Thanks for this Alex - this also underscores, imho, the need for some kind
of framework of interpretation for human rights to guide and measure ICANN
decision-making. I agree with Wendy that the current law enforcement for
registrars report would be a good starting point, but this refers only to a
"freedom of expression" analysis, rather than wider rights (such as civil
rights to due process). 
In the .nz ccTLD I would strongly resist any attempt to adopt the
Nominet-style approach. We require Court orders related to specific content,
not simply a domain name. One difficulty, however, is when law enforcement
approach registrars directly for content and domain name blocking without
any court orders: some smaller registrars can feel intimidated and obliged
to comply. Transparency is also a key issue and necessary so that the number
and source of requests are publicised and can be tracked and there can be
some external monitoring and accountability.

Joy


-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wendy
Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011 5:57 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 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

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 -- [log in to unmask] +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/