Hi Milton, Considering that VeriSign databases are rightly hosted on their infrastructure and not on registrants servers, can their quarterly uninvited "anti-malaware" scans be considered as trespassing on registrants content host servers? Alex On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > > Wendy Seltzer > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:57 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > 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 -- [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/ >