5 ms·

Hey thanks, GoDaddy for releasing a statement[0] instead of fixing the problem. They literally choose this over siding with the customer and their lawyer. [0]

Hey thanks, GoDaddy for releasing a statement[0] instead of fixing the problem. They literally choose this over siding with the customer and their lawyer. [0] https://aboutus.godaddy.net/newsroom/company-news/news-details/2022/GoDaddy-Statement-on-eth.link-Domain-Registration/default.aspx https://aboutus.godaddy.net/newsroom/company-news/news-detai...

smoldesu 4y ago
There is no problem to 'fix'. The people who paid for eth.link domains do not own them, so GoDaddy has zero obligation to even acknowledge their existence. Hell, they're lucky they even got a statement at all, if I was them I'd just start selling off the domains slowly while I watch Twitter melt down.
- csdvrx 4y ago
  > if I was them I'd just start selling off the domains slowly while I watch Twitter melt down. Why do something you know to be bad and will lead to many people being angry? Why not... be nice and helpful?
  - svnpenn 4y ago
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc https://youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    It's against my libertarian ethos.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Because they're GoDaddy, not a crypto-charity. They run a business, nobody has any right to complain that they're not giving away their product free-of-charge. If they want their precious domain so badly then they can compete for it on the free market; that's the spirit of decentralization and deregulation, after all!
    - zamadatix 4y ago
      I don't see enough information in the article or GoDaddy statement saying the ask was to do it free of charge just they won't allow anyone else do the renewal. As much as I dislike crypto-crap as the article points out ENS itself would handle this situation fine and GoDaddy reversing its position on this is pretty much the opposite of the argument for centralized services being better able to handle these scenarios.
    - andreilys 4y ago
      How does having someone else pay for the domain renewal imply charity?
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        Someone else can pay for the domain, they just have to wait for it to lapse first. This seems perfectly fine to me, and if the original owner agreed to the GoDaddy TOS then I see no reason why they should make a magical fairy dust exception for this case.
  - charles_kaw 4y ago
    >Why not... be nice and helpful? Because there are rules around this stuff. Rules designed to maintain integrity of dns and trust in the system. They can't flaunt the rules, and if they did, they'd be at risk of losing accreditation.
    - unknownaccount 4y ago
      Registrars seem to flaunt the rules all the time and not lose accreditaion. CloudFlare cancels peoples domains prematurely due to "false positives" - gets away with it. NameCheap cancels peoples domains prematurely due to their country of origin - gets away with it.
      - detaro 4y ago
        What specifically do you mean by "cancels domains prematurely"?
        unknownaccount 4y ago
        I mean canceling the domain early, before the contractually agreed up expiration date. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31576353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31576353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30504812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30504812
        detaro 4y ago
        These are two quite different cases from "what happens to the domain" perspective, and for Namecheap I don't see the formal problem - I don't believe the accreditation requires them to never terminate a customer contract, and the domain remains active and can be transferred.
      - charles_kaw 4y ago
        You seem to be using "cancels" in a very loose sense. When you're talking about actions of these providers, and their duties/responsibilities, some precision is required. These companies are allowed to end a business relationship. They are not allowed to just "take away" a domain without just cause^. That domain is still registered and you are free to take it to another registrar. >NameCheap cancels peoples domains prematurely due to their country of origin - gets away with it. If you're referring to their actions about Russia, they didn't "cancel" a domain. They gave all of their users a time frame to transfer their domains out before they ended the business relationship. Now, personally, I believe their timeline was too short - but a week is a reasonable notification. This is very different from a more colloquially understood usage of cancel, which would imply that they immediately terminated service and did not allow the domain registrant to keep the domain. That is simply not the case, and also within line with ICANN policies. ^ im not an expert on the tos or legalities of this stuff, but things like fraud or spam can definitely get your domain "taken away" on most (if not all?) tlds
  - nr2x 4y ago
    Not everybody deserves help.
nominusllc 4y ago
I wonder if there is a reason they felt compelled to reverse their decision and omit any details as to what contact initiated that. I'd imagine the nature of the service handling that type of traffic could be significant to some.
Hamuko 4y ago
I thought that the problem was the web3 people pretending to build decentralised services while in fact they're relying on a convicted criminal to renew a domain?
bawolff 4y ago
Its certainly not their responsibility to fix the stupidity of others
riffic 4y ago
seems like a reasonable statement, lol. big corp isn't going to lose its icann accreditation over an intervention that breaks their policies.
jbirer 4y ago
Crypto scam victim detected. Eth.link was lying about being decentralized.

smoldesu 4y ago

There is no problem to 'fix'. The people who paid for eth.link domains do not own them, so GoDaddy has zero obligation to even acknowledge their existence. Hell, they're lucky they even got a statement at all, if I was them I'd just start selling off the domains slowly while I watch Twitter melt down.

csdvrx 4y ago
> if I was them I'd just start selling off the domains slowly while I watch Twitter melt down. Why do something you know to be bad and will lead to many people being angry? Why not... be nice and helpful?
- svnpenn 4y ago
  https://youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc https://youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc
- pessimizer 4y ago
  It's against my libertarian ethos.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Because they're GoDaddy, not a crypto-charity. They run a business, nobody has any right to complain that they're not giving away their product free-of-charge. If they want their precious domain so badly then they can compete for it on the free market; that's the spirit of decentralization and deregulation, after all!
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    I don't see enough information in the article or GoDaddy statement saying the ask was to do it free of charge just they won't allow anyone else do the renewal. As much as I dislike crypto-crap as the article points out ENS itself would handle this situation fine and GoDaddy reversing its position on this is pretty much the opposite of the argument for centralized services being better able to handle these scenarios.
  - andreilys 4y ago
    How does having someone else pay for the domain renewal imply charity?
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Someone else can pay for the domain, they just have to wait for it to lapse first. This seems perfectly fine to me, and if the original owner agreed to the GoDaddy TOS then I see no reason why they should make a magical fairy dust exception for this case.
- charles_kaw 4y ago
  >Why not... be nice and helpful? Because there are rules around this stuff. Rules designed to maintain integrity of dns and trust in the system. They can't flaunt the rules, and if they did, they'd be at risk of losing accreditation.
  - unknownaccount 4y ago
    Registrars seem to flaunt the rules all the time and not lose accreditaion. CloudFlare cancels peoples domains prematurely due to "false positives" - gets away with it. NameCheap cancels peoples domains prematurely due to their country of origin - gets away with it.
    - detaro 4y ago
      What specifically do you mean by "cancels domains prematurely"?
      - unknownaccount 4y ago
        I mean canceling the domain early, before the contractually agreed up expiration date. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31576353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31576353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30504812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30504812
        detaro 4y ago
        These are two quite different cases from "what happens to the domain" perspective, and for Namecheap I don't see the formal problem - I don't believe the accreditation requires them to never terminate a customer contract, and the domain remains active and can be transferred.
    - charles_kaw 4y ago
      You seem to be using "cancels" in a very loose sense. When you're talking about actions of these providers, and their duties/responsibilities, some precision is required. These companies are allowed to end a business relationship. They are not allowed to just "take away" a domain without just cause^. That domain is still registered and you are free to take it to another registrar. >NameCheap cancels peoples domains prematurely due to their country of origin - gets away with it. If you're referring to their actions about Russia, they didn't "cancel" a domain. They gave all of their users a time frame to transfer their domains out before they ended the business relationship. Now, personally, I believe their timeline was too short - but a week is a reasonable notification. This is very different from a more colloquially understood usage of cancel, which would imply that they immediately terminated service and did not allow the domain registrant to keep the domain. That is simply not the case, and also within line with ICANN policies. ^ im not an expert on the tos or legalities of this stuff, but things like fraud or spam can definitely get your domain "taken away" on most (if not all?) tlds
- nr2x 4y ago
  Not everybody deserves help.

nominusllc 4y ago

I wonder if there is a reason they felt compelled to reverse their decision and omit any details as to what contact initiated that. I'd imagine the nature of the service handling that type of traffic could be significant to some.

Hamuko 4y ago

I thought that the problem was the web3 people pretending to build decentralised services while in fact they're relying on a convicted criminal to renew a domain?

bawolff 4y ago

Its certainly not their responsibility to fix the stupidity of others

riffic 4y ago

seems like a reasonable statement, lol. big corp isn't going to lose its icann accreditation over an intervention that breaks their policies.

jbirer 4y ago

Crypto scam victim detected. Eth.link was lying about being decentralized.