> Not losing your ability to receive email will help resolve the problem. Sure, I'm trying to prevent this stealing focus from the fact that this shouldn't hav

> Not losing your ability to receive email will help resolve the problem. Sure, I'm trying to prevent this stealing focus from the fact that this shouldn't have been a problem to begin with. The argument for separation is not made for defending against a SLA limitation or some other technical reason. It is made to accommodate a faulty policy problem. It is equal to saying "best practice: all big-co domains users should have corporate and production domain separation in case big-co's policy layer messes up. oh well". I'd rather see big-co held accountable not to mess up. > If that is the case, then choosing a registrar that provides quality, timely and responsive support when dealing abusive content complaints should be on the top of your priorities. Hindsight is perfect, while those qualities are rarely perfectly symmetrical information. "They should have known this could have happened" sounds like victim blaming to me. They were entitled to reasonable policies and reasonable application of those policies. > I'm not sure how this become anti-competitive Monopoly is not the only machinery of anti-competition. Creating a landscape demanding anti-abuse parity is essentially creating a barrier of entry. They are going to cloudflare next but there is no telling a similar scenario won't happen. It is important to call out the potential of big-co's putting capital-intensive demands on little players to participate in the web.