VeriSign Seeks Authorization To Shut Down "Abusive" Websites

[Brink]

VeriSign manages the .com domain (amongst others), but it doesn’t really OWN it. There’s a whole host of ICANN regulations in the way that keeps VeriSign from being able to take down any website it wants, anytime it wants. It’s looking for relief for some of those restraints in an appeal to ICANN that is first and foremost about responding to governmental takedown requests – at least on the surface – but contains slippery verbiage that could cause headaches for website owners around the world.

Read more at:
Maximum PC | VeriSign Seeks Authorization To Shut Down "Abusive" Websites

 

[Layback Bear]

Keeping the internet safer and legal is a great goal but I have no idea how ICANN or VeriSign will ever be able to do it many countries such as China.
Thanks Brink

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
This is treading on very thin ice in a Free society -- "Abusive" can mean many things to different people.

Is it "Abusive" for example to have a site where people can complain and list actual examples of how say Giant Supermarkets can damage not only the environment but destroy local communities and the local economy (And NO I'm NOT a supermarket hater on the whole --this is just an example).

Should we give the power to corporations to shut down websites because they are persuading customers to choose different products.

This reminds me of back in the late 1960's when people managed to sue large manufacturing companies over "False advertising" because they were saying "Brand-X" was inferior to their product. Some people manufactured a "Genuine Brand X" and then had fun in the Courts.

However the lawyers in suits soon sided with the corporations and these types of tactics were deemed either illegal or to be fraudulent.

Going down the "Abuse" route opens a whole can of worms.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[bigcitycat]

I fear Government. I have no fear of corporations.

 

[Cr00zng]

I fear Government. I have no fear of corporations.

Corporations are the Government...

 

[Cr00zng]

Hi there
This is treading on very thin ice in a Free society -- "Abusive" can mean many things to different people.

Is it "Abusive" for example to have a site where people can complain and list actual examples of how say Giant Supermarkets can damage not only the environment but destroy local communities and the local economy (And NO I'm NOT a supermarket hater on the whole --this is just an example).

Should we give the power to corporations to shut down websites because they are persuading customers to choose different products.

This reminds me of back in the late 1960's when people managed to sue large manufacturing companies over "False advertising" because they were saying "Brand-X" was inferior to their product. Some people manufactured a "Genuine Brand X" and then had fun in the Courts.

However the lawyers in suits soon sided with the corporations and these types of tactics were deemed either illegal or to be fraudulent.

Going down the "Abuse" route opens a whole can of worms.

Cheers
jimbo

Well said...

 

[jostytosty]

It's a VERY GOOD thing Verisign isn't able to take down sites on request of anybody. In A Democracy freedom of speech is THE most important thing. If an organisation as Verisign would be able [would be alowed to] takedown sites on request of any governement, this would mean governements can have Verisign to takedown sites that merely disagree with their policy. just like China and Iran lock down sites every now and then as they like.