Nominet considers changes to its domain name disconnection policy

The Register reports today that following intense lobbying by Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), Nominet is considering changing its terms and conditions so that it can disconnect domain names more easily. Nominet controls the domain name registry for .uk and works in partnership with domain name registrars like 123 Reg and GoDaddy.

According to a brief released by Nominet, Nominet itself does not have a contractual agreement with registrars to disconnect a domain name if it conducts illegal activity on the website associated with it. This is unlike the registries and registrars for .org and .biz domain names.

The brief goes on to say,

“There are increasing expectations from Law Enforcement Agencies that Nominet and its members will respond quickly to reasonable requests to suspend domain names being used in association with criminal activity and Nominet has been working with them in response to formal requests. 

Experience has been developed by working with key Law Enforcement Agencies in a trusted relationship. This led to the suspension of over 1,200 domain names being used for criminal activity, working on a request from the Police Central eCrime Unit in December 2009.”

The concern here is not the change in the terms and conditions that Nominet will make with its registrars, but the use of the phrase reasonable requests. Does that mean a warrant is required by a law enforcement agency? Will the domain name owner be able to face due process in conjunction with suspension of their domain name and website?

Just like the Digital Economy Act, this proposal  does not assume innocence in the face of an accusation. But unlike the Digital Economy Act, this proposal is not codified in a law which would make it legally enforceable.  Nominet’s approach to its proposal is to bring together a group of experts who would advise on their plans going forward. This is a good way to approach this, but it could lead to a poorly written law in the future like the US is considering with COICA.

By Dominique Lazanski

Comments

[Andrew Ampers Taylor]

Not sure if I understand the reason for this? There are countries all over the world who won't listen to British law enforcement agencies and anyone can have a site with their ISPs and have their site viewed all over the world.

Ampers.

[alastair]

The fact is that most contracts issued by registrars and ISPs allow the registrar or ISP to terminate or suspend the contract in the event of illegal activity of one sort or another.

In *theory*, most of these bodies have always, then, been open to "reasonable requests" (effectively third-party reports that their customers are in breach of contract) that might have caused them to cease service for some of their customers.

Note, though, that this is a matter of contract between the user of their services and the ISP or registrar. It does not and should not require a warrant, court order or subpoena. If, as a customer, your contract is terminated or suspended under terms set out in that contract, you can, of course, take the matter to a civil proceeding in a court of law.

[Dominique Lazanski]

In most cases, the terms of a contract with a registrar does state that the contract may be terminated at the will of the registrar or the customer. However, I am concerned by the growth of the idea that 'reasonable request' is a legal entity. And it is clear that Nominet is being nudged by legal authorities more than they are enforcing their own contractual agreements.

[alastair]

@Dominique That may indeed be true, but as with many Internet companies Nominet is probably pretty lax about enforcement of its terms of service. Often there is no monitoring of customers whatsoever, and sometimes even the biggest most well-known companies turn out to have no mechanism to accept third-party reports of violations.

Personally I worry more about the growth of the idea that nobody can do anything without a court order and that people can't use their own judgement.