[registration-issues-wg] Registrars as Censors

Michele Neylon - Blacknight michele at blacknight.com
Mon Nov 6 18:53:19 UTC 2017


“Throw the book at them” on what basis?



--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com
https://blacknight.blog /
http://ceo.hosting/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow, R93 X265
,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
From: <registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
Date: Monday 6 November 2017 at 17:52
To: Derek Smythe <derek at aa419.org>
Cc: "registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org" <registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] Registrars as Censors

See, what we need are sensible responses to telling problems.  And I truly believe the frameworks existing allows this. Cooperation is key here.

And when that does not happen, throw the book at 'em.

-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Derek Smythe <derek at aa419.org<mailto:derek at aa419.org>> wrote:

I'll swing the conversation to the opposite side to put a reality check into this issue. Let's talk fraud. How do these theoretical policies pan out in a non-perfect world?

What happens when we come to issues such as registrars demanding a court order for issues such as the chemical "SSD Solutions" being sold ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_money_scam ). This chemical does not exist.  People using it to defraud have been arrested in just about every part of the world. Such attempts are legal nowhere. Clear case history exists. Yet the domain name is something akin to "ssdsolution ..." and protected by by the registrars associated proxy.

What happens if a brand owner is serially targeted with his website stolen again and again,  abused to defraud consumers, the company is small and paying @2500 each time for a UDRP is not an option, nor appointing an attorney in the USA. Quite frankly such a company could bankrupt itself defending itself with "due processes". If they chose not to bankrupt themselves,  that does not leave the issue of the victims being targeted. I have had conversations with more than one such company.

What happens if we have all the policies in place to ensure valid registration details, but not enforced and a party is serially using garbage details via a registrar to defraud victims?

These are not free speech issues. This is something else again.

Law enforcement asks for victims, but if victims are not in their "connected" jurisdictions, they will not even look at it. In most cases, there is no due process for victims since the crime is international and losses too small, but devastating and livelihood depriving for the victim. In yet other jurisdictions, law enforcement is more concerned about their uniforms than cyber fraud, considering it a civil issue. Tell that to somebody that has lost their livelihood. But according to the stated logic, due process must take place. That means a victim that is virtually bankrupt must now hire and international lawyer in the jurisdiction of the registrar - for what purpose? The registrar will not recover the losses.

The scenarios above are common and examples only limited by the time people like have available. A legitimate party will register one or two domains. It's not uncommon to find serial fraudsters registering over 300 domains.

Here's the irony. Some registers do not tolerate fraud and will take action if given conclusive proof. Yet a certain registrar upholding the EFF's view has become the go-to registrar with their free proxy services where certain bad apples have been booted by other registrars.

We need to think about this carefully. In an ideal world I would agree with the EFF, if law enforcement investigates each issue, if legal assistance is available to all victims of domain based cyber fraud. But then much of the world is not ideal. Not even in the USA, much less in other parts of the world.

Derek Smythe

Artists Against 419

http://www.aa419.org


On 2017-11-05 08:43 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Michele:
The writing framed the views of two groups of our stakeholders, not at all representing my own.

CAS


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799<tel:(876)%20818-1799>
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================

On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>> wrote:
Carlton

Freedom of speech is *not* “inalienable” and it’s definitely not an absolute right.

Personally I think it’s interesting that different groups want to discuss this, but unless they’re going to pay our legal fees I don’t see how any 3rd party can force a registrar (or anyone else) to not take action when they’re being fined or worse.

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com
https://blacknight.blog /
http://ceo.hosting/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072<tel:+353%2059%20918%203072>
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:+353%2059%20918%203090>
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow, R93 X265
,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
From: <registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday 5 November 2017 at 17:17
To: "registration-issues-wg at icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg at icann.org>" <registration-issues-wg at icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg at icann.org>>, Charla Shambley via CCT-Review <cct-review at icann.org<mailto:cct-review at icann.org>>
Subject: [registration-issues-wg] Registrars as Censors

Um, well, they can summarily act under [a] general provision[s] of the Terms of Service disapproving of things like incitement, antisocial behaviours and such.

The NCUC's position tends to a blanket restraint on any action by the registrar; the ToS may not be utilised for such actions, especially if it results - or tends to result - in decisions pertaining [web] content.

The EFF's position is a little more nuanced:
it is worried about lack of due process and accountability in the first instance and the incursion of certain inalienable rights, like freedom of speech. So they promote a process that they feel would make the action accountable

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/eff-icanns-registrars-dont-pick-censors-pen


-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799<tel:%28876%29%20818-1799>
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================




_______________________________________________

registration-issues-wg mailing list

registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg


_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20171106/dd17ff8f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list