[At-Large] US v John Doe 1 & Others [Defendants]
dogwallah at gmail.com
Mon Nov 28 05:04:57 UTC 2011
On 11/28/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> At least you can read Dutch, I can't. This is why I think that the
> coordination mechanisms is interesting. Does the fact that the FBI has an
> MoU or Agreement with ISC or is authorised by the FBI give the requisite
> powers to the ISC?
IMO no, bu they can provide "remediation details".
>> The RIPE NCC signs contracts with LIRs and end-users (people who get
>> Provider Independent space). "Cooperating with ISC" without a legal
>> order would have been a breach of that contract.
> Yes, I agree. It will be interesting to watch the developments. Especially
> in light of how the European Court of Justice views the relevant laws.
Which relevant laws?
>> In other words, ISC asking RIPE NCC to do something to someone else's
>> IP space would be the same as if you or I had asked them to do the
>> The only difference here is that it is not ISC asking, they are only
> acting out the Judge's orders. This brings back the question, whether they
> have the authority?
I would say no, the only party that has any standing with the RIPE NCC
is the Dutch police IMO.
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
More information about the At-Large