VeriSign demands website takedown powers

[Alex Gakuru]

Hi Milton,

Considering that VeriSign databases are rightly hosted on their
infrastructure and not on registrants servers, can their quarterly uninvited
"anti-malaware" scans be considered as trespassing on registrants content
host servers?

Alex

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 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] 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111012/8464bf95/attachment-0001.html>