[At-Large] US v John Doe 1 & Others [Defendants]
dogwallah at gmail.com
Mon Nov 28 04:15:51 UTC 2011
On 11/27/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap at nlnetlabs.nl> 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
>> There hasn't been such an order.
> This is the Dutch Police Order, see:
While my Dutch is a bit rusty, I don't see ISC mentioned in the order at all.
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.
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
ISC and the RIPE NCC have a long history of coordination,
collaboration and communication. Staff from one org migrate to the
other, they both run rootservers and anycast projects, ISC staff
attend RIPE meetings, both have staff who work together on DNSSEC,
routing and other IETF WGs, etc, etc.
I hope it's clear now.
"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