VeriSign demands website takedown powers

[Nuno Garcia]

I am not sure I agree when you say the registry is in the US. AFAIK, there
are numerous root level servers dispersed all over the world. So basically,
the US could only interfere with the ones that are in the US. The problem is
that they propagate and synchronize all the DNS databases.

Or, maybe I'm wrong...

BR

NG

On 11 October 2011 17:25, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Since the registry is in the US, that makes sense that US Law enforcement
> would make that claim.  Now if the registry was actually kept in offshore
> data-haven, if such were ever to really exist, the issue might be
> complicated.  As for Verisign, they have long been cousins to the US
> government, with contracts that insure a tight relationship.  It would not
> make business sense for Verisign to do anything that alienated the US
> government.  And to go further, if Versign can oblige ICE and the rest of
> the US goverment by acting on it own and preventing political pressure on
> the government, so much the better.  Might even help with future Request for
> Bid etc.
>
> But of all this explain why at this point, I beleive the only safe ICANN
> based TLDs are ccTLDs in countries that offer anonymity and data protection
> for registrants.  For most of us registrants, that does not really matter,
> but if the registrant is politically sensitive, .com is not the place to be.
>  In fact no gTLD is safe as far as I can tell for the politically sensitive
> registration.
>
> avri
>
> On 11 Oct 2011, at 11:51, Alex Gakuru wrote:
>
> > Marc,
> >
> > see on article: "Senior ICE agents are on record saying that they believe
> all .com addresses fall under US jurisdiction."
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Marc Perkel <marc at churchofreality.org>
> wrote:
> > Also - when they reference "law enforcement" what country are they
> talking about? In much of the Muslim world my Church of Reality is not only
> illegal but I would get the death penalty for denying that God exists. If -
> for example - the Iranians through law enforcement could take down illegal
> web sites then they might want to take down any site that is offensive to
> Islam.
> >
> > Or are we talking about only US law enforcement?
> >
> >
> > On 10/11/2011 8:29 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_takedown_powers/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111011/8f2e7392/attachment-0001.html>