Exactly. It is also very unlikely that a takedown contract between a registry with a third party provider of seizure services (sic!) will fix in the subtleties needed to work out and pay for retaining the bits of a domains delegation and services not of interest from that which is. Christian On 2 Dec 2010, at 21:15, Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 12/02/2010 12:18 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
which raises a interesting scenario : many ccTLDs outsource the technical running of the ccTLD to third party registry operators, several of which are US based. Does the recent ICE seizures imply that ICE can issue a seizure warrant against a US based registry operator running a ccTLD and redirect a ccTLD to ICE's own servers without notifying the ccTLD or the ccTLD registrant?
Why not? If any part of the mechanism of resolving DNS names is within the jurisdictional reach of the enforcement agency one ought to have an expectation that the agency will exercise that authority.
As I have described elsewhere there is a huge perception that websites and domain names are linked one-to-one. That is, of course, technical nonsense; the truth being that domain names point to collections of records that can contain all kinds of stuff. In that regard, taking down a domain name because a record references a website could be akin to seizing an entire Maersk container ship because one container on board is carrying fake Gucci bags.
We are at real risk here on the net (many say it is not a risk but a present-day fact) in which enforcement agencies, going after real illicit activities, use simplistic techniques that are far overbroad and can cause vast collateral damage to lawful activities.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org