I'm defending them because I see their legal exposure here. I also see that they, unlike most other registrars who from what I can tell have the same TOS, actually went to the webmaster first instead of turning it over directly to the government.

As I stated elsewhere, the probable outcome in all this will be fewer registrars willing to have domains with adult material on them, just like hosting companies and billing companies have been doing for years.

wow, there are so many fights in this thread I am getting lost

and..............i really think it is kind of scary that Directnic is doing this, and I don't think it is right one bit....a registrar isn't content police, if they have an issue they can easily just protect their asses by reporting what they think is questionable

oh ok, so you're a lawyer now? So tell me, lawyer, are they also allowed to keep your domains if you choose not to comply with thier demands?


Either that or fewer people will choose to register their domains with a netcop registrar who's going to add to their daily burden.

And if it was your domain, you would rather have them send the info directly to the government before contacting you about it? Personally I'd rather be given the chance to clear it up myself first. Do you think the FBI is going to just walk away when you say "I don't have that information - it was sent to me by someone else"? There have already been cases where the FBI has done investigations - even on at least one FSC member, IIRC.

Slick's lawyer seems to be telling him to cooperate with DirectNic.

No lawyer worth a shit is going to volunteer his client to be a test case, regardless of his chances. Would you want to be in court defending yourself against pedo charges in a high exposure scenario? Would you want your registrar to put you in that position?

Tell ya what Dig - find a site with CP on it. Report it to their registrar. See how long they're online.

Even seasoned webmasters have stated that several of the girls looked underaged. At least DirectNic contacted the webmaster instead of shutting down the site immediately and sending the FBI over for a little face to face visit. I doubt most other registrars would have been that lenient.

I don't look around for CP. Ever.

Second, I have no problem with them ASKING for docs. I have a problem with them threatening to seize the domains. If they don't want to do business with teen sites that's their business, just let em go. Maybe they could state on their front page that if their customers have any images of girls that look young they should submit their paperwork in advance, and thus save their domain? I don't do business with ANYONE who might try to take my domains from me. They're mine, you can't have them. PERIOD.

If you didn't contact him, how did you know his opinion was on the way.

The question also has to be: Does your registrar have a RIGHT to force you to submit model docs to them? Do they have the right to keep your domain if you refuse? What if your hosting company's upstream provider decides to demand your docs? Do they get to keep everything you have on the server for their own use if you refuse? Where does it end? I say it begins and ends with the hosting company, they're the ones with liability, NOT the registrar.

No, no, no, fuck them, no, it never ends once it starts.



In order. LOL

It wouldn't happened if many of the responses posted so far weren't biased first place. (not specifically yours)


Would be interesting to see Jim's official response on this forum since he's a free speech guy as well. I mean something more than "DN can ask for anything they fucking please".

Lolol.. That is a direct quote from him too.

I don't know if I can get him to register and post or not but I will mention it to him when I yak with him later, have to talk to him about a couple of other things anyway :)

Digg. I just went over the terms and conditions at bulkregister (where darkcavern is reged) and they say they can grab your domains for "serious allegations of illegal activity" or

So, it sounds to me like you don't get to transfer away if cancellation is for cause.

So far, every registrar I have checked has similar policies. It seems to me that they must be getting authority for this shit from somewhere, just haven't found out where yet. It isn't from ICANN, pretty clear that they just manage names and numbers and in fact somewhere on their site I saw something about obeying your registrars rules bt not ennumerating what rules the registrar had to have in place.

.

Hope you kept it tuned so you can pick up the message I'm broadcasting at your ass right about now :thumbsup

.

a registar overstepping its bounds is not someone to be trusted or used.

Gee, a complaint comes in from [email protected] and all the sudden you've got to jump through hoops to satisfy your registar? fuck that. time to move to a more stable situation.

oh imagine that, they try to indemnify and empower themselves in every possible way on their TOS. Wow. hey, I do that too! I guess I can take every surfer's first born child, as long as it's in my TOS right? Maybe arbitrarily and suddenly up the membership fees to $832.98 per month? Good business right? After all, i have the authority to do that per my TOS.

Point is I have 200 domains registered there, at least, and I've never heard a peep from them. Doubt I ever will, although they did just go thru a change of ownership, and if they DID try to take my domains they'd have to fight off a team of lawyers fully funded and ready to countersue. I have NEVER heard of a REGISTRAR threatening to seize your domain, and I hope I never hear of it again.

BAM!!!

what more needs to be said?

Thats good reporting? Where is the legal analysis? The caselaw? An FSC staff attorney saying something is illegal doesn't make it so. That said, I'm not sure I agree with any of the conclusions reached here. If you don't like the way your registrar does business, then go to someone else. Its not like there is a monopoly. This isnt a free speech issue, its a contract breach case between a client and a company. Get the lawyers involved, file a lawsuit if needed and be done with it.

dude, soon we'll be kissing on the lips

100 and something

he said it was a violation of federal privacy laws.

i am not an attorney... but i am wondering if thats correct. asking for proof of age ... i.e. a photo and birthdate only, i "think" is not a violation of federal privacy laws because they are not specifically asking for any personally identifiable, non public info (full name, home address, date of birth, social security number, passport number etc). it would seem quite logical that if the site owner sent all that info to DirecNIC, that he would most likely be violating federal privacy laws.

further, i doubt that US privacy laws have any relevance at all to foreign citizens.... meaning demanding to see the ID of a Czech model or disclosing it here is perfectly legal... but if the record owner was in CZ and disclosed that info to US citizen or some organization, he would be in violation of their own privacy laws. they asked for ID's of 14 models. if those 14 models are known to not be US citizens.. then again, i would imagine that its not likely that they broke US law in asking for it ... nor would a US law be broken in disclosing it.

that being said... demanding this info "or else", thats a different issue all together. that has nothing to do with privacy laws. after thinking about everything and if its correct that they have zero liability for a sites content, then they shouldn't be asking for anything.. much less threatening their business. if they have no liability... then they have no direct interest in policing site content. if thats true, then i would not agree at all with what happened.

I respect the fact that you've been willing to change your opinions on things based on what's been discussed so far, and what industry attorneys have said.

Very stand up. :thumbsup

An attorney gave an opinion. Whoopee. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. When a judge comes in and makes a ruling, then we'll have something to go on.

The attorney's *opinion* was that DirectNic had no right to investigate the claim. Sorry, but evidently research wasn't done. Slick *gave* DirectNic the right when he contracted their services and agreed to their Terms of Service.

If it's in your registrar's TOS, it doesn't matter if you like it or not. You agreed to it. Period.
Don't like it? Move to another registrar... but good luck finding one that doesn't have the same type of clause in their TOS.