North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: YouTube IP Hijacking

  • From: Dave Pooser
  • Date: Tue Feb 26 15:08:12 2008

> Since the US has no jurisdiction over 17557, other than for the US govt.
> to force ISPs to refuse to accept any advertisements with 17557 or any
> other AS that didn't meet some regulatory requirements in the path, how
> would you propose that the regulatory environment you envision work?

I don't expect any regulation of the Internet to ever work. I expect us (or
our successors) to be having exactly the same discussions about exactly the
same sort of issues (botnets, route hijacking, spam) in thirty years when
I'm starting to plan my retirement.

The Internet is what it is; it has evolved to avoid any sort of
supra-national regulatory body and the fact that its current model is
basically anarchy is considered a necessary evil or a positive advantage,
depending on who you talk to.

That said, IANAL but if YouTube decided to sue the responsible parties at
17557 in a non-Pakistani court (jurisdiction being established on the basis
that their messed up announcements propagated to the US/UK/wherever), I
think it could easily win its case (collection of damages might be another
issue, of course) and that might have a dramatic impact in encouraging other
entities to adhere to BCP.
Dave Pooser, ACSA
Manager of Information Services
Alford Media