Verisign Anti-Abuse Domain Use Policy status update: <http://j.mp/rcJBez> http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-com-net-name-request-10oct11-en.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > 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 * > > [image: 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 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]<[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]**** 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]> <[log in to unmask]>**** > > *To:***** > > <[log in to unmask]> <[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]<[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 > >