>What makes the no-ip.org case extraordinary is that Microsoft a) persuaded the court that the domain was being used for malware, and then b) persuaded the court that because of this, rather than doing something normal like compelling its operator to take down the afflicted subdomains, or failing that compelling a third party to suspend the domain, that they should be allowed to take over DNS service for the domain.

This is a completely normal measure, simply taking down a domain is not nearly as effective anti-malware measure than sinkholing it. A sinkhole could in some cases uninstall the malware from affected computers, or at least identify their IP-addresses for notification purposes.

>Microsoft is not the law and they have no special legal status.

Exactly.

>If a domain is being used for cybercrime it's one thing, it doesn't mean any random party should get to walk into court, complain about it, and then offer to "solve" the issue by randomly appointing itself DNS provider

Microsoft is not a random party, it's a party whose business is directly affected by these illegal malware campaigns and has been repeatedly held to have standing in these cases.

>The result I might add was a massive outage for a massive number of innocent no-ip.org users.

Turns out that possibly most no-ip users were malicious https://umbrella.cisco.com/blog/on-the-trail-of-malicious-dy...