>> -----Original Message-----
>> - 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?
> [Milton L Mueller] All very good questions, Kathy.
> On your second question, involving Nominet and the free expression exemption, is the quoted statement already embedded in the nominet policy, or is it language you are suggesting? I am sorry but I am not well-informed enough to know which one.
>
> --MM
Hi Milton,
The line I quoted is from Nominet's September Draft Recommendations.
There was a period of public comment through September, and now there is
a quiet period as the recommendations and comments are evaluated. I have
not seen a final version yet. I include the draft recommendation points
below -- and the link to the full comment document.
On an additional note, throughout the process of meetings with law
enforcement this year and last year, I (and others) spent a lot of time
raising concerns about free speech and freedom of expression, and urging
special caution when when speech is at issue. I see evidence of
listening...
Below is a section of the Draft Recommendations -- and the full PDF can
be found at
http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/51980_Draft_Issue_Group_Recommendations_on_Domain_Names__Criminal_Activity.pdf
Best,
Kathy
------------------ Draft issue group recommendations on 'Domain names
used in connection with criminal activity' ---------------------------
'*Domain names used in connection with criminal activity' **- **Draft
Recommendations *
*Background *
The issue group on 'Domain names used in connection with criminal
activity' was set up in March 2011 to help bring external expertise and
perspective into Nominet policy decision-making.
The process has been open to all stakeholders throughout.
Having met 3 times, the group is now preparing to finalise
recommendations to put forward to the Nominet board. The issue group
will meet to discuss the draft recommendations on 21st September 2011,
and feedback from all interested stakeholders is welcome.
This document outlines the key recommendations, based on areas of
consensus developed to date within the group. The issue group's
recommendations will be presented to the Nominet board for its
consideration.
It is anticipated that further discussion will take place under the
policy process to consider issues where consensus has not yet been
achieved.
*Draft recommendations -- key principles *
1.
Nominet should have an abuse policy that specifically addresses
criminal activity in its terms and conditions.
2.
Nominet should be able to act under an expedited process to suspend
domain names associated with serious crime when requested by a law
enforcement agency.
3. An expedited procedure to suspend domain names should only be
available where a) it is the last resort in dealing with the domain
name, following requests with registrar, ISPs etc in the first
instance or b) it is the most viable option to prevent imminent or
ongoing serious consumer harm.
4.
The policy should exclude suspension where issues of freedom of
expression are central aspects of the disputed issue.
5.
Nominet should consider establishing a registrant appeal mechanism.
6. When the policy is operational, Nominet should set up an independent
panel to review how the policy is workin
7.
Nominet should exclude civil or third party requests from this
policy (which is focused on criminality), but these merit further
discussion under the policy process.
8. Nominet should communicate the outcome of its policy development to
Government to inform its own deliberations in this field.
9.