According to a post on Poker News Daily, the eagerly anticipated ruling on the fate of 141 gambling domain names that were seized by the state of Kentucky has been delayed until tomorrow. The delayed ruling was attributed to a computer glitch in the presiding judge’s office. This ruling could be impactful to other domain owners – not just the owners of these 141 domain names or even to owners of other gambling domain names. In one way or other, this ruling could have an impact on any domain owner.
At the hearing last week, domain owners were well represented by the Internet Commerce Association.
Kentucky Domain Seizure: Ruling Delayed Until 10/16
“domain owners …”
Notice, not “all” domain owners. And, don’t sell us on this trickle down effect. Just because they are making filings on the behalf of a select group of “domain owners” doesn’t mean that they have everyone’s best interests in mind.
“The voice of the internet”
This is such a self-fulfilling statement. The ICA is no one’s voice but their own and they serve their own agenda. Do they take votes or pollings from their rank and file, top to bottom, on which issues they will stand up and raise a “voice” for or against?
NO.
If they can just swoop in and confiscate these names, then any domain is only presumed safe if you can afford to fight it in court and win?. This is absurd. Let’s just spread the domains(wealth) around! I give up.
Yo Ken, use your head and put two and two together. This would be precident setting ruling if it was upheld. Any municipality that has a law regulating any activity from real estate sales to birth control could seize any offending url just for being allowed to be accessed from said restricted jurisdiction. For example, if google allowed any anti muslim propeganda to appear in its search listings a country like Iran that prohibits such material could seize GOOGLE for violation of their laws regardless of the fact that GOOGLE has no presence in Iran and existing law is clear that the location of the operational company determines the legal jurisdiciton the company is required to follow. This case is wraught with so many problems. Not only does Kentucky not have jurisdiction over the companies who’s domains they are attempting to seize they don’t have jurisdiction over the registrars who are already governed by Federal statutes and face state to state issues as well. If this was allowed to stand a state like Utah could begin seizing domains immediatly based on some of their whacky puritanical laws that prhohibit a lot of activity that is legal in every other state in the Union.
So good luck with your opinion – while i dont know a lot about the ICA they are 100% correct to be worried about the prescident this potential ruling could establish.
“So good luck with your opinion” Lucky Larry
What a portentous ignoramus.
“while i dont know a lot about the ICA.”
Well Lucky Larry I do. I’m talking about the ICA’s intentions and their overall agenda. So, pull your head out and go learn more about the ICA before jumping in to defend an entity you “don’t know a lot” about.
The ICA’s two and (+) two does not equal (=) representation for “all” domain owners.
Judge upheld the seizure order, says everyone “down to the municipal level” can regulate the internet according to their own laws and standards. Not good.