5 ms·

I am no fan of stormfront.org or any other racist organization, but this is not acceptable. When a person registers a domain name, they become the owners of th

I am no fan of stormfront.org or any other racist organization, but this is not acceptable. When a person registers a domain name, they become the owners of that domain name. It does not belong to the registrar they hired to procure it, and they are not "leasing" the name from the registrar. A lease would suggest that the registrar owned the domain name prior to registration, which is not the case. And if you extrapolate, it suggests that some entity owns all unclaimed domain names de-facto, which is also not the case. When you purchase a domain name, that does not award the registrar the status of "Actual Owner" of that domain. They are providing a technical service, nothing more. ICANN should probably get involved and punish Network Solutions for this action. Network Solutions might be within their rights to choose to no longer 'host' the domain name themselves, but in that case they must be obligated to arrange for a transfer to a different registrar. What they are not allowed to do is simply steal the domain name from it's actual owner because they disagree with the content of the owner's website, thus preventing a transfer. It is important that we do not allow corporations to steal control or property from the open internet by using these politically charged circumstances as their theater of operation.

steanne 9y ago
if they became the owners, they wouldn't have to re-up every period of time.
- jackfraser 9y ago
  You own the name; the service of actually pointing that name to some nameservers, and maintaining secure control over it, is what you're paying for. I could see a registrar telling you they don't want to do business with you any more; they should have to give you some time to transfer it out. However, it's still a dangerous precedent that people on all sides of the political spectrum would do well to heed as a warning of censorship to come.
  - jakelazaroff 9y ago
    > You own the name; the service of actually pointing that name to some nameservers, and maintaining secure control over it, is what you're paying for. If that were the case, letting it expire would result in it just being dead rather than available for others to register.
    - featherverse 9y ago
      > If that were the case, letting it expire would result in it just being dead rather than available for others to register. No, it was always intended that when someone no longer needs a domain name, it would be returned to the pool of available domain names for others to make use of. This is in the very spirit of the internet.
      - jakelazaroff 9y ago
        What do you mean, "it was always intended?" That's certainly not how property rights work. If I legally own something, it doesn't become available to others just because I don't need it myself anymore.
        featherverse 9y ago
        > What do you mean, "it was always intended?" I mean the internet is a new world which is only about 40 years old. It was created by a lot of really smart guys who mostly don't care about the "traditional market rules" and it was created a specific way to follow specific philosophies one of which is when a domain name is no longer being used it should be available for other people to purchase. It's not exactly counter-culture, but it's completely different. The distributed infastructure, the emphasis on putting equal power in the hands of the smallest operators rather than focusing it on the largest corporations, none of these things mesh with how the offline world has been operating for centuries. People who were aware of the internet before it was cool remember these details. I don't know how to make it more clear for you than that.
        jakelazaroff 9y ago
- jakelazaroff 9y ago
  This is a good point, but I think you could still make the case that you own it. Is the yearly registration fee analagous to a subscription, or to property taxes? I don't have the answer here; curious to find out what everyone thinks.
  - heartbreak 9y ago
    It’s not a matter of what people think it’s a matter of law. When you register a domain name with NetworkSolutions, you do not own that domain name.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      What law are you referring to?
      - heartbreak 9y ago
        Contract law.
- featherverse 9y ago
  You aren't "re-up"ing. Domain names are not pre-paid cell phone plans. Look at it this way. Until a domain is registered, nobody owns it. When you pay to register a domain, you aren't buying it on the registrar's behalf. When you register a domain name you are purchasing that domain name for the duration of the registration period. You own it. Period. The registrar's role is to handle certain technical functions such as providing PTR service, WHOIS records, and to expire the domain when the registration period expires. They don't own it, and the cost of registration is meant to cover their operating costs. This is also why domains are so cheap. A .com is about $10 per year. That's basically nothing, when you compare to other things you pay for. If there weren't a recurring fee, people would never give up their unused domain names.
maxvu 9y ago
Is there any history of ICANN muscling registrars? What do they have to negotiate with?
- featherverse 9y ago
  ICANNs primary reason for existing is to "muscle" registrars. Their job is to enforce the rules.
- simcop2387 9y ago
  ICANN could in theory revoke the ability of the registrar to operate. Meaning that they could be put out of business pretty easily. That said I doubt that ICANN would actually do this on a first offense kind of thing. ICANN can also forcibly take the domain from the current registrar and cause a transfer to someone else instead. I think that is what will likely happen if NS doesn't get rid of the parking/stealing of the domain.
mozumder 9y ago
Network Solutions is both as a registrar and DNS provider. This is likely coming from their DNS side. And they don't have to provide DNS services to neo-Nazis.
- Animats 9y ago
  Network Solutions is not currently the DNS provider for "stormfront.org". Cloudflare is. Cloudflare rejects IP-only requests. The IP address is 104.20.30.134, but using that in the browser address bar won't work. curl --verbose --insecure --header "Host:stormfront.org" https://104.20.30.134/forum/ ought to work, but it doesn't. It gets stuck at Cloudflare's NGINX server. It's still available on the Internet Archive.[1] Runs vBulletin, so the posts didn't get archived, just the titles. Stormfront has been around for decades, getting little traction. It's partly David Duke's site, or was. Now it's just a forum. It's about as nutty as the usual white militia crowd, with which there's some overlap. Compare "vdare.com", which is somewhat white supremacist and pro-Trump. There's a whole spectrum of groups like that. This was a bad decision by Network Solutions. If registrars start censoring everybody the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center don't like, they're going to run head-on into the Trump supporters. That won't end well. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170818020428/stormfront.org/forum/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170818020428/stormfront.org/fo...
  - Buge 9y ago
    It works for me. I get a 301 to https://www.stormfront.org/forum/ https://www.stormfront.org/forum/ I'm actually surprised it works, because I thought headers need a space after the colon. Changing the host header to www.stormfrom.org gets me html.
    - Animats 9y ago
      You're right. curl --verbose --insecure --header "Host:www.stormfront.org" https://104.20.30.134/forum/ works. So Cloudflare hasn't cut them off. It's just DNS.
  - featherverse 9y ago
mrsaint 9y ago
In this case, I believe, technically, the domain "belonged" to the domain registrar. Why? Because the registrant used the registrar's privacy protection. While private domain registrations seem like a mildly useful privacy tool, factors to consider is that you are no longer the “owner” or your domain name (ICANN defines who owns the domain by what is published in WHOIS), and also that you no longer have any rights unless you sue the registrar.
- jtchang 9y ago
  Is this really correct? If I decide to use privacy protection then I no longer own my domain?!
  - wildrhythms 9y ago
    From what I understand, because the contact information pointed at Network Solutions' privacy protection service, there's no official "record" of ownership pointing to anyone else. So the domain ownership is in limbo since Network Solutions can't (or won't) verify the actual owner. I think this also brings up the question of how much control registrars have over a "purchased" domain. Am I buying that domain? Or am I buying the ability to tell the registrar what to do with it?
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    AFAIK: You never own the domain. You register it for a period of time, subject to terms of an agreement. I'm almost certain of that, unless something has changed recently. I'm surprised so many on HN seem unaware of it. If you use privacy protection, you are not the registrant; the privacy protection vendor is. That's what I've read in agreements with the privacy vendors, and that's what the whois record says.
    - featherverse 9y ago
      > You never own the domain. You register it for a period of time No, that's not what's happening. When you register a domain you are purchasing it. The fees you pay are to cover the operations of the registrar, who are providing a public service. It is also to allow people to pick up dropped domains that nobody is using anymore. This system was never intended to be abused the way it is being abused today.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> When a person registers a domain name, they become the owners of that domain name. They may own the name such that it would be improper to allow someone else to register it, but there entitlement to service from the registrar is based on the terms of the contract they have signed. > ICANN should probably get involved and punish Network Solutions for this action. What specific ICANN policy has been violated? > Network Solutions might be within their rights to choose to no longer 'host' the domain name themselves, but in that case they must be obligated to arrange for a transfer to a different registrar. They are obligated to process a transfer at the request of the owner and new registrar, subject to certain timing and other rules. They are not, AFAICT, required to arrange such a transfer proactively.
- featherverse 9y ago
  > What specific ICANN policy has been violated? I'm not going to dig through their books, I don't have the time and that's a job for lawyers. But I was around when ICANN was created and I know what their job is, and preventing these kinds of abuses by registrars is right at the top of their priority list. > They are obligated to process a transfer at the request of the owner and new registrar, subject to certain timing and other rules. They are not, AFAICT, required to arrange such a transfer proactively. That isn't what I meant. I only meant that if they were going to refuse to perform their duties as a registrar for one particular customer then they should provide that customer a means to switch registrars. What they did instead is a kind of theft, regardless of how you feel about that particular customer. (not a fan, myself, as I've stated).

steanne 9y ago

if they became the owners, they wouldn't have to re-up every period of time.

jackfraser 9y ago
You own the name; the service of actually pointing that name to some nameservers, and maintaining secure control over it, is what you're paying for. I could see a registrar telling you they don't want to do business with you any more; they should have to give you some time to transfer it out. However, it's still a dangerous precedent that people on all sides of the political spectrum would do well to heed as a warning of censorship to come.
- jakelazaroff 9y ago
  > You own the name; the service of actually pointing that name to some nameservers, and maintaining secure control over it, is what you're paying for. If that were the case, letting it expire would result in it just being dead rather than available for others to register.
  - featherverse 9y ago
    > If that were the case, letting it expire would result in it just being dead rather than available for others to register. No, it was always intended that when someone no longer needs a domain name, it would be returned to the pool of available domain names for others to make use of. This is in the very spirit of the internet.
    - jakelazaroff 9y ago
      What do you mean, "it was always intended?" That's certainly not how property rights work. If I legally own something, it doesn't become available to others just because I don't need it myself anymore.
      - featherverse 9y ago
        > What do you mean, "it was always intended?" I mean the internet is a new world which is only about 40 years old. It was created by a lot of really smart guys who mostly don't care about the "traditional market rules" and it was created a specific way to follow specific philosophies one of which is when a domain name is no longer being used it should be available for other people to purchase. It's not exactly counter-culture, but it's completely different. The distributed infastructure, the emphasis on putting equal power in the hands of the smallest operators rather than focusing it on the largest corporations, none of these things mesh with how the offline world has been operating for centuries. People who were aware of the internet before it was cool remember these details. I don't know how to make it more clear for you than that.
        jakelazaroff 9y ago
jakelazaroff 9y ago
This is a good point, but I think you could still make the case that you own it. Is the yearly registration fee analagous to a subscription, or to property taxes? I don't have the answer here; curious to find out what everyone thinks.
- heartbreak 9y ago
  It’s not a matter of what people think it’s a matter of law. When you register a domain name with NetworkSolutions, you do not own that domain name.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    What law are you referring to?
    - heartbreak 9y ago
      Contract law.
featherverse 9y ago
You aren't "re-up"ing. Domain names are not pre-paid cell phone plans. Look at it this way. Until a domain is registered, nobody owns it. When you pay to register a domain, you aren't buying it on the registrar's behalf. When you register a domain name you are purchasing that domain name for the duration of the registration period. You own it. Period. The registrar's role is to handle certain technical functions such as providing PTR service, WHOIS records, and to expire the domain when the registration period expires. They don't own it, and the cost of registration is meant to cover their operating costs. This is also why domains are so cheap. A .com is about $10 per year. That's basically nothing, when you compare to other things you pay for. If there weren't a recurring fee, people would never give up their unused domain names.

maxvu 9y ago

Is there any history of ICANN muscling registrars? What do they have to negotiate with?

featherverse 9y ago
ICANNs primary reason for existing is to "muscle" registrars. Their job is to enforce the rules.
simcop2387 9y ago
ICANN could in theory revoke the ability of the registrar to operate. Meaning that they could be put out of business pretty easily. That said I doubt that ICANN would actually do this on a first offense kind of thing. ICANN can also forcibly take the domain from the current registrar and cause a transfer to someone else instead. I think that is what will likely happen if NS doesn't get rid of the parking/stealing of the domain.

mozumder 9y ago

Network Solutions is both as a registrar and DNS provider. This is likely coming from their DNS side. And they don't have to provide DNS services to neo-Nazis.

Animats 9y ago
Network Solutions is not currently the DNS provider for "stormfront.org". Cloudflare is. Cloudflare rejects IP-only requests. The IP address is 104.20.30.134, but using that in the browser address bar won't work. curl --verbose --insecure --header "Host:stormfront.org" https://104.20.30.134/forum/ ought to work, but it doesn't. It gets stuck at Cloudflare's NGINX server. It's still available on the Internet Archive.[1] Runs vBulletin, so the posts didn't get archived, just the titles. Stormfront has been around for decades, getting little traction. It's partly David Duke's site, or was. Now it's just a forum. It's about as nutty as the usual white militia crowd, with which there's some overlap. Compare "vdare.com", which is somewhat white supremacist and pro-Trump. There's a whole spectrum of groups like that. This was a bad decision by Network Solutions. If registrars start censoring everybody the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center don't like, they're going to run head-on into the Trump supporters. That won't end well. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170818020428/stormfront.org/forum/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170818020428/stormfront.org/fo...
- Buge 9y ago
  It works for me. I get a 301 to https://www.stormfront.org/forum/ https://www.stormfront.org/forum/ I'm actually surprised it works, because I thought headers need a space after the colon. Changing the host header to www.stormfrom.org gets me html.
  - Animats 9y ago
    You're right. curl --verbose --insecure --header "Host:www.stormfront.org" https://104.20.30.134/forum/ works. So Cloudflare hasn't cut them off. It's just DNS.
- featherverse 9y ago

mrsaint 9y ago

In this case, I believe, technically, the domain "belonged" to the domain registrar. Why? Because the registrant used the registrar's privacy protection. While private domain registrations seem like a mildly useful privacy tool, factors to consider is that you are no longer the “owner” or your domain name (ICANN defines who owns the domain by what is published in WHOIS), and also that you no longer have any rights unless you sue the registrar.

jtchang 9y ago
Is this really correct? If I decide to use privacy protection then I no longer own my domain?!
- wildrhythms 9y ago
  From what I understand, because the contact information pointed at Network Solutions' privacy protection service, there's no official "record" of ownership pointing to anyone else. So the domain ownership is in limbo since Network Solutions can't (or won't) verify the actual owner. I think this also brings up the question of how much control registrars have over a "purchased" domain. Am I buying that domain? Or am I buying the ability to tell the registrar what to do with it?
- forapurpose 9y ago
  AFAIK: You never own the domain. You register it for a period of time, subject to terms of an agreement. I'm almost certain of that, unless something has changed recently. I'm surprised so many on HN seem unaware of it. If you use privacy protection, you are not the registrant; the privacy protection vendor is. That's what I've read in agreements with the privacy vendors, and that's what the whois record says.
  - featherverse 9y ago
    > You never own the domain. You register it for a period of time No, that's not what's happening. When you register a domain you are purchasing it. The fees you pay are to cover the operations of the registrar, who are providing a public service. It is also to allow people to pick up dropped domains that nobody is using anymore. This system was never intended to be abused the way it is being abused today.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> When a person registers a domain name, they become the owners of that domain name. They may own the name such that it would be improper to allow someone else to register it, but there entitlement to service from the registrar is based on the terms of the contract they have signed. > ICANN should probably get involved and punish Network Solutions for this action. What specific ICANN policy has been violated? > Network Solutions might be within their rights to choose to no longer 'host' the domain name themselves, but in that case they must be obligated to arrange for a transfer to a different registrar. They are obligated to process a transfer at the request of the owner and new registrar, subject to certain timing and other rules. They are not, AFAICT, required to arrange such a transfer proactively.

featherverse 9y ago
> What specific ICANN policy has been violated? I'm not going to dig through their books, I don't have the time and that's a job for lawyers. But I was around when ICANN was created and I know what their job is, and preventing these kinds of abuses by registrars is right at the top of their priority list. > They are obligated to process a transfer at the request of the owner and new registrar, subject to certain timing and other rules. They are not, AFAICT, required to arrange such a transfer proactively. That isn't what I meant. I only meant that if they were going to refuse to perform their duties as a registrar for one particular customer then they should provide that customer a means to switch registrars. What they did instead is a kind of theft, regardless of how you feel about that particular customer. (not a fan, myself, as I've stated).