3 ms·

If the government required you to click a link every time you bought something online, and upon failure to click, they confiscated it, would you feel the same a

If the government required you to click a link every time you bought something online, and upon failure to click, they confiscated it, would you feel the same as you do now?

tankenmate 10y ago
But here's the thing, you don't actually buy a domain name; in other words it's not property. Also, your registering a domain name is contingent on agreeing to the registrar's conditions, and some of those conditions are required to be there by the registrars agreement with ICANN. So you are entering into a contract. If you buy a car and park it directly in front of a fire hydrant and forget about it, then the government will seize your car until such time as you pay your fine, the towing fee and storage fee. If you register a domain in contravention to the agreed contract then ICANN will seize your domain until such time as you correct it (including the time it takes to confirm that you have complied). It really isn't that strange.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  But what if the contract is unreasonable? Blocking a fire hydrant is an understandable problem and is handled in a decentralized manner (either a ticket you can plea to after the fact, or someone tells you to politely move your car) seizure and then negotiation is an unnecessary show of force in my opinion, unless the site was doing something criminal
  - cdubzzz 10y ago
    > But what if the contract is unreasonable? What is unreasonable about requiring accurate and up-to-date contact information for the registrant?
    - salesguy222 10y ago
      I would say that the net positive having this information provides the ICANN is not outweighed by the net negative to website owners (hassle to manage admin if you own 100s of domains like some superusers here do, privacy concerns, identity theft, physical intimidation)
      - cdubzzz 10y ago
        That's perfectly fair. I don't think we needed government intervention or fire hydrants to get there (: I do like the public nature of this information and have used it for legitimate purposes on many occasions, but privacy concerns are valid. Not sure how to solve that one. Anyway as I stated originally, I am no fan of ICANN's process here, but currently it is what it is so the responsibility, particularly of superusers, is to understand and have systems in place for compliance. I simply do not buy the "too many domains" and "who uses email" excuses presented in the post.
        salesguy222 10y ago
        I agree with you, especially on your last part, when we apply the analogy to cars as well "i have too many cars, so i shouldn't need to worry about if i park some of them in front of fire hydrants" i would say that im struggling to understand a situation where the confiscation of a domain or a car is ever warranted, unless something criminal and clearly urgent (a fire, a drug running operation) needs to be stopped, rather than just as bureaucratic overreach to ensure payment and compliance

If the government required you to click a link every time you bought something online, and upon failure to click, they confiscated it, would you feel the same as you do now?

tankenmate 10y ago

But here's the thing, you don't actually buy a domain name; in other words it's not property. Also, your registering a domain name is contingent on agreeing to the registrar's conditions, and some of those conditions are required to be there by the registrars agreement with ICANN. So you are entering into a contract. If you buy a car and park it directly in front of a fire hydrant and forget about it, then the government will seize your car until such time as you pay your fine, the towing fee and storage fee. If you register a domain in contravention to the agreed contract then ICANN will seize your domain until such time as you correct it (including the time it takes to confirm that you have complied). It really isn't that strange.

salesguy222 10y ago
But what if the contract is unreasonable? Blocking a fire hydrant is an understandable problem and is handled in a decentralized manner (either a ticket you can plea to after the fact, or someone tells you to politely move your car) seizure and then negotiation is an unnecessary show of force in my opinion, unless the site was doing something criminal
- cdubzzz 10y ago
  > But what if the contract is unreasonable? What is unreasonable about requiring accurate and up-to-date contact information for the registrant?
  - salesguy222 10y ago
    I would say that the net positive having this information provides the ICANN is not outweighed by the net negative to website owners (hassle to manage admin if you own 100s of domains like some superusers here do, privacy concerns, identity theft, physical intimidation)
    - cdubzzz 10y ago
      That's perfectly fair. I don't think we needed government intervention or fire hydrants to get there (: I do like the public nature of this information and have used it for legitimate purposes on many occasions, but privacy concerns are valid. Not sure how to solve that one. Anyway as I stated originally, I am no fan of ICANN's process here, but currently it is what it is so the responsibility, particularly of superusers, is to understand and have systems in place for compliance. I simply do not buy the "too many domains" and "who uses email" excuses presented in the post.
      - salesguy222 10y ago
        I agree with you, especially on your last part, when we apply the analogy to cars as well "i have too many cars, so i shouldn't need to worry about if i park some of them in front of fire hydrants" i would say that im struggling to understand a situation where the confiscation of a domain or a car is ever warranted, unless something criminal and clearly urgent (a fire, a drug running operation) needs to be stopped, rather than just as bureaucratic overreach to ensure payment and compliance