On 5 May 2022, at 7:12 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:

On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 3:09 AM Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
It seems to me like the court overstepped here and issued a ruling
that contained a lot of wishful thinking that doesn't reflect the
ability of miscreants on the Internet to just rapidly register a new
domain name with a new fake credit card.  Certainly it is trivial
to host the actual websites well out of legal reach of US courts,
and with domain registrars without US presence.  This leaves those
of us in the network operations community in the position of
shouldering costs to comply with a court order, but without a clear
mechanism to continue to be in compliance.  This could become a full
time job, if the defendants want to play the game right.  "israel.tv"?
"1srael.tv" (with a "1" or "L" for the first letter, etc).

Is anybody here considering recovering compliance costs from the
plaintiffs?

Check with your lawyer to be sure and then ignore the ruling. A judge
in a civil case definitely does not have the authority to bind folks
who are not parties to the suit. It's a fairly basic due process
issue.

Bill - 

That approach may be viable with one judgement from a court that you don’t share jurisdiction with, but probably doesn’t scale any more than the proposed technical measures...

I.e.  it’s probably wise for there to be some degree of constructive engagement and education over these orders, as absence of such will inevitably lead to an abundance of similar rulings as other plaintiffs in the online content industry seek the same “all ISP” remedies - e.g., from <https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2022/05/02/piracy-websites-isp-block/> - 

"In the approaching months and years, it’ll be interesting to see whether the move becomes a common component of judgements in similar stateside cases.”

Best wishes,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers