5 ms·

I really don't like standing up for Nazis. I don't think I'm okay with this. I'm okay with them telling them to get a new registrar in short order. I'm not oka

by KGIII 9y ago

I really don't like standing up for Nazis. I don't think I'm okay with this. I'm okay with them telling them to get a new registrar in short order. I'm not okay with a private company revoking a domain name and, if I understand correctly, not allowing it to be registered elsewhere. I really don't like Nazis, but if I can't stand up for the reprehensible then how can I stand for the good people? Surely, there must be a more reasonable solution than allowing it to be done by a private company, without representation, without process, and without appeal? Yes, their speech is horrible. Yes, they suck. I mean, they are Nazis. That's pretty much the definition of the worst people you can find. However, much like I believe they deserve rights, I believe they deserve due process. I'm not okay with this. However, I'm willing to consider alternative views. Yeah, they are crappy people who do crappy things. Still, they appear to have been deprived of property and due process, To be clear, I'm okay with the registrars saying go find another registrar. Revoking it seems like a huge step beyond the line. Doesn't ICANN have a process for this? Isn't there a legal way, with due process, for this? Damn it... I really don't like defending Nazis but I have no reason to believe it will stop there. Edit: It looks like they can get their domain name back, in 60 days. So, it may not be permanent, but I'm still not okay with this. I can't be okay with it, without due process and a process for appeal.

wumpus 9y ago
The first registrar (GoDaddy) gave them 24 hours to GTFO. They could have moved to any other registrar, but their next try also told them to GTFO. So what happened is exactly what you're calling OK.
- KGIII 9y ago
  I hope so, but revoked appears to mean taken away. That's different than not allowing to register, I think? I would be pretty happy to be mistaken.
  - wumpus 9y ago
    I have no idea where you got a mistaken impression of what's going on, but if you google [godaddy daily stormer] you'll find a ton of news stories explaining that godaddy told Daily Stormer to find a new registrar. While written by non-technical reporters for a non-technical audience, it's pretty clear what's going on.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      What does the word revoke mean? I've read a dozen articles that simply say revoked. When I see the rules for registration, I see revoke along with terms like suspend and terminate. Can they register it again, if they find a company willing to service them? If not, I'm not okay with this. I'm not seeing any answers out there. Maybe they use the word revoke differently?
      - wumpus 9y ago
        Given that you appear to be reading non-technical articles aimed at non-technical readers -- you haven't said what article you're reading, so I'm just guessing -- the word revoked doesn't mean anything technical at all. I see tons of articles getting it right that yes, they can move the domain to any registrar for .com that is willing to do business with them.
- zo1 9y ago
  This is what happens when you give government authority to private entities. Bullying. In the sense that they are given power over someone else's property/livelihood/thing, with no accountability or fairness. And they then use it as a stick over someone's head with a technicality. In this case, sure, a lot of us might not like the content of this website. That doesn't change the nature of the scenario. If I were to compare it to a simpler scenario: Prepaid electricity. Here in South Africa, the government sells it at "wholesale" prices to government-approved entities, so that they may re-sell to individuals. What would then be our response if one of those entities decided to refuse electricity to a house/building that this website was being hosted from?
  - wumpus 9y ago
    In the US, the electric utility is required to provide service by the government. One the Internet, from a US point of view, you are correct that there is no equivalent of a "public square" that first amendment rights apply to. That is a problem, but, it's not GoDaddy's problem.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
detaro 9y ago
> if I understand correctly, not allowing it to be registered elsewhere. Citation on that? From all I've read GoDaddy and Google refused to provide their service to them and haven't done anything to prevent a transfer? (They possibly technically could by keeping the domain registered on them, but AFAIK they can't legally do that)
- KGIII 9y ago
  What does revoked mean, in this case? I would so love to be misunderstanding.
  - detaro 9y ago
    From my understanding of the terminology, it means that the registry (Verisign) took away control of the domain from the registrar (first GoDaddy, then Google), since those informed the registry that their contract with the site operator (which formed the legal basis for GoDaddy/Google managing the domain) has ended.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Can they potentially go to a new registrar and register it there, without additional hassle, and assuming there's a registrar willing to service them? If so, I'm good and crisis mostly averted. If not, I'm not okay with that. The term revoke, from the article and some searching, appears to be a permanent thing. As said already, I'd love to be wrong - but that's what revoke means to me and to a couple if quick searches. When they revoke your license, you lost permission to drive.
      - detaro 9y ago
        Yes (EDIT: maybe? see below and comments) To my knowledge, a registrar can't legally stop another registrar from taking over an arbitrary domain (they only have a say over domains delegated to them, and they have a contractual obligation to agree to a transfer of those if the domain owner requests it (potentially with exceptions of active lawsuits, but that doesn't seem relevant here)). EDIT: Rereading the transfer policy and Google's terms, it looks like Google might actually hold onto the domain for the 60 day period despite having terminated their contract, they don't seem to be clearly required to release the domain in that case (which I assumed, apparently wrongly) and could block it for that period if they wanted?
albertTJames 9y ago
You argument only makes sense in the US. In most countries, hate speech is outlawed.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Both companies are in the US. I have no idea where the registrant lives, however.
ue_ 9y ago
>That's pretty much the definition of the worst people you can find. However, much like I believe they deserve rights It's possible to "deserve" some rights and not others on a case-by-case basis. >Still, they appear to have been deprived of property and due process, What property?
- KGIII 9y ago
  The domain name. I'm pretty sure that's considered property, legally speaking. They will seize it as an asset, for example. However, it may be that they have a different definition for revoked than I have. That would make me happy.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    Does one actually own a domain name? I thought one owns a license to a domain name, which can be revoked at any time by the issuer, and that if it is seized, then it is the license that is seized. Interesting.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Courts have seized and transferred them as assets. I would like to think there is some rights there, much like the rights of renters. It doesn't appear as though there are many. I consider this to be a bad thing.
      - ue_ 9y ago
        One might consider domains to be personal property, in that they exist only as a mapping on servers owned by people. On the other hand, registrars collect rent from them, so one could consider them private property. So I am not sure if I am in favour of domain names being considered property of any single person or not.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I don't think I'm okay with this. I'm okay with them telling them to get a new registrar in short order. I'm not okay with a private company revoking a domain name “revoking” is Reuters’ imprecise description of GoDaddy and then Google dropping thir business for ToS violations. > and, if I understand correctly, not allowing it to be registered elsewhere. I think you misunderstand; they got bounced for ToS violation shortly after moving to a new registrar (because they got bounced for the same reason by a previous registrar), and therefore ran into limits on the frequency of registration preventing moving to a new (third) registrar. > Doesn't ICANN have a process for this? ICANN specifically allows transfers (that aren't transfers back to the original registrar with that registrar's agreement) to be blocked within 60 days of a prior transfer. > Isn't there a legal way, with due process, for this? If the Daily Stormer feels their rights have been violated, the courts are open to them. Due process rights, however, apply to government action, not most private action.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Yeah, I know what due process means. It seems to me that some sort of property rights must apply. It's not even really a speech issue, at that point. That's what the excuse was, but they're being deprived of their property, however intangible it may be. Maybe it'll make it to court? If so, it may be an interesting case. They seize domains as assets, so they are already asserting it is property and has value. I think?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > It seems to me that some sort of property rights must apply. The Daily Stormer certainly has a property interest in the name, however, they presumably contractually agreed to both regitrars policies (and, through them, the ICANN Transfer Policy) when signing up for service, and the present result is the consequence of each register imposing consequences for ToS breaches and Google additionally exercising the provisions of the ICANN policy addressing repeated, closely timed transfer requests. It's theoretically possible the Google and/or GoDaddy actions were contractually improper, in which case remedies are available at law, but the existence of a property right does not prevent out from impairing your own ability to make use of that property by a combination of poorly-chosen voluntary actions including contracts touching on the property.
Balgair 9y ago
> Yeah, they are crappy people who do crappy things. I mean, yeah, but to be clear, one of them killed a woman on Saturday on purpose. That's not crappy, that murder. Like, Nazis deserve rights like all people do. But when you start killing people and you shout a lot about how you are going to kill more people and 'cleanse' the US of a lot of people, like, I dunno, maybe we should do something more than just talk about how Nazis have rights. Like, come on guys, they're real actual Nazis, not video-game sprites. They want to kill you and your family and your friends and everyone you love and the are VERY clear and loud about this EDIT: Here's a quote to back it up: "The thing about us fascists is, it's not that we don't believe in freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want. We'll just throw you in an oven." -"Unite the Right" attendee, Pete Tefft, speaking to his father Pearce Tefft.

by KGIII 9y ago

wumpus 9y ago

The first registrar (GoDaddy) gave them 24 hours to GTFO. They could have moved to any other registrar, but their next try also told them to GTFO. So what happened is exactly what you're calling OK.

KGIII 9y ago
I hope so, but revoked appears to mean taken away. That's different than not allowing to register, I think? I would be pretty happy to be mistaken.
- wumpus 9y ago
  I have no idea where you got a mistaken impression of what's going on, but if you google [godaddy daily stormer] you'll find a ton of news stories explaining that godaddy told Daily Stormer to find a new registrar. While written by non-technical reporters for a non-technical audience, it's pretty clear what's going on.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    What does the word revoke mean? I've read a dozen articles that simply say revoked. When I see the rules for registration, I see revoke along with terms like suspend and terminate. Can they register it again, if they find a company willing to service them? If not, I'm not okay with this. I'm not seeing any answers out there. Maybe they use the word revoke differently?
    - wumpus 9y ago
      Given that you appear to be reading non-technical articles aimed at non-technical readers -- you haven't said what article you're reading, so I'm just guessing -- the word revoked doesn't mean anything technical at all. I see tons of articles getting it right that yes, they can move the domain to any registrar for .com that is willing to do business with them.
zo1 9y ago
This is what happens when you give government authority to private entities. Bullying. In the sense that they are given power over someone else's property/livelihood/thing, with no accountability or fairness. And they then use it as a stick over someone's head with a technicality. In this case, sure, a lot of us might not like the content of this website. That doesn't change the nature of the scenario. If I were to compare it to a simpler scenario: Prepaid electricity. Here in South Africa, the government sells it at "wholesale" prices to government-approved entities, so that they may re-sell to individuals. What would then be our response if one of those entities decided to refuse electricity to a house/building that this website was being hosted from?
- wumpus 9y ago
  In the US, the electric utility is required to provide service by the government. One the Internet, from a US point of view, you are correct that there is no equivalent of a "public square" that first amendment rights apply to. That is a problem, but, it's not GoDaddy's problem.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

detaro 9y ago

> if I understand correctly, not allowing it to be registered elsewhere. Citation on that? From all I've read GoDaddy and Google refused to provide their service to them and haven't done anything to prevent a transfer? (They possibly technically could by keeping the domain registered on them, but AFAIK they can't legally do that)

KGIII 9y ago
What does revoked mean, in this case? I would so love to be misunderstanding.
- detaro 9y ago
  From my understanding of the terminology, it means that the registry (Verisign) took away control of the domain from the registrar (first GoDaddy, then Google), since those informed the registry that their contract with the site operator (which formed the legal basis for GoDaddy/Google managing the domain) has ended.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Can they potentially go to a new registrar and register it there, without additional hassle, and assuming there's a registrar willing to service them? If so, I'm good and crisis mostly averted. If not, I'm not okay with that. The term revoke, from the article and some searching, appears to be a permanent thing. As said already, I'd love to be wrong - but that's what revoke means to me and to a couple if quick searches. When they revoke your license, you lost permission to drive.
    - detaro 9y ago
      Yes (EDIT: maybe? see below and comments) To my knowledge, a registrar can't legally stop another registrar from taking over an arbitrary domain (they only have a say over domains delegated to them, and they have a contractual obligation to agree to a transfer of those if the domain owner requests it (potentially with exceptions of active lawsuits, but that doesn't seem relevant here)). EDIT: Rereading the transfer policy and Google's terms, it looks like Google might actually hold onto the domain for the 60 day period despite having terminated their contract, they don't seem to be clearly required to release the domain in that case (which I assumed, apparently wrongly) and could block it for that period if they wanted?

albertTJames 9y ago

You argument only makes sense in the US. In most countries, hate speech is outlawed.

KGIII 9y ago
Both companies are in the US. I have no idea where the registrant lives, however.

ue_ 9y ago

>That's pretty much the definition of the worst people you can find. However, much like I believe they deserve rights It's possible to "deserve" some rights and not others on a case-by-case basis. >Still, they appear to have been deprived of property and due process, What property?

KGIII 9y ago
The domain name. I'm pretty sure that's considered property, legally speaking. They will seize it as an asset, for example. However, it may be that they have a different definition for revoked than I have. That would make me happy.
- ue_ 9y ago
  Does one actually own a domain name? I thought one owns a license to a domain name, which can be revoked at any time by the issuer, and that if it is seized, then it is the license that is seized. Interesting.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Courts have seized and transferred them as assets. I would like to think there is some rights there, much like the rights of renters. It doesn't appear as though there are many. I consider this to be a bad thing.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      One might consider domains to be personal property, in that they exist only as a mapping on servers owned by people. On the other hand, registrars collect rent from them, so one could consider them private property. So I am not sure if I am in favour of domain names being considered property of any single person or not.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I don't think I'm okay with this. I'm okay with them telling them to get a new registrar in short order. I'm not okay with a private company revoking a domain name “revoking” is Reuters’ imprecise description of GoDaddy and then Google dropping thir business for ToS violations. > and, if I understand correctly, not allowing it to be registered elsewhere. I think you misunderstand; they got bounced for ToS violation shortly after moving to a new registrar (because they got bounced for the same reason by a previous registrar), and therefore ran into limits on the frequency of registration preventing moving to a new (third) registrar. > Doesn't ICANN have a process for this? ICANN specifically allows transfers (that aren't transfers back to the original registrar with that registrar's agreement) to be blocked within 60 days of a prior transfer. > Isn't there a legal way, with due process, for this? If the Daily Stormer feels their rights have been violated, the courts are open to them. Due process rights, however, apply to government action, not most private action.

KGIII 9y ago
Yeah, I know what due process means. It seems to me that some sort of property rights must apply. It's not even really a speech issue, at that point. That's what the excuse was, but they're being deprived of their property, however intangible it may be. Maybe it'll make it to court? If so, it may be an interesting case. They seize domains as assets, so they are already asserting it is property and has value. I think?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > It seems to me that some sort of property rights must apply. The Daily Stormer certainly has a property interest in the name, however, they presumably contractually agreed to both regitrars policies (and, through them, the ICANN Transfer Policy) when signing up for service, and the present result is the consequence of each register imposing consequences for ToS breaches and Google additionally exercising the provisions of the ICANN policy addressing repeated, closely timed transfer requests. It's theoretically possible the Google and/or GoDaddy actions were contractually improper, in which case remedies are available at law, but the existence of a property right does not prevent out from impairing your own ability to make use of that property by a combination of poorly-chosen voluntary actions including contracts touching on the property.

Balgair 9y ago

> Yeah, they are crappy people who do crappy things. I mean, yeah, but to be clear, one of them killed a woman on Saturday on purpose. That's not crappy, that murder. Like, Nazis deserve rights like all people do. But when you start killing people and you shout a lot about how you are going to kill more people and 'cleanse' the US of a lot of people, like, I dunno, maybe we should do something more than just talk about how Nazis have rights. Like, come on guys, they're real actual Nazis, not video-game sprites. They want to kill you and your family and your friends and everyone you love and the are VERY clear and loud about this EDIT: Here's a quote to back it up: "The thing about us fascists is, it's not that we don't believe in freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want. We'll just throw you in an oven." -"Unite the Right" attendee, Pete Tefft, speaking to his father Pearce Tefft.