Quote:
Originally Posted by Webby
Pointless wasting time on this since there is no basis/evidence to evaluate anything and we are neither law enforcement or lawyers...
1) You are not an attorney and not qualified to give any legal advice.
2) Unless you have seen the actual complaint in full detail, name and address of the complainant, the actual content on which the complaint is based, together with any further background information - you know nothing about the complaint or if this exists.
3) Unless you are privy to the legal strategy of lawyers acting on behalf of DirectNic, you have no idea why they may have elected to act in the manner they did, nor what laws they considered when electing to close down domains without any apparent legal process or law enforcement involvement.
4) You know nothing of the results of any investigation about the "apparent illegality". The qualified authority for establishing the fact of any illegality are law enforcement and their lawyers - a qualified authority does not include domain registrars, members of the public, my dog or the president of the US.
Simply put - you are messing in shit you know nothing about - pointless thread. |
1. I did not say I was an attorney, nor did I offer legal advice. I offered up my opinion. I just did something very few people around here are used to seeing. I backed it up.
2. Slick stated that DN told him there was a complaint. The response from DN was to post their policies regarding what they do when they get a cp complaint. If there is no complaint then DN will be in major shit on that point alone so I think we can safely assume that there is a complaint. As to the nature of the complaint, again DN posted their cp guidelines as their response to the issue, so we can figure that it is a cp complaint. We don't know much more than that except through extrapolating from the various thumbs and links that Slick identified for us.
3. No, I doo not know what their legal strategy was, is or will be. I did not state that this was DNs legal strategy or the reasoning that they used.
4. Nope I don't know the results of the investigation as to the apparent illegality. I did not say I did. I did say they had a right to make the investigation.
The thread is no more or less pointless than most threads on this board
