On Jul 27, 2026, at 5:47 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 3:48 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Bill is correct that they should have *removed* it to federal court. Ignoring it was about the most stupid thing they could do, as, again with a nod to Bill, when you default you lose by, well, default.
Hi Anne,
My concern, and this is where I think the law could stand improvement, is that the court co-opted a distant third party in its remedy for the dispute. They interfered with a contract between Verisign and one of its registrars, neither of which was a party to the lawsuit about Kick's behavior, neither of which was accused of any wrongdoing, and neither of which was more than tenuously operating within the court's geographical jurisdiction. That doesn't seem like something the law should allow, at least not of a state court.
Hi Bill! Unfortunately as it stands the remedy for this is for Verisign and/or the impacted registrar to..you got it..sue. They might have been able to file a motion to be joined as a non-party (with a third-party interest) while the suit was live, if they knew about it. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. Internet Law & Policy Attorney, Legislative Advisor Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Originator of the term 'deliverability'; Co-Founder of the deliverability industry Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)