On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 3:09 AM Joe Greco <jgr...@ns.sol.net> wrote: > It seems to me like the court overstepped here and issued a ruling > that contained a lot of wishful thinking that doesn't reflect the > ability of miscreants on the Internet to just rapidly register a new > domain name with a new fake credit card. Certainly it is trivial > to host the actual websites well out of legal reach of US courts, > and with domain registrars without US presence. This leaves those > of us in the network operations community in the position of > shouldering costs to comply with a court order, but without a clear > mechanism to continue to be in compliance. This could become a full > time job, if the defendants want to play the game right. "israel.tv"? > "1srael.tv" (with a "1" or "L" for the first letter, etc). > > Is anybody here considering recovering compliance costs from the > plaintiffs?
Check with your lawyer to be sure and then ignore the ruling. A judge in a civil case definitely does not have the authority to bind folks who are not parties to the suit. It's a fairly basic due process issue. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
