Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] Rogue Websites Bill: Penalties for DNS Workarounds

discuss AT

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] Rogue Websites Bill: Penalties for DNS Workarounds

Chronological Thread 
  • From: mike <mike AT>
  • To: discuss AT
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Rogue Websites Bill: Penalties for DNS Workarounds
  • Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:46:41 -0400
  • Envelope-to: discuss AT
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-id: <>

Hash: SHA1


So the way I read this is that if you operate a DNS or a search engine
of any kind, and, and you get served a notice to block a particular
site, you have 5 days to comply.

Just want to clarify their definition of "SERVICE PROVIDER" Section 22
(Page 8) of the bill line 16. Does anyone know where to find 512(k)(1)
of title 17, United States Code?

On page 14 of the bill, (i) In General - A service
provider...bla...bla...bla... I think is the meat of it where it might
affect OpenNIC. Also affects search engines on page 15.

- --Mike

On 11-10-27 07:27 PM, mike wrote:
> The actual bill is here
> On 11-10-27 07:25 PM, Mike Sharkey wrote:
>> I'm at this moment tracking down a draft copy of the bill to
>> read the exact wording, but here's how it looks...
>> [clip] The Senate bill grants the attorney general the power to
>> request orders that require DNS operators to redirect requests
>> to targeted sites. The House bill goes further, saying that any
>> online service provider who has a DNS server has to generally
>> ?take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to
>> prevent access by its subscribers? to the targeted site. This
>> includes DNS redirecting, but also can include any number of
>> unspecified actions. What they are is completely unknown. [clip]
>> Taken from:
>> --Mike
> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing
> list discuss AT

Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page