This whole directnic locking down a domain thing

[Windy City]

First post here - long time lurker that has gotten tired of the other boards that don't talk business anymore.

Jim, I've always read your posts here with great interest as you've given some incredible advice and insight over the years. I was a bit surprised at your stance on the issue considering the overwhelming stance of the adult industry on 2257 inspections on secondary producers. It seems a bit hypocritical to say the government has no right to ask for them, but the registrar does.

I think DirectNic overstepped their boundaries on this issue. While I feel they have every right to tell the individual that they don't care to be their registrar anymore, I don't think they should be locking down a domain and holding it hostage. They should tell him to transfer it out immediately or they will drop it. This leaves them with no liability.

It just seems like a bad road to go down if registrars start taking the law into their own hands. While CP is a major issue, it's an issue that should be dealt with by the authorities. If you receive complaints, you should demand them to transfer the domains and contact the authorities. Playing judge on something that registrars don't have experience in is opening the door to abuse, theft, and witch hunts.

I'm not sure if the posts supporting the decision are posts supporting having registrars be in charge of checking records, or just supporting an old friend.

[Linkster]

Originally Posted by Windy City

It just seems like a bad road to go down if registrars start taking the law into their own hands. While CP is a major issue, it's an issue that should be dealt with by the authorities. .

I dont believe they (while I dont support the idea/law) did anything different than what is being discussed in the new bill before congress - they may have jumped a little, but I would think that they are just covering their ass in advance:

Heres the people the new law applies to :

the term `online service' includes any--

`(i) Internet content hosting service;

`(ii) domain name registration service;

`(iii) Internet search service;

`(iv) Internet social networking site, chat room, message board, or any other similar service using the Internet;

`(v) Internet service that provides e-mail, instant messaging, or any other similar service using the Internet;

`(vi) electronic communication service;

`(vii) Internet service provider (including any wireless carrier that provides Internet access);

`(viii) Internet image or video sharing service; and

`(ix) remote computing service; and

`(E) the term `remote computing service' has the meaning given that term in section 2711


This is all from the new S.4089 which amends Chapter 110 of title 18 sect 2257 and others - it makes it a crime for these providers to have the stuff and not report it (of course the keyword being "knowingly") but if theyve had it reported to them then I guess they "know"

The other important part of this is that it applies to "2252B. Misleading domain names on the Internet" - the new law that was enacted last year - so registrars would already have been "knowingly" breaking that law

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Linkster

The other important part of this is that it applies to "2252B. Misleading domain names on the Internet" - the new law that was enacted last year - so registrars would already have been "knowingly" breaking that law

About the same time as this started, I remember reading on a mainstream board that the registars don't seem to complain if you register a name like.
http://login_amazon.com