[At-Large] US v John Doe 1 & Others [Defendants]
karl at cavebear.com
Sat Nov 26 22:58:45 UTC 2011
On 11/26/2011 02:18 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:
> The jurisdictional issue is fascinating, but it's also worth asking
> why RIPE had to be ordered to work with ISC and the multinational law
> enforcement effort aimed at shutting this down.
1. If RIPE had not cooperated then presumably the order could have been
addressed to IANA itself (which is clearly in the USA) and ordering
IANA to revoke RIPE's allocations take over RIPE's role (IANA being the
source of RIPE's allocations). Another theory is that the RIRs are
creations of IANA. Another path could work through ICANN and its
(unclear) role (parent-child, sibling, distant cousin... ) of the RIRs.
Overall it could be a mess of almost biblical proportions if RIPE was
willing to play hard-to-get. The trouble is that over time voluntary
cooperation often ossifies into mandatory obedience.
2. The method that seems to be evolving - an internet in which various
registration bodies (whether for DNS or IP addresses) become points for
the application of pressure by law enforcement (or other kinds of
enforcement.) That does not bode well for the net because it can easily
give rise to resentments - resentments that we have already seen in the
DNS world under ICANN - that create yet another source of pressure to
split the internet.
It is interesting to consider how this situation might have played out
had the IP addresses/blocks in question been in China or Pakistan.
More information about the At-Large