Re: New DNS vulnerability: political overreach

[Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

> My concern, and this is where I think the law could stand improvement,
> is that the court co-opted a distant third party in its remedy for the
> dispute. They interfered with a contract between Verisign and one of
> its registrars, neither of which was a party to the lawsuit about
> Kick's behavior, neither of which was accused of any wrongdoing, and
> neither of which was more than tenuously operating within the court's
> geographical jurisdiction. That doesn't seem like something the law
> should allow, at least not of a state court.


I agree. But I don't think it's a case of the law needing improvement. This
is a problem with the Texas state courts ruling on things that seem to be
very clearly a federal question , which they have been doing with
increasing regularity in the last decade or so.

Last I knew the legality of federal orders to seize .com domains was still
semi-unsettled, with lots of legal challenges still being made. (Anne can
surely correct me if I am wrong on this.) So precedent, but not quite
settled. Having Texas wade into the pool and take a big dump will surely
not help get that clarity any time soon.



On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 7:48 PM William Herrin via NANOG <
nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 3:48 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via NANOG
> <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> > Bill is correct that they should have *removed* it to federal court.
> > Ignoring it was about the most stupid thing they could do, as,
> > again with a nod to Bill, when you default you lose by, well, default.
>
> Hi Anne,
>
> My concern, and this is where I think the law could stand improvement,
> is that the court co-opted a distant third party in its remedy for the
> dispute. They interfered with a contract between Verisign and one of
> its registrars, neither of which was a party to the lawsuit about
> Kick's behavior, neither of which was accused of any wrongdoing, and
> neither of which was more than tenuously operating within the court's
> geographical jurisdiction. That doesn't seem like something the law
> should allow, at least not of a state court.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/FYE5GDDJVRXKYLQK5BXANL5L4QRPJ73P/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/IBB565PID3DTUU4BGBTNDM3T67KAQ7W3/