Forgive me adding to this Off Topic thread but a few points do need correcting:

As much as I hold Ars in high regard - their reporting on this is only an opinion peace (no first-person facts)

We can all read the judges verdict http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf

1. Having a .net domain name had nothing to do with the extradition. It did allow the US to pull the domain name which is a different problem.

2. The judge approved extradition because the _alleged_ offenses were "extraditable" enough. The offenses were a crime in the UK as well as US. The offenses if prosecuted in the UK were criminal with enough possible penalty to be extraditable. Extradition law is not that you prove your case then if guilty spend time in a US prison, extradition is just checking if the US have an allegation that is valid, then go to the US to prove your case there.

3. The lesson to take from this, Kim Dotcom, and Al Capone, is the money is what will get you. If you have advertising on your site and are receiving funds from "Americans" then generally the long arm of the US will get you because what may have just been a civil infringement quickly becomes money laundering which is extraditable everywhere. Remember they dont have to prove you guilty to extradite you, just that they have a reasonable case.

Regards,
Joel van Velden

On 1/04/2012 10:51 a.m., Sam Russell wrote:
"It's a mistake to think that Internet infrastructure is somehow exempt from the law." - which law? TVShack was hosted in the UK, complied with UK law, but the judges have ruled that having a .net domain means that the website has to comply with US law. This is only possible because Verisign are in charge of the .net gTLD,

My confusion around the root servers was assuming that there are, for example, 95 L servers, instead of 95 instances of the 1 L server. I'm not sure why anonymous would be attacking root servers though - I imagine they're more angry about US-mandated takedowns of .com and .net domain names that don't violate any of ICANN's rules, and the extension of this to actually extraditing citizens of other countries.

Is this something that ICANN has, or should have, policy around?

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
There are indeed precisely 13 root servers. See <http://www.root-servers.org/>.

I think you're confusing root servers with authority-only servers for TLD zones, and a purported threat against the root servers with domain take-downs ordered by particular nations' law-enforcement.

If you want a domain with a registry managed in a local jurisdiction, go talk to NZRS. There exist gTLDs currently that are operated outside the US. Soon there apparently may be more.

It's a mistake to think that Internet infrastructure is somehow exempt from the law.

I won't contradict your legal analysis for the case you mentioned because I am not a lawyer, I don't know the facts of the case and (last but not least!) this is an operations list.

Sent from my Ono-Sendai Cyberspace 7

On 2012-03-31, at 16:41, Sam Russell <sam.russell@reannz.co.nz> wrote:

> The article said there are only 13 root servers so I'm not sure that
> the article was sure what it's talking about.
>
> The controversy at the moment seems to be the extradition of the
> 23-year-old admin of tvshack.net to the USA. The server wasn't hosted
> in the USA, but having a .net domain meant that he could be tried
> under US law. As a generic top level domain (gTLD), a .net domain
> shouldn't be bound by the whims of any one country, but only by
> ICANN/IANA.
>
> The problem is that the gTLDs are all hosted in the USA, and judges
> are interpreting this to mean that websites with gTLDs are bound by US
> law. This is the same as if the printing of our phone books was
> outsourced to China, and then China extraditing the Tibetian embassy
> because their phone number is in a Chinese-printed phone book.
>
> tl;dr 60+ year old judges don't know how the Internet works, and this
> is just the next part of the slippery slope that geo-IP boundaries
> have put us on
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 1, 2012, at 6:28 AM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2012-03-31, at 06:00, Sam Russell wrote:
>>
>>> I enjoyed the article, but it really made me wonder whether this would be happening if the gTLD servers weren't under US jurisdiction
>>
>> What are "the gTLD servers", and why do you think they are related to the threat that article was talking about?
>>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>



--
Sam Russell

Network Operations
Research & Education Advanced Network NZ Ltd
ddi: +64 4 913 6365
mob: +64 21 750 819
fax: +64 4 916 0064

http://www.karen.net.nz


_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog