and also would like us to form a
> small working team to reach out to Verisign, Nominet, the Registry and
> Registrar Stakeholder Groups to discuss the issue, hopefully in Dakar. I'd
> be willing to be the point person for the latter, if members feel that would
> be a good way to highlight our concerns to those directly implementing or at
> least considering these new practices.****
>
>
> Cheers****
>
> Mary****
>
>  ****
>
> *Mary W S Wong*****
>
> *Professor of Law*****
>
> *Chair, Graduate IP Programs*****
>
> *Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP*****
>  UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW**** Two White Street**** Concord,
> NH 03301**** USA**** Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu**** Phone:
> 1-603-513-5143**** Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php**** Selected
> writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584****
>
> >>> ****
>
> *From: *****
>
> Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> <mueller at SYR.EDU>****
>
> *To:*****
>
> <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu> <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>****
>
> *Date: *****
>
> 10/11/2011 5:09 PM****
>
> *Subject: *****
>
> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] VeriSign demands website takedown powers****
>
> 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?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>]
> On Behalf Of
> > Wendy Seltzer
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:57 PM
> > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] VeriSign demands website takedown powers
> >
> > Thanks Alex and Kathy,
> >
> > This development underscores the importance of including freedom-of-
> > expression impact analyses in the policy review.
> >
> > We at NCSG should help ICANN staff to set a good framework for that
> > review in the current report on registrar contacts for law enforcement,
> > (Resolution 3.5 at <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201110>) that can
> > serve as an example and precedent for future cases.
> >
> > --Wendy
> > ut
> > On 10/11/2011 11:29 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> > > Tx you, Alex, for the posting.
> > >
> > > Takedowns is a growing issue, and Verisign's announcement builds upon
> > > meetings that international law enforcement representatives held with
> > > registries and registrars last year.  Verisign is asking for takedown
> > > powers. Also, working with the Serious Organized Crime Agency of the
> > > UK, Nominet (.UK) has issued a draft recommendation giving it takedown
> > > authority in cases of alleged serious crime.
> > > http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest?contentId=8617 (public comment
> > > period technically over).
> > >
> > > The direction is clear - this is what law enforcement wants. The
> > > question we can influence, I think, will be process:
> > > - How can we ensure that only the most serious crime is subject to
> > > this rapid takedown process?
> > > - How can we ensure free speech/freedom of expression websites are
> > > exempt ("The policy should exclude suspension where issues of freedom
> > > of expression are central aspects of the disputed issue," Nominet)?
> > > - How can we ensure a very rapid appeal for when mistakes occur?
> > > - How can we help the good faith domain name registrants know where to
> > > go for help?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Kathy (Kleiman)
> > >> No court order necessary
> > >> By Kevin Murphy
> > >> 11th October 2011
> > >>
> > >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/11/verisign_asks_for_web_takedo
> > >> wn_powers/>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Yale Law
> > School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet &
> > Society at Harvard University http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> > https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
> > http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/****
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 6539 (20111013) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com****
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 6540 (20111013) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111014/9045259e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1708 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111014/9045259e/attachment.jpe>