3 ms·

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 wh

by 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.
- KGIII 9y ago
  I'm not sure you can cede certain rights and, even if so, I'm still not okay with it. Just because something isn't against the law does not mean I'm okay with it. If this is how it works, it is broken. Require an injunction from a court of law, perhaps? It's broken. Please fix it.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I'm not sure you can cede certain rights and, even if so, I'm still not okay with it. Sure, you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't contract away your right to vote, and there are some others. Your interest in transferable property like a domain name, you absolutely can cede, in whole or in part, by contract. That's what makes markets work. > Just because something isn't against the law does not mean I'm okay with it. What, specifically, are you not okay with? What are the bounds of the limits of the right to contract that out want to impose to correct it?
    - KGIII 9y ago
      I'd start with the ability to take away their property without any oversight, independent authority, and appeal process. You shouldn't even be able to cede that right by contract. A private company took their property. I'm not okay with that. I'd probably be willing to compromise and say they have to give them five business days to move the domain name. It's not like DNS is hard to host. I'd rather they be forced to use some sort of independent body, complete with appeals and representation. Markets work because of property rights. While the registrars have some, they are the least harmed. This isn't something I'm comfortable with, even if it's Nazis. I'd much rather it go through some sort of court/arbitration prior to revocation. They weren't abusing the service, they were just being crappy people. Which, I might add, seems to be a running theme for Nazis.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > I'd start with the ability to take away their property without any oversight, independent authority, and appeal process. There is oversight, independent authority, and appeal process as long as the courts are open. And the property isn't “taken away”, though there is a temporary impairment of its use. > You shouldn't even be able to cede that right by contract. That makes no sense if you can cede the property itself by contract. Even if the degree of arbitrary control you suggest was done it would be identical to ceding the underlying property and recieving back limited and terminable use from the party to whom it had been ceded. Clearly, in a world where you can transfer the property, you should be able to do this, as well. > A private company took their property No, they absolutely did not.
        KGIII 9y ago
        So, if bring your car back, sixty days after taking it, it wasn't taken away? They took their property. They are deprived of its use. It really can't be more clear. That they may get it back later doesn't mean it wasn't taken.
        dragonwriter 9y ago

by KGIII 9y ago

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.

KGIII 9y ago
I'm not sure you can cede certain rights and, even if so, I'm still not okay with it. Just because something isn't against the law does not mean I'm okay with it. If this is how it works, it is broken. Require an injunction from a court of law, perhaps? It's broken. Please fix it.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I'm not sure you can cede certain rights and, even if so, I'm still not okay with it. Sure, you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't contract away your right to vote, and there are some others. Your interest in transferable property like a domain name, you absolutely can cede, in whole or in part, by contract. That's what makes markets work. > Just because something isn't against the law does not mean I'm okay with it. What, specifically, are you not okay with? What are the bounds of the limits of the right to contract that out want to impose to correct it?
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I'd start with the ability to take away their property without any oversight, independent authority, and appeal process. You shouldn't even be able to cede that right by contract. A private company took their property. I'm not okay with that. I'd probably be willing to compromise and say they have to give them five business days to move the domain name. It's not like DNS is hard to host. I'd rather they be forced to use some sort of independent body, complete with appeals and representation. Markets work because of property rights. While the registrars have some, they are the least harmed. This isn't something I'm comfortable with, even if it's Nazis. I'd much rather it go through some sort of court/arbitration prior to revocation. They weren't abusing the service, they were just being crappy people. Which, I might add, seems to be a running theme for Nazis.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I'd start with the ability to take away their property without any oversight, independent authority, and appeal process. There is oversight, independent authority, and appeal process as long as the courts are open. And the property isn't “taken away”, though there is a temporary impairment of its use. > You shouldn't even be able to cede that right by contract. That makes no sense if you can cede the property itself by contract. Even if the degree of arbitrary control you suggest was done it would be identical to ceding the underlying property and recieving back limited and terminable use from the party to whom it had been ceded. Clearly, in a world where you can transfer the property, you should be able to do this, as well. > A private company took their property No, they absolutely did not.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        So, if bring your car back, sixty days after taking it, it wasn't taken away? They took their property. They are deprived of its use. It really can't be more clear. That they may get it back later doesn't mean it wasn't taken.
        dragonwriter 9y ago