Marc,
I know everyone tries their best in these situations, but your story is classic. I am saving it as a "must-read" for newcomers to the field. Tx, Kathy

<<It's interesting that Kathy mentioned Godaddy and take down requests. I have a personal story about what happened with Godaddy taking out an entire data center due to a spam complaint. I was hosted at the data center and a friend of mine owns it and he had me make the call knowing that I'm good at getting results. The data center was called nectartech.com.

What happened was that some customer got hacked and was sending spam. The customer was using nectartech.com name servers as was most of their customers. On Friday January 13th around 5:00pm Godaddy suspended the nectartech.com domain. And it was a 3 day weekend. What happened then was a legendary story about how I managed to get nectartech.com back online in spite of Godaddy's suspention.

This is a great anecdotal story about what can happen when registrars go wild with domain suspension. You can read about it all over the internet by googling godaddy and nectartech. What I did was to record the phone call with Godaddy support and post it on the Internet/ About 18 hours later, service was restored.

The thread starts here:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=477562

And the recording with Godaddy is here:

http://marc.perkel.com/audio/godaddy.mp3

It speaks to the problem Kathy talks about when it comes to due process. In this case it was resolved due to some unique skills that aren't available to most people. But if anyone needs an example of what happens when a registrar wrongly suspends a domain, is one says it all.

On 6/28/2010 1:33 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote:

Carlos,

Would you be in a position to assert our voices on this WG?

kindly,

Alex

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Carlos and All,
I attended the same session and had similar concerns to those of Carlos. On the good side, for the first time in my recollection of these discussions, law enforcement at least discussed and answered questions about the importance of due process and data protection/privacy laws.

on the downside, the road to registrars (and their RAA contract changes) is being paved with a request for every sort of monitoring and takedown request. Christine Jones, the respected General Counsel of GoDaddy, complained bitterly about this in the Public Forum.

The other downside is that, in such an important Working Group, there is no NCUC representative. I know there are too many things going on, and too many important issues, but this one is central. If you can put someone on the WG (which has much more work to go), then NCUC's insights, understandings, and concerns for due process and the limits of the scope and mission of ICANN will have a much stronger voice than comments alone.

Best,
Kathy

I will be happy to try and help.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 06/24/2010 07:28 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote:

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Wendy Seltzer<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:

Thanks Carlos,
We should include you in drafting public comments on the RAA report which
attached the law enforcement recommendations.

I second Carlos inclusion on the drafters team.

I think at least some of the law enforcement representatives are concerned
about balance, and perhaps we can acknowledge their concerns while
recommending safeguards and due process requirements to oppose many of their
specific recommendations.

Absolutely! On our comments, please call for privacy law enforcement
representatives also?

kindly,

Alex

Best,
--Wendy


On 06/24/2010 06:06 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

I have just read the transcript of the panel "Law Enforcement
Amendments to the RAA ", held on 21 June, 2010 during the Brussels ICANN
meeting. The panel was chaired by ALAC's Cheryl Langdon-Orr. Everyone
seemed to be sort of happy of sharing a discussion room full of police :)

I do not understand the role law enforcers are supposed to play in
defining ICANN policies.

Law enforcers such as the FBI, Interpol etc work on a very simple
paradigm: they follow orders, and the more information they get, the
better to fulfill the orders they ought to follow. So they will always
defend the idea that all private data should be recorded and made
available to them whenever they deem necessary. It simply makes their
job easier, and this is enough for them, and is all we will hear from
them, whatever the nice dressing of their discourses.

However, ICANN should be looking for appropriate policies which abide by
internationally recognized human rights principles. This is the realm of
legislators, policy-makers, regulators -- not law enforcers -- and these
are the organizations ICANN should be talking to in deciding policies
regarding balancing privacy rights with security.

If decisions regarding the users' / consumers' rights to privacy are
going to be taken on the advice of the police, I do not think we will
arrive at a good end of this story.

--c.a.

--
Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask]
Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet&  Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/