Domain names may be seized by State- Kentucky- Gambling In a ruling with International impact Judge Thomas Wingate, a Kentucky state court judge, has ruled that internet gambling sites that do not block Kentucky users can have their domain names seized by the state government. This ruling was in response to a motion filed by online trade associations to block the state from taking the domain names of online gaming sites. Whatever you may think about gambling sites is beside the point. Do you want to have your domain name subject to seizure by a court anywhere in the world because you broke some local law? IMO, if this decision is allowed to stand it could very well be the end of the Internet as we know it. It for sure will be the death of all the smaller sites as only the largest of the large would be in a position to research and comply with the myriad of local laws around the world.
Here is a write up on the ruling which also gives a link at the end to a PDF file of the actual opinion: http://www.domainpulse.com/2008/10/...uses-to-dismiss-gambling-domain-name-seizure/ Stay tuned until November 17, when the final hearing will be held.
RavenMaven the link posted above is much more informative than the local news story. I did not post a link because I choose not to promote the local paper. If the dog did not need it for his business, I would not subscribe at all.
This will not go through at all.... The court has no authority over ICANN. So the court can rule either way and ICANN can essentially tell them to f*ck off.
it isnt a matter of the court having authority over icann. In fact it has nothing to do with icann at all ... and even IF it did concern ICANN predominently, since ICANN is headquartered in Marina Del Rey - California - United States - they would be under US law and required to adhere to a court ruling, expecially if upheald and/or/if is would go to a state or federal appeals process. its a matter of US law and any international treaties and where the registrar who sold the domain name is located. if the ruling is upheld, ANY registrar in the US or in any country with legal treaties with the united states, may have to hand over the domainname by a default of law. FOr instance, if the domain name was registered at godaddy.com, then its in the US and can be siezed. This happened to a tobacco website a while back when it defaulted in a US court and the site was handed over to Philip Morris i think. additionally, if the domain was registered in any country with legal treaties with the us, the same will happen. if you are doing illegal activities on a website, make sure to buy the domain name from a registrar in a country that has no legal treaties with the US or any country with legal treaties to the major democracies. Its a fact online gambling is illegal in most US states, unless licensed by a state to do so.
This pokes up time and time again from judges that think the internet is a box in the corner of some building somewhere. There ignorance of technology is beyond comprehension. It will never become anything more then a news story.
Each domain extension has legal agreements in place and you are required to be bound be it. ICANN was permitted by government to watch, monitor and maintain domain names. So yes they do have some authority, however fighting against the government won't go over well, so they won't bother. We are talking about certain domains like tobacco and gambling, this is far cry from business domains. I don't know as of right now, people should be freaking for no reason, unless they have this type of domain/business.
I do have a couple of gambling domain names. should I transfer them from GoDaddy.com to another registrar, then? Any one have any suggestions for a registrar and hosting company outside the U.S.? thanks.
I think an argument can be made the Kentucky does have jurisdiction over gambling website that can be viewed from within the State. By nature, gambling websites are active, as opposed to passive, websites. They interact with people in Kentucky.
tobacco and gambling arent businesses ? what about the the cable company who reverse engineered Blizzards Battle.net protocols and created an emulator to run softwar clients through for multiplayer game matching, who subsiquently lost a civil lawsuit and their domain names ? that was a business too who broke the law then lost a civil battle, if someone is doing something illegal or is violating someon elses patents, trademarks, or intellectual property rights, they may be in danger of losing the domain. It behooves the domain owner to err on the site of caution, lest they lose not only their domain, but a chunk of cash and maybe their freedom as well. That said, if the domain holder is doing nothing wrong or illegal, then they obviously havenothing to worry about in any case