[discuss] Domain name (was: discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67)

Fri Feb 21 19:09:00 UTC 2014

Hi Christian,
At 02:35 21-02-2014, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>Is there a general principle in the US that a court should make an order
>as specific to the LE target as possible? Is that what keeps this in the
>box you describe?

Please note that I am using a ".com".  If I argue that ".com" is bad 
the argument would lack credibility [1].

There are some articles about domain name seizures at:

http://www.techspot.com/news/42456-us-government-mistakenly-shuts-down-84000-websites.html
https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/690-internet-domain-names-seized-because-fraudulent-practices
http://techyum.com/2010/10/official-vb-ly-link-shortener-seized-by-libyan-government/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3597821
http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-dow123tf-01mar05.shtml

I don't think that it is possible to keep this in the box.

>LE action is not an issue that is specific to the US. Any root server

Yes (see above links).

>located around the world  could potentially be subjected to some kind of
>local LE action.  Any Root Server falling out of sync is going to impact
>the entire Root Server Network if the aim is to keep domain names unique
>and resolvable over the whole Internet.

I don't think that a (DNS) Root server problem would have an impact 
on every network.  A (DNS) Root server issue in a country can have an 
impact on networks in other countries [2].

Any root server in the world can be subject to legal action from the 
relevant government(s).  Would the government carefully consider the 
potential collateral damage before taking that action?  A few years 
ago, I might have said "yes".  Nowadays, it is an "unknown".  The 
trust has been broken.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. the quality of being believed or accepted as true, real, or honest
2. See the case of i.root-servers.net