Re: New DNS vulnerability: political overreach

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

> 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.


Generally yes, but there are exceptions. There are certain claims that are
exclusively in the federal jurisdiction , and state courts cannot hear
them. There are also instances where if a state law says its courts do not
have to hear a given matter, they cannot be forced to hear it on federal
grounds, unless the federal statute expressly requires it. ( Douglas vs NY,
NH & HR , 279 US 377 (1929 ) )

.Violent agreement with you that risking default in any case, even if it
seems absurd, is a bad strategy.

Getting back to the technical issue though, all these things do is
reinforce the thought that if you are using a domain for commercial
purposes , you probably want to strongly consider one managed by a non-US
registrar if possible, as long as the legal environment is such that any
state AG trying to make hay can just yeet you offline on a whim.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 11:13 PM John R. Levine via NANOG <
nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:

> 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/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/6DAHEFBAPPFWJ3PFLXTIRDO5ZR6FFOCJ/