Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

It's Official: Registrars Cannot Hold Domains Hostage Without a Court Order

Posted by Soulskill on from the dns-hostage-negotiators-suddenly-unemployed dept.

Stunt Pope writes "Back when the City of London Police issued those 'takedown requests' to domain registrars, most complied. However, as previously reported here, easyDNS didn't. A bunch of the taken-down domains wanted to move to easyDNS. One problem: their registrar wouldn't let them. It took awhile, but easyDNS fought it. They've finally gotten a ruling (PDF) under the ICANN policy that ordered the hostage domains transferred."

17 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    how about like when whole domains are being used for malware, phishing, or fraud?

    do we have to go thru a court to get a registrar to do something? that isn't reallllly that good of news.

    namesearchhere.com is being used for botnet clickfraud. along with probably hundreds of others... now the registrar can just sit on their hands and say... welp. nothing i can do but charge fees. my hands are tied!

    registrars are making money of DGA, clickfraud, and all manner of shitty activities. now they can really drag their feet.

    1. Re:hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      how about like when whole domains are being used for malware, phishing, or fraud?

      do we have to go thru a court ....

      How about when Anonymous Cowards like you are murdering babies? Do I have to go through the whole judicial thing to stop it? Shouldn't my word just be enough to come over and judicially execute you and have all your property transferred into my name as compensation for my time? I think all this "judicial stuff" is just getting in the way of my killing off idiots^W^W^W protecting the family.

    2. Re:hmm.... by fred911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should he registrar be responsible for content? Is the phone company responsable for publishing phone numbers of unscrupulous businesses? The responsibility for mal-content is that of the host, not the directory.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe hosting providers should be the same way when you report one of their servers as hacked and being used for a botnet check-in or malware hoster. Do nothing until a court order. That should work well!

      Better 100 idiots without a scanner installed get infected than one innocent site get shut down by an asshole with an agenda.

    4. Re:hmm.... by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Protecting the good guys from abuse often protects the bad guys to some degree.

      Its all about what kind of internet you want to deal with: One where someone can trivially take your content down, or one where you know that theres bad stuff out there.

    5. Re:hmm.... by Stunt+Pope · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Registrars can takedown domains for net abuse, the main thing is their terms of service are between them and their registrants, they enforce their policies.

      The easyDNS Plain English terms of service state domains will be taken down for net abuse, but if you want to compel a takedown from the outside because *you* say it's illegal, you need a court order.

    6. Re:hmm.... by ancientt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      do we have to go thru a court to get a registrar to do something? that isn't reallllly that good of news.

      Registrars can voluntarily do something when asked, so no, you don't have to get a court order to get a registrar to do something. They are absolutely supposed to let people move their domains when people want to also, but some of them weren't following the rules. Having them follow the rules is a good thing.

      If, however, you want to force a registrar to do something which isn't part of the rules, then yes, you should have to get a court order.

      Did you like the scenario where companies don't have to follow the rules you both agreed to? Most of us don't.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    7. Re:hmm.... by ancientt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mod parent up.

      Not saying I haven't wanted to bypass the legal system myself from time to time, but given the choice, don't you want to live in a world with laws?

      Sure, I'd like to live in a world that doesn't need laws, but since ours does need them, then having people forced to follow them is the best we can hope for.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    8. Re: hmm.... by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Informative
      I've read the summary. I've read the ruling. Have you? The summary and ruling aren't directed at the City of London and say nothing about whether the City of London was incorrect in asking easyDNS (or any other registrar) to review their terms for a possible breach. The summary and ruling deal with domain registrars who made the decision that the customer WAS in violation of their terms and thus shut them off, who then refused to release the domain name.

      This should be clear from the very beginning of the ruling:

      easyDNS Technologies Inc. v. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com

      It's easyDNS vs. another registrar, not easyDNS vs. City of London.

      I've also read the "takedown order", which is quoted in part in the ruling itself. Maybe you should read it. It is rather clear in asking the registrar to review the conduct of the customer to see if it violates the registrar's acceptable use policy, and for the registrar to make a decision what action is appropriate.

      The City of London did NOTHING that you or I could not do, and I have done many times in the past when trying to get spammers and such shut down. I've even been more forceful by saying that the registrar SHOULD shut them off, not just that they ought to review the policy to see if they think the customer is breaching it.

      Yeah, the CoL went further by asking the registrar, once they had made a decision to shut the domain off, to take certain steps that would help the CoL maintain evidence of the activity for later legal action. That's not out of line, either, and it still is based on the registrar making a decision, not a demand from the CoL.

    9. Re:hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Better one pithy expression pulled out of his ass than 100 sophisticated economic analyses.

    10. Re: hmm.... by Dan541 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you break the law then, to quote you, it's your own damn fault.

      How can you tell if a website is breaking the law? An illegal activity in the United States may be legal in the country that the website is located in. Thus making it a legal website.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  2. Godaddy by neoform · · Score: 5, Informative

    As someone who had godaddy hold my domain hostage, this is great news.

    GoDaddy had received a single complaint from an anonymous source, which was apparently enough for them to threaten to revoke my domain if I didn't pay their $200 extortion fee.

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
  3. There's money at stake by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... so ICANN cares. Where were they when people were asking them for help shutting down spammer-friendly (and scammer and thief friendly) registrars? When the registrars could make more money, ICANN was happy to comply. Now something is up that could interfere with registrars' ability to make money, so we see from them again.

    The rest of us, of course, can all go to hell as far as ICANN is concerned.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  4. Domain Registars to avoid by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 3

    As someone who had godaddy hold my domain hostage, this is great news.

    GoDaddy had received a single complaint from an anonymous source, which was apparently enough for them to threaten to revoke my domain if I didn't pay their $200 extortion fee.

    Buried in the ruling the offending registar is named: PublicDomainRegistry.com (PDR Ltd) wouldn't let EasyDNS do the transfer. Add GoDaddy to the list, what other registrars should we be voting with our wallets and abandoning?

  5. Re:Thanks EasyDNS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    EasyDNS is a great registrar. Some years ago I had an issue with one of my domain names because a law firm in North Carolina registered a very similar name. The only difference was that they inserted a hyphen in their name and I didn't have one. Naturally some of their clients omitted the hyphen in the address and I received the emails instead, which I passed on to them.

    That was a mistake. The law company was very angry at me, and they accused me of intercepting their mail, using my domain in bad faith, etc. They ignored the fact that my domain name was registered over 5 years before they registered their name. They attempted to get EasyDNS to lock my domain and transfer it to them. They attempted to harass both me and EasyDNS. Eventually they attempted to take my domain through ICANN name dispute resolution proceedings, which failed. They even attempted to get the FBI involved, which resulted in an interesting interview with two agents, but nothing else.

    EasyDNS was wonderful. They investigated and they decided there was no reason to interrupt my domain service. They supported me through the resolution proceedings. I would not use any other domain registrar for any domain name I really care about.

    EasyDNS isn't the least expensive registrar, but they aren't the most expensive either. The fact they in Canada (and therefore outside USA jurisdiction) is an added bonus.

  6. City of London = Privately owned Corporation by rea1l1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the City of London is a privately owned corporation. I would imagine their police are also.

    Do not mistake London the city with the City of London.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval

  7. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy by rueger · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Lord - things are never dull over at easyDNS. Hot on the heels of the decision above, some called the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) is demanding that easyDNS play Cop.

    It's almost surreal to be getting this letter from the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) addressed to ICANN Registrars requesting that "you adopt and implement policies and procedures, consistent with this letter,", given the timing of what we just went through with the City of London Police takedown requests. What are those policies and procedures the NAPB wants all ICANN Registrars to adopt? Glad you asked:...

    --
    Three Squirrels