On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:10 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > On Dec 3, 2010, at 5:49 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> thanks... so, in this case, why did they take this action? > > When folks with guns and little sense of humor show up at your door with a > sealed court ordered warrant relating to resources you have direct authority > over, would you tell them to talk to a retailer for that resource? Oh, and > don't forget VeriSign has a contract (cooperative agreement? whatever) > involving the USG for the administration of COM/NET. >
yup, convenient. >> why didn't they push the action to the registrar? or did they and the >> registrar >> refused to comply? (potentially because the domains weren't violating >> a TOS?) > > The registrar in question (GoDaddy) claims no one came to them and they had > no idea what was going on (although that didn't stop them from blaming ICANN). > ha, why does the USG insist on making things difficult? and making the com/net/icann look like a kangaroo-court? (or that's my perception at times...) >> I suppose though, on the good side, we can expect the Verisign folks >> to now shutdown other domains we bring to their attention as >> malware/spamware/etc without protest? > > "Got Warrant?" yea... so I wonder if the NCFTA folks would pony up warrants for things like the content highlighted by www.abuse.ch ? -chris
