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/