So Verisign can seize any domain or just domains registered through them? Can GoDaddy or other registrars do the same? On 11/26/2010 8:34 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > The latest info that I've seen is that Verisign assigned new DNS > servers at the Registry level, and then locked the domain so that even > the Registrar can't update it. So now it looks like it may have been > VeriSign who "seized" them. No word on ICANN's role in this > situation, if any. > > > > On Nov 26, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> So was it ICANN that actually did the seizing? >> >> On 11/26/2010 7:25 PM, Michael Haffely wrote: >>> The concerning part about the report from today is that the domain >>> owner never received any complaint or due process before the domains >>> were seized. It appears that no Cease and Desist, warrant, suit, or >>> other criminal complaint was brought up before the domain was >>> taken. What if (for an example) this behavior is taken up by the >>> Patent and Copyright "trolls". What happens to an >>> individual/nonprofit/organization when they have their domain yanked >>> out from under them? >>> >>> If ICANN is to seize domains from their rightful owners by demand of >>> a law enforcement agency we need to have a clear, *rapid* appeals >>> process to prevent abuse by corporations, law enforcement agencies, >>> and governments. >>> >>> >>> -Mike H. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Andrew A. Adams <[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >>> >>> Very similar moves are happening in the UK, with Nominet (UK >>> non-profit with >>> the .uk (and .gb) country-code delegation) engaging with the >>> UK's SOCA >>> (Serious and Organised Crime Agency *) to remove 1200 "sites >>> engaged in >>> selling counterfeit goods" recently and now doing a more >>> explicit deal with >>> the police to take down the DNS registration for sites "alleged >>> to be >>> involved in criminal activity". >>> >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/25/nominet_crime/ >>> >>> (*) The SOCA is a rather dodgy organisation, IMHO. When it was >>> set up the >>> then home secrewtary made a big thing of it not being actually >>> police and >>> therefore not bound by the requirements that the police have to >>> respect the >>> human rights of citizens. THat's a recipe for a secret police >>> operating >>> extra-judicially and here we see exactly that kind of approach. >>> >>> I am very worried by these kinds of moves. Zittrain's "The >>> Future of the >>> Internet" and Mueller's "Networks and States" concerns about >>> censorship >>> becoming the norm not the exception online seem to be coming >>> true. While I'm >>> not in favour of criminals having free reign, the trouble is >>> that all the >>> hard won freedoms such as due process, balance of rights, etc. >>> seem to be >>> being thrown out in the digital domain. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Professor Andrew A Adams [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>> 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/ >>> >>> > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > >