VeriSign demands website takedown powers

Fri Oct 14 05:25:20 CEST 2011

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 /
>
> 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 andRegulated 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] *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 <mailto: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>
>
> *To:*
>
> 	
>
> <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] 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/20111013/be2db384/attachment-0001.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/20111013/be2db384/attachment-0001.jpe>