Re: New DNS vulnerability: political overreach

["John R. Levine via NANOG" <nanog () lists nanog org>]

According to 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.

That's the way courts work in the US. If someone files a case in a
state court, the court will assume it has jurisdiction unless the
defendant argues otherwise. That's why it's such a bad idea to
default: the court's not going to make your argument for you.

I have my concerns about Texas courts, but I believe in this kind of
situation any state court would have done the same.

R's,
John
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl () taugh com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/4ZHEPJJCLUP4P4ZGMWUC7MBMHJGJIQ3U/