4 ms·

In this case, I believe, technically, the domain "belonged" to the domain registrar. Why? Because the registrant used the registrar's privacy protection. While

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.
- featherverse 9y ago
  Regardless of how the rules are presently defined, that would _never_ stand up in court. And I think it's a waste of time for us to squabble over nonsense that every rational thinking person knows is nonsense. It's important to remember and consider the reason that registrars exist and the reason ICANN was created. All of these things are meant to protect the sanity of internet operations, not to contribute to their corruption and breakdown.
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    > Regardless of how the rules are presently defined, that would _never_ stand up in court IANAL, but I agree. When you sign up for privacy protection, you're hiring the registrar to act as your agent. If they then act outside their granted authority as such, then they're doing so in breach of contract. I believe that's called 'conversion'.
jeffdavis 9y ago
I really don't like this kind of rationalization for censorship on technicalities. Technically correct may matter legally, but we should make it clear that it is not acceptable for companies like Network Solutions or Facebook to engage in this behavior. If the law does not protect speech in these instances, we should push back using other means. It's simply not reasonable to expect non-technical, non-lawyers to understand these nuances well enough to get their message out without risking censorship. Today, that's OK because we're talking about a very bad message, but tomorrow it may not be quite so OK.
- mozumder 9y ago
  Censorship is fine. Use it as a tool to maintain social order. Don't be the guy that read 1984 and thinks all censorship is bad, and that the world is going to collapse because someone banned a neo-nazi forum. You don't have enough information to make that far-reaching slippery-slope conclusion, mostly because of the millions of other factors that you didn't consider in your model. We need to encourage companies that engage in this behavior that censor violent people.
  - mcbruiser3 9y ago
    who gets to decide what's censored? you?

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.
featherverse 9y ago
Regardless of how the rules are presently defined, that would _never_ stand up in court. And I think it's a waste of time for us to squabble over nonsense that every rational thinking person knows is nonsense. It's important to remember and consider the reason that registrars exist and the reason ICANN was created. All of these things are meant to protect the sanity of internet operations, not to contribute to their corruption and breakdown.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  > Regardless of how the rules are presently defined, that would _never_ stand up in court IANAL, but I agree. When you sign up for privacy protection, you're hiring the registrar to act as your agent. If they then act outside their granted authority as such, then they're doing so in breach of contract. I believe that's called 'conversion'.

jeffdavis 9y ago

I really don't like this kind of rationalization for censorship on technicalities. Technically correct may matter legally, but we should make it clear that it is not acceptable for companies like Network Solutions or Facebook to engage in this behavior. If the law does not protect speech in these instances, we should push back using other means. It's simply not reasonable to expect non-technical, non-lawyers to understand these nuances well enough to get their message out without risking censorship. Today, that's OK because we're talking about a very bad message, but tomorrow it may not be quite so OK.

mozumder 9y ago
Censorship is fine. Use it as a tool to maintain social order. Don't be the guy that read 1984 and thinks all censorship is bad, and that the world is going to collapse because someone banned a neo-nazi forum. You don't have enough information to make that far-reaching slippery-slope conclusion, mostly because of the millions of other factors that you didn't consider in your model. We need to encourage companies that engage in this behavior that censor violent people.
- mcbruiser3 9y ago
  who gets to decide what's censored? you?