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
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 and
Regulated 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
>>>
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? |
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6539 (20111013) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com