Hi Victoria, all Just felt like pointing out what is surely one of the greatest resource site for *US* telecom law and politics: cybertelecom <http://www.cybertelecom.org/> (replete with case law and generally up to date). Surely it is widely known, but in case a few listers didn't know of it, it is certainely a great find. Definitely thorough with regard USA while also in depht from a global perspective. See here for a compendium of sort on free speech <http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/firsta.htm>/1st amendment: http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/firsta.htm See here for same but relating to DNS <http://www.cybertelecom.org/dns/> : http://www.cybertelecom.org/dns/ Navigation links should ease up search but i would recommand restricting a google search to the site for very efficient result ("search queries" site:cybertelecom.org). Nicolas On 10/13/2011 11:37 AM, Victoria McEvedy wrote: > > I'm assisting ORG on its comments to Nominet and it would be very > useful to have some input from the lawyers and others on this list. In > particular --it would be useful to have some extracts from recent US > authorities/academic works on Free Speech/the First Amendment and the > right to receive and impart information online and in a domain name > context particularly. Any references/cites to helpful recent US case > law or papers on these issues would be helpful. > > Thanks and best, > > Victoria McEvedy > > Principal > > McEvedys > > /Solicitors//and Attorneys / > > cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC > > 81 Oxford Street, > > London W1D 2EU. > > T: +44 (0) 207 243 6122 > > F: +44 (0) 207 022 1721 > > M: +44 (0) 7990 625 169 > > __ > > _www.mcevedy.eu _ > > __ > > Authorized andRegulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972 > > This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the > exclusive use of the addressee(s). This email and its attachments may > also be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please > let us know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its > attachments without reading, copying or forwarding the contents. > > This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no > retainer is created by this email communication. > > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf > Of *[log in to unmask] > *Sent:* 12 October 2011 22:58 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] VeriSign demands website takedown powers > > An impact statement would be timely and highly desirable. > > Although I am sympathetic to certain law enforcement concerns, the > vague language Verisign used in the RSEP filing is troubling. The > anti-abuse policy it proposes seems to be a broader framework for > denying, canceling or transferring domains - malware is just one of > the grounds, and others include any "request from law enforcement or a > government or quasi-government agency" (i.e. not just court orders). > It seems to have consulted only with registrars (understandable), > NCFTA and the Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG), an association > composed largely of industry and law enforcement bodies. There are no > further details as to the principles or criteria to be used to > determine "abusive", "non-legitimate" and similar broad/subjective > thresholds. > > The only reference I saw, in my quick read of the RSEP, is the > possibility of a "protest mechanism" for (one presumes) a restoration > of the domain, but it's not clear what that will look like. > > The Nominet recommendations are somewhat clearer - e.g. limitation to > "serious criminal activity" and the possibility of appeal - but still > of concern. For example, and as Kathy and others point out, who would > determine whether and what freedom of expression issues exist in a > dispute? > > I support us issuing a public statement and also would like us to form > a small working team to reach out to Verisign, Nominet, the Registry > and Registrar Stakeholder Groups to discuss the issue, hopefully in > Dakar. I'd be willing to be the point person for the latter, if > members feel that would be a good way to highlight our concerns to > those directly implementing or at least considering these new practices. > > > Cheers > > Mary > > *Mary W S Wong* > > /Professor of Law/ > > /Chair, Graduate IP Programs/ > > /Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP/ > > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > > Two White Street > > Concord, NH 03301 > > USA > > Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network > (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > >>> > > *From: * > > > > Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> > > *To:* > > > > <[log in to unmask]> > > *Date: * > > > > 10/11/2011 5:09 PM > > *Subject: * > > > > Re: [NCSG-Discuss] VeriSign demands website takedown powers > > 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/ > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 6539 (20111013) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 6540 (20111013) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com