VeriSign demands website takedown powers

[Joy Liddicoat]

The definition of 'serious crime' under the Nominet policy should also be taken into account. That definition is based on the  UK Serious Crime Act 2007 which includes crimes as diverse as drug trafficking, child prostitution, exploitation, fraud, immigration, tax evasion, copyright and the common law offence of "cheating public revenue". See:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/schedule/1
this is partly why the freedom of expression exception, while important, may not cover all the relevant issues.

Joy

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011 2:29 p.m.
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: VeriSign demands website takedown powers

Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>> 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?

Milton L Mueller responded:
>> All very good questions, Kathy. On your second question, involving 
>> Nominet and the free expression exemption, is the quoted statement 
>> already embedded in the nominet policy, or is it language you are 
>> suggesting? I am sorry but I am not well-informed enough to know 
>> which one.

Kathy Responded:
> The line I quoted is from Nominet's September Draft Recommendations.  
> There was a period of public comment through September, and now there 
> is a quiet period as the recommendations and comments are evaluated. I 
> have not seen a final version yet. I include the draft recommendation 
> points below -- and the link to the full comment document.

> On an additional note, throughout the process of meetings with law 
> enforcement this year and last year, I (and others) spent a lot of 
> time raising concerns about free speech and freedom of expression, and 
> urging special caution when when speech is at issue. I see evidence of 
> listening...

> Below is a section of the Draft Recommendations -- and the full PDF 
> can be found at 
> http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/51980_Draft_Issue_Group_Recomm
> endations_on_Domain_Names__Criminal_Activity.pdf


While Ihaven't been involved in the discussion directly myself there has been significant discussion on the legal advisors to the Open Rights Group
(http://www.openrightsgroup.org/) in which I was involved. There is a report from the ORG Exec Director, Jim Killock, about the discussions ORG was involved in with Nominet and other on this issue back in May here:

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/domain-seizures



-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams                      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/