CircleID

Two injunction orders were issued, one against the Registrar Dynadot (which stipulated to the Order)

Although the Permanent Injunction Order makes it appear that Dynadot stipulated to that order, it is now clear that they had stipulated to a much lighter version of the order which would not have shut down the site.  But neither did Dynadot do anything to stop the modified order reuiring Dynadot to "clear and remove all DNS hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name" from going into effect.

The attorney for Dynadot Garret D. Murai issued this statement in the response to controversy surrounding its role in the matter:

"This case raises First Amendment issues that are for the Courts to decide, not my client, Dynadot," stated Garret D. Murai of Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, LLP, who represents Dynadot. "The only agreement by Dynadot was to comply with the Court's previous order to preserve evidence, including preventing Wikileaks from transferring its domain name to another registrar and from changing its account settings - essentially, to preserve the status quo. Dynadot did not agree to remove the name server settings for wikileaks.org or to produce any information. This was requested by Julius Baer and granted by the Court."

Does a registrar have any responsibility to protect its customers? It appears Dynadot simply wanted out of the proceeding which was no doubt going to cost significant legal dollars.

Just submitted to David Ulevitch's opendns.org: 

Please make wikileaks.org work for your customers, and issue a press release about doing so!
See New York Times article
and/or http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

David, I hope you'll see this and respond here with your thoughts.

[update 030108 - Judge Reverses Prior Ruling and Dissolves Injunction]

Read more about wikileaks turn of fortune.

This is a great example of how the US justice system can, in fact, work. The Judge got it wrong, was provided new information and argument, and corrected course.  Of course, they key was that the EFF and other organizations stepped into the frey.  Without that advocacy, it is unclear whether a coarse correction would have occurred.

And one can only wonder whether the public outcry in the on-line community helped educate the Judge as well. It just goes to prove, justice is best served up in the open light of day where everyone can see what is going on.

This development is great news for the Constitution, Free Speech and the First Amendment.