I agree with you that we do not know the complete story and there is plenty group think floating around based on the facts known so far - that's not unusual.
Slick's lawyers will work on his case and as part of that, presumably establish the details of any alleged criminal offenses which may be known by DirectNic - or otherwise. Legal negotiations/strategy is not our biz.
No doubts DirectNic will eventually make a diplomatic statement justifying every action they have taken. That also is normal - do you expect them to admit any liability?
The issue of Slick and that of the actions of DirectNIC are separate (tho combined in this scenario). One is about possible CP issues, the other is about the actions of a domain registrar. Slick's issue will probably be ongoing for some time.
On the DirectNic side, they have already stated their position by email and acted upon it and it's not in doubt. The conduct of their staff is below the level of a swamp when accusing clients who wish to remove domains that they "support child pornography". The conduct of their General Counsel concerning clients who wish to remove domains, is pathetic, but hardly a surprise.
DirectNic have elected to be protectors of public morals with admirable and righteous aims of stopping child pornography. That is their choice - in which case they need to start the DirecticNiC Center For Exploited Children and forget reporting offenses to law enforcement and just elect to act as LE. I strongly suggest that 50% of all DirectNic revenue be donated to such wonderful causes and DN status revert to a charity.
Whatever DirectNic say or don't say, is now irrelevant. They have made their bed - it's time to sleep in it. Webmasters pay for domains from registrars - they don't pay to listen to the opinion of the registrars. If there is an problem concerning domain content - anyone is free to report that issue to the relevant authority. DirectNic failed to do so.
Bottom line - who needs a registrar where their staff suggest people support child porn, they can't give contact point of responsible officers and their General Counsel behaves like an idiot? Nobody - only a fool. There is no reason to consider placing domains in the hands of idiots with an opinion - they can't be trusted.
Slick's lawyers will work on his case and as part of that, presumably establish the details of any alleged criminal offenses which may be known by DirectNic - or otherwise. Legal negotiations/strategy is not our biz.
No doubts DirectNic will eventually make a diplomatic statement justifying every action they have taken. That also is normal - do you expect them to admit any liability?
The issue of Slick and that of the actions of DirectNIC are separate (tho combined in this scenario). One is about possible CP issues, the other is about the actions of a domain registrar. Slick's issue will probably be ongoing for some time.
On the DirectNic side, they have already stated their position by email and acted upon it and it's not in doubt. The conduct of their staff is below the level of a swamp when accusing clients who wish to remove domains that they "support child pornography". The conduct of their General Counsel concerning clients who wish to remove domains, is pathetic, but hardly a surprise.
DirectNic have elected to be protectors of public morals with admirable and righteous aims of stopping child pornography. That is their choice - in which case they need to start the DirecticNiC Center For Exploited Children and forget reporting offenses to law enforcement and just elect to act as LE. I strongly suggest that 50% of all DirectNic revenue be donated to such wonderful causes and DN status revert to a charity.
Whatever DirectNic say or don't say, is now irrelevant. They have made their bed - it's time to sleep in it. Webmasters pay for domains from registrars - they don't pay to listen to the opinion of the registrars. If there is an problem concerning domain content - anyone is free to report that issue to the relevant authority. DirectNic failed to do so.
Bottom line - who needs a registrar where their staff suggest people support child porn, they can't give contact point of responsible officers and their General Counsel behaves like an idiot? Nobody - only a fool. There is no reason to consider placing domains in the hands of idiots with an opinion - they can't be trusted.
- If I was stuck with the honor of being a domain registar and received complaints of criminal activity, the tendency would be pass these complaints to a qualified investigating authority. Admittedly, it's hard to make judgements when we don't know the details of any complaint, but shutting off domains without an investigation seems kinda crazy and open to liability irrespective of any TOS. It's also not helpful when the DNCEC suggest other webmasters support child pornography when they feel insecure about having their domains in the hands of folks who have "opinions". It's almost the same as trusting a Chinese registrar with a porn site in China 
Comment