Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
Thats what should have happened, but didnt. they instead took his domain based on no legal authority or wrongdoing. When they should have just reported him to the police and forced him to transfer his domain. |
Could not agree more on that.
If they received a complaint and felt there was a legal issue - that should be reported to the appropriate authority.
Instead, the policy of DirectNic is to protect the public morals and be the decider of what should or should not appear on websites - despite they are only domain registrars operating under ICANN.
There are too many do-gooders floating around this planet assuming rights they do not have despite their TOS - and then telling clients who have removed domains that they are supporting child pornography. How pathetic and amateur.
The issue of Slick is another matter and may require investigation - by an appropriate authority - not by a domain registrar.
And. despite praises to the contrary, I contacted DirectNic today and the service and response was pathetic. This is a company who are unable to state a telephone number for a legal representative, say who the officers of the company are, or say where they may be contacted. Personally, I would not trust DirectNic with a dollar - nevermind any domain names.
There is obviously some defective thought hanging around DirectNic - they need external legal advice.
Whatever happens, it would be appropriate if DirectNic did account for their conduct in court and stand for appropriate liability they assumed upon themselves.