I think I'm threating you with respect, please do the same. I do pay attention
but you seem to avoid common questions.
Let us know what gives DN the right to do an investigation. (What they can
lawfully do is forward it to the FBI)
I'm not aware of any such laws. They're not liable as long as they do their
part of the job and that is forward the complaint to the proper authorities.
Theres no evidence of such thing. Also DN is not even an authority in
domains, ICANN is and I dont see them involved in this, at least nothing was
specified.
You can't put a lock on someones properties without a court order , less so
when theres no proof of any law beeing broken, you're welcome to prove me otherwise.
but you seem to avoid common questions.
Even if they allowed Slick to move his domains (ie, suggested he needed to leave) they have created their complicity in the issue. Directnic is in the position to terminate domains that may be used for distribution of CP. They cannot pass the buck to someone else because Slick is a nice guy or he didn't mean it or isn't sure.
lawfully do is forward it to the FBI)
From a liablity standpoint, once Directnic has the compaint in their hands, they either have to act to resolve the issue or become liable for it.
part of the job and that is forward the complaint to the proper authorities.
I am sure they have been in contact with the FBI, and now they are asking for supporting documents do they can figure out if they ToS and therefore their domain registry contract has been broken. If it has been broken, they terminate the domain.
domains, ICANN is and I dont see them involved in this, at least nothing was
specified.
Leaving the domains unlocked after issuing a request like Directnic did... well, you know the domains would be transfered in a second. That wouldn't resolve the issue.
Directnic has to do what it needs to do to protect itself, fulfill it's obligations under law and under contract (with ICANN and with Slick), and the require those people involved to fulfill their obligations in a similar manner.
Directnic has to do what it needs to do to protect itself, fulfill it's obligations under law and under contract (with ICANN and with Slick), and the require those people involved to fulfill their obligations in a similar manner.
when theres no proof of any law beeing broken, you're welcome to prove me otherwise.

worth - Mr McCain is trying for a lot - some good, some crappy. However, there are plenty existing laws under which child related offenses can be prosecuted. The idea that other parties should "look out" for images which may or may not be illegal and placing penalties on these parties if they fail to report whatever possible offense - is totally absurd and in keeping with the police state concept. 
Comment