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 20:02:04 -0400
  • Envelope-to: discuss AT
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-id: <>

Hash: SHA1

512(k)(1) of title 17, United States Code

(k) Definitions.?

(1) Service provider. ? (A) As used in subsection (a), the term
?service provider? means an entity offering the transmission, routing,
or providing of connections for digital online communications, between
or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's
choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent
or received.

(B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term
?service provider? means a provider of online services or network
access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity
described in subparagraph (A).

(2) Monetary relief. ? As used in this section, the term ?monetary
relief? means damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and any other form of
monetary payment.

On 11-10-27 07:46 PM, mike wrote:
> Wow!
> 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
> _______________________________________________ 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