Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Calls For Global Boycott Against eNom
souls writes "The folks at Wikileaks are calling for a boycott against eNom, Inc., one of the top internet domain registrars, which WikiLeaks claims is involved in systematic domain censoring. On Feb 28th eNom shut down wikileaks.info, one of the many Wikileaks mirrors held by a volunteer as a side-effect of the court proceedings around wikileaks.org. In addition, eNom was the registrar that shut off access to a Spanish travel agent who showed up on a US Treasury watch list. Wikileaks calls for a 'global boycott of eNom and its parent Demand Media, its owners, executives and their affiliated companies, interests and holdings, to make clear such behavior can and will not be tolerated within the boundaries of the Internet and its global community.'"
What we need is a list of known good registrars and a set of instructions how to escape bad ones.
Ignore this signature. By order.
standard procedure for which to handle domain shut down requests.
a take down request should be specific and start with a request to remove the offending material, not the whole site.
It could be done with laws but would need to be done in any country hosting.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but this is a hosting site issue, not a domain registry issue (or it shouldn't be a domain registry issue).
Registry is like an ID, messing with an ID is like identity theft or other wrongful manipulation of a persons ID. There should already be laws for this.
Anyways, there is the possibility to organize a standards group on the issue just as there is the OSI, linuxs standard base ,
etc.. and openly rate and publish hosting policies compliance level and even registry policies if that is indeed an issue.
There should also be recourse against those who violate. Or at least a bad mark on the open rating report.
Rather than cry about eNOM's vulnerability to the US Justice system, Wikileaks should be protecting their domain name with the same care as they do their content.
I strongly disagree. Wikileaks is not attempting to act on information someone posted on their site; they are acting in response to something that was done to them directly.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the information they host, aside from the fact that the information that they host was a reason for the acts by eNom et al. It also does
not reflect on the veracity of their information, and interpreting it that way seems odd to me.