Hi, > On 22 Jul 2016, at 17:48, Stephen Kent <k...@bbn.com> wrote: > > It seems preferable to describe the first motivating case without reference > to a specific RIR.
Although I appreciate that Randy is trying to explain the case in terms anyone can understand, it would be preferable to keep it general. > (Including a parenthetical note about the historical precedent of a Dutch > court order involving RIPE is relevant and might be included.) If there was such a precedent, but there isn't. I have raised this before, but again... The incident you refer to is in fact a case where the FBI asked the Dutch police to enforce an order issued by a US court, which would demand that the RIPE NCC take all measures to ensure that the suspect’s IP address registration was not transferred or amended. And while the RIPE NCC initially carried out this order (to freeze, not remove/modify etc) it also immediately sought legal advice, and following that advice it was concluded that there was no legal basis for the order. So, as far as precedents go, this is a different case altogether (freeze contact information, not remove/modify routing information), and actually points in the opposite direction. More details here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/summons-of-the-ripe-ncc-against-the-state-of-the-netherlands Tim
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
