This whole directnic locking down a domain thing - Page 2

eman · 2006-12-15, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GonZo

Im amused at all the people proclaiming they are running to Godaddy when its well known that Bob Parsons hates this industry.

I've always been very pleased with godaddy.

The initial registration of a domain can be a bit daunting for a godaddy-newbie, with all the add-ons and bells and whistles, but their systems seem pretty tight and efficient.

I've got no complaints.

In what way are they anti-adult?

Linkster · 2006-12-15, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GonZo

Google has delisted slicknetworks.com and all sites??
A "surfer" just posted this on Oprano
Can anyone cofirm this?
http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showt...826#post750826

Gonzo I assume he did a search on google using the keyword reallyeighteen - and google does show 2 removed results at the bottom of the page - leading to the standard cp chilling effects result - also a site: command does show no pages listed from that site

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...reallyeighteen

I would say though that google still has the rest of his sites listed although I dont think any of them ever had much in the way of Google listings based on looking at the results

tickler · 2006-12-15, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

Let me get this right:
U.S. Department of Justice wanting secondary producers to have documents = BAD.
Domain registrar with no legal authority demanding model documents = OK.

Maybe it's the DOJs way of backdooring the 2257 injunction by applying a little pressure on government regulated companies, or an example of forced government regulating similar to the thread here about illegal images.
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=36809

I guess the bottom line is how far companies without the legal authority can be allowed use business relationships to interfer with porn that the DOJ can't.
Banks vs ARS & Vivid
DN vs Slick

ladydesigner · 2006-12-15, 07:18 PM

I hadn't heard about this until just now when I came across this thread. Without knowing all the details, I'm just gonna say that all my domains are (and have been for many years) registered with Directnic. If they (DN) where trying to step up and take care of a reported cp site, then good for them! My sites will stay where they are.

GonZo · 2006-12-15, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim

Gonzo, that post doesn't look like it is from any surfer. It looks like it was posted by a webmaster with an agenda.

This thing gets more curious by the hour.

GonZo · 2006-12-15, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eman

I've always been very pleased with godaddy.

The initial registration of a domain can be a bit daunting for a godaddy-newbie, with all the add-ons and bells and whistles, but their systems seem pretty tight and efficient.

I've got no complaints.

In what way are they anti-adult?

See Jims comment in the thread.

Jel · 2006-12-16, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby

...I don't understand why this was even reported to DirectNic. Why wasn't it reported to the web host? There's more going on here than is being stated publicly.

They *possibly* did, but may not have gotten far;

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.ADVANCEDHOSTERS.COM 207.226.173.67
NS2.ADVANCEDHOSTERS.COM 69.31.128.2

Toby · 2006-12-16, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

They *possibly* did, but may not have gotten far;

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.ADVANCEDHOSTERS.COM 207.226.173.67
NS2.ADVANCEDHOSTERS.COM 69.31.128.2

Ahhhh, dasvidanya komrad.

spazlabz · 2006-12-17, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

Let me get this right:
U.S. Department of Justice wanting secondary producers to have documents = BAD.
Domain registrar with no legal authority demanding model documents = OK.

I'm not defending the schmuck whose TGP got shut down, but this topic isn't that simple.

I tried, but found that I could not possibly agree with you more

spaz

Ramster · 2006-12-17, 04:31 PM

I'm with Useless!!!!!!!!!!!

Registrars have NO, ZERO, ZILTCH rights to request legal docs.

If they have questions then fine. If they do not want to host the site(s) then fine. I applaud a registrar for taking a stance on a site and saying "hey we don't want that kind of site here". But locking it down and requesting legal docs is not right, period!!

They need to contact the authorities or the people who do have rights to ask these questions and request legal documents. They do not.

Imagine YOUR registrar requesting these docs on links you have to sponsors and locking your domain and you not being able to provide them with the docs because the sponsor says fuck you, we don't give out model IDs. And they say if someone wants to see the docs then tell the DOJ (or legal authorities) to contact us directly. Guess what? Your domain may be locked forever and shut down forever. That would SUCK!

RamCharger · 2006-12-28, 11:49 AM

I think what got the heebies jeebies scared out of DN is stuff like the ruling made by Austalia's court in which Australia's version of the MPAA was able to hold not just the owner of box, but his ISP legally liable for merely providing a link to box by the reasoning that anyone who helps with piracy is responsible for it. See here: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/19/0521206

Now you might argue that currently this is only occuring at the ISP level, but I say just give it time and the problem will go up the chain a bit more. Look at what happened with Research In Motion and the BlackBerry lawsuit. A Canadian company got nailed hard in U.S. courts by a bunch of patent trolls showing that screwing is an international thing. I doubt DN wants to be caught on the wrong side of CP investigation by some sort of government investigation (be it Danish or anyone else).

Registrars shouldn't need to worry about this, but the key word in that statement is "shouldn't." Currently DN "shouldn't" need to be part of any investigation (since that's the job of three letter agencies) or involved in any corrective action that is taking place, but, as both the Australia ruling and RIM case prove, exactly who is responsible for what and to what extent the international boundary stops is a very dangerous question. My thoughts on the matter is that DN took a very active action in the matter to cover its ass accordingly since CP is a more dangerous thing to be dealing with than any piracy as the definition of it is pretty much international and the liability for it is something that no one wants.

Linkster · 2006-12-28, 11:52 AM

Actually - after watching all of this Im sure Directnic is just getting ready for the legislation that will probably pass in the January session of congress which will hold registrars as well as many other services accountable/responsible for content just as ISPs are right now legally - I believe the bill is being introduced as another child-protection bill by J McCain

RamCharger · 2006-12-28, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkster

Actually - after watching all of this Im sure Directnic is just getting ready for the legislation that will probably pass in the January session of congress which will hold registrars as well as many other services accountable/responsible for content just as ISPs are right now legally - I believe the bill is being introduced as another child-protection bill by J McCain

Gotta love how the "for the children" argument suddenly makes everything permissible. Now anyone can take anybody, no matter how remotely involved, to court or at least get them involved via a supponea as a material witness. All laws do is broaden the spectrum of who can be jailed and sued. Anyone ready for the day that they get called to court for linking to a blog that links to site that somehow links to another site CP on it?

The only time that I think the spectrum was narrowed was the time Clinton signed an executive order officially acknowledging the existing of Area 51, but permanently denying the right to any information about it (FOIA or otherwise) which absolves the government of answering anything about it (see nasty polution problems and worker problems caused by it) ever. Enough said. Draw your own conclusions.

Windy City · 2007-01-02, 03:58 AM

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 · 2007-01-02, 05:31 AM

Quote:

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

Windy City · 2007-01-02, 12:58 PM

I understand that they were trying to cover for themselves. I just don't get why they didn't simply tell him that they no longer want to be his registrar and that he has 72 hours to transfer his domains elsewhere. Then also report it to the proper authorities.

That just seems like a much better solution than trying to police it themselves. Technically, isn't it better to have the authorities determine what is legal and not a registrar?

tickler · 2007-01-02, 01:33 PM

Quote:

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

Carrie · 2007-01-02, 03:34 PM

The argument about "feds requesting documents = bad, registrars requesting documents = okay" doesn't stand.
Feds request full 2257 documentation. That's full ID with name, address, age, social security number, birthdate, eye color - everything. Also signed documents showing the model's consent to be photographed for this particular set of pictures at this particular time and stating that she's over 18.

What DN requested was an ID with only a picture and birthdate showing. No privacy laws violated in the US (where the owner resides, the site is hosted, and where it was registered - so don't even start with the Canadian law thing), no federal laws violated as it was not a request for 2257 documentation, no laws violated whatsoever.

Also, a big difference between Feds/2257 and DN/id request is that when you register a name with DN, you agree to a contract giving them the power to ask for this information.
The feds never gave us the choice to agree or not agree - they simply slammed down the law and forced us to adhere to it.

spazlabz · 2007-01-02, 04:09 PM

its all semantics either way. DN did what they did and theres no changing that. You'll have people on both sides.

The biggest thing I think to remember is that now we know this can happen, no matter what registrar you are using, so now it is unanimous, EVERYBODY can close you down if your in adult heh heh

spaz

GonZo · 2007-01-02, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

The argument about "feds requesting documents = bad, registrars requesting documents = okay" doesn't stand.
Feds request full 2257 documentation. That's full ID with name, address, age, social security number, birthdate, eye color - everything. Also signed documents showing the model's consent to be photographed for this particular set of pictures at this particular time and stating that she's over 18.

What DN requested was an ID with only a picture and birthdate showing. No privacy laws violated in the US (where the owner resides, the site is hosted, and where it was registered - so don't even start with the Canadian law thing), no federal laws violated as it was not a request for 2257 documentation, no laws violated whatsoever.

Also, a big difference between Feds/2257 and DN/id request is that when you register a name with DN, you agree to a contract giving them the power to ask for this information.
The feds never gave us the choice to agree or not agree - they simply slammed down the law and forced us to adhere to it.

Carrie why do you have a hard on for Direct Nic and Buff?

Windy City · 2007-01-02, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

The argument about "feds requesting documents = bad, registrars requesting documents = okay" doesn't stand.
Feds request full 2257 documentation. That's full ID with name, address, age, social security number, birthdate, eye color - everything. Also signed documents showing the model's consent to be photographed for this particular set of pictures at this particular time and stating that she's over 18.

How does it not stand? Are you saying since they didn't ask for every document it makes it okay? If you're going to investigate CP, atleast do it right and request all the documents. So are you saying you think registrars should ask for the ids of all the girls on your sites?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

What DN requested was an ID with only a picture and birthdate showing. No privacy laws violated in the US (where the owner resides, the site is hosted, and where it was registered - so don't even start with the Canadian law thing), no federal laws violated as it was not a request for 2257 documentation, no laws violated whatsoever.

I don't think many people were upset with the legal side of things and whether it broke any privacy laws. I think people were upset that a registrar was playing police and holding a domain hostage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

Also, a big difference between Feds/2257 and DN/id request is that when you register a name with DN, you agree to a contract giving them the power to ask for this information.
The feds never gave us the choice to agree or not agree - they simply slammed down the law and forced us to adhere to it.

Comparing the feds rights to the registrars rights to investigate a domain is kind of silly. The feds are the law, they arrest people, they are the ones that can put you in jail. A registrar is just a registrar. They sell a service and that's it. The feds do not need to give us a choice to agree or not agree, they just follow the laws they are given by the government that we elect.

While I agree with you that DN had a TOS that allows them to do it, I don't think it's bad that other adult webmasters know about this. There is nothing wrong with the spreading of information and opinions. Those who don't mind registrars policing their websites will continue to register with DirectNic and be happy. Those who are worried about it or don't want the hassle will register elsewhere.

Windy City · 2007-01-02, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spazlabz

its all semantics either way. DN did what they did and theres no changing that. You'll have people on both sides.

The biggest thing I think to remember is that now we know this can happen, no matter what registrar you are using, so now it is unanimous, EVERYBODY can close you down if your in adult heh heh

spaz

I wouldn't clump every registrar into the same boat. They are the first registrar that I've ever seen demand documentation of models. While there are registrars like GoDaddy that have held domains for spam complaints, I don't think you can say that every registrar will do it until it happens.

It would be interesting to hear the opinions of other registrars and their stance on the issue.

Carrie · 2007-01-02, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windy City

How does it not stand?

Quote:

Comparing the feds rights to the registrars rights to investigate a domain is kind of silly.

That is exactly how it doesn't stand.
Because someone else tried to compare the two, and I was showing how blatantly different what the Feds would ask for and what DN asked for is. Thanks for proving my point and answering your own question.

Quote:

While I agree with you that DN had a TOS that allows them to do it, I don't think it's bad that other adult webmasters know about this. There is nothing wrong with the spreading of information and opinions.

I never said it was bad, or there was anything wrong with it. So this one confuses me... but I agree with you.

Carrie · 2007-01-02, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GonZo

Carrie why do you have a hard on for Direct Nic and Buff?

With the number of times you've already tried to get people over to your board in this thread, I'm surprised you're even still here to see this.

Useless · 2007-01-02, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

The argument about "feds requesting documents = bad, registrars requesting documents = okay" doesn't stand.

Why - because you disagree with it? Too bad. The argument stands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

The feds never gave us the choice to agree or not agree - they simply slammed down the law and forced us to adhere to it.

Buck up little camper. Your registrar will save you (if they don't put you in their own private company prison first).

2006-12-15, 07:18 PM	#29
ladydesigner ~Serving Up Sinful Sex ~ Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Missouri City, Texas Posts: 1,928	I hadn't heard about this until just now when I came across this thread. Without knowing all the details, I'm just gonna say that all my domains are (and have been for many years) registered with Directnic. If they (DN) where trying to step up and take care of a reported cp site, then good for them! My sites will stay where they are. __________________ Porn Pixie XxX ~ Looking for Link Trades

2006-12-17, 04:31 PM	#35
Ramster Life is good Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 11,686	I'm with Useless!!!!!!!!!!! Registrars have NO, ZERO, ZILTCH rights to request legal docs. If they have questions then fine. If they do not want to host the site(s) then fine. I applaud a registrar for taking a stance on a site and saying "hey we don't want that kind of site here". But locking it down and requesting legal docs is not right, period!! They need to contact the authorities or the people who do have rights to ask these questions and request legal documents. They do not. Imagine YOUR registrar requesting these docs on links you have to sponsors and locking your domain and you not being able to provide them with the docs because the sponsor says fuck you, we don't give out model IDs. And they say if someone wants to see the docs then tell the DOJ (or legal authorities) to contact us directly. Guess what? Your domain may be locked forever and shut down forever. That would SUCK! __________________ Pornstar Legends \| Live Cam Model Shows \| Hungarian Girls Skype: robmurray999

2006-12-28, 11:49 AM	#36
RamCharger Shut up brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip! Join Date: May 2005 Location: Somewhere south of sanity. Posts: 110	I think what got the heebies jeebies scared out of DN is stuff like the ruling made by Austalia's court in which Australia's version of the MPAA was able to hold not just the owner of box, but his ISP legally liable for merely providing a link to box by the reasoning that anyone who helps with piracy is responsible for it. See here: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/19/0521206 Now you might argue that currently this is only occuring at the ISP level, but I say just give it time and the problem will go up the chain a bit more. Look at what happened with Research In Motion and the BlackBerry lawsuit. A Canadian company got nailed hard in U.S. courts by a bunch of patent trolls showing that screwing is an international thing. I doubt DN wants to be caught on the wrong side of CP investigation by some sort of government investigation (be it Danish or anyone else). Registrars shouldn't need to worry about this, but the key word in that statement is "shouldn't." Currently DN "shouldn't" need to be part of any investigation (since that's the job of three letter agencies) or involved in any corrective action that is taking place, but, as both the Australia ruling and RIM case prove, exactly who is responsible for what and to what extent the international boundary stops is a very dangerous question. My thoughts on the matter is that DN took a very active action in the matter to cover its ass accordingly since CP is a more dangerous thing to be dealing with than any piracy as the definition of it is pretty much international and the liability for it is something that no one wants. __________________ Adult Pic Web Adult Link Web

2006-12-28, 11:52 AM	#37
Linkster NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them. Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sex Delta Posts: 5,084	Actually - after watching all of this Im sure Directnic is just getting ready for the legislation that will probably pass in the January session of congress which will hold registrars as well as many other services accountable/responsible for content just as ISPs are right now legally - I believe the bill is being introduced as another child-protection bill by J McCain __________________ Pussy Chompers Porn Links NSCash

2007-01-02, 04:09 PM	#44
spazlabz You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Bluegrass State Posts: 963	its all semantics either way. DN did what they did and theres no changing that. You'll have people on both sides. The biggest thing I think to remember is that now we know this can happen, no matter what registrar you are using, so now it is unanimous, EVERYBODY can close you down if your in adult heh heh spaz __________________

2007-01-02, 03:58 AM	#39
Windy City Internet! Is that thing still around? Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 6	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.

2007-01-02, 12:58 PM	#41
Windy City Internet! Is that thing still around? Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 6	I understand that they were trying to cover for themselves. I just don't get why they didn't simply tell him that they no longer want to be his registrar and that he has 72 hours to transfer his domains elsewhere. Then also report it to the proper authorities. That just seems like a much better solution than trying to police it themselves. Technically, isn't it better to have the authorities determine what is legal and not a registrar?

2007-01-02, 03:34 PM	#43
Carrie Are you sure you're an accredited and honored pornographer? Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 68	The argument about "feds requesting documents = bad, registrars requesting documents = okay" doesn't stand. Feds request full 2257 documentation. That's full ID with name, address, age, social security number, birthdate, eye color - everything. Also signed documents showing the model's consent to be photographed for this particular set of pictures at this particular time and stating that she's over 18. What DN requested was an ID with only a picture and birthdate showing. No privacy laws violated in the US (where the owner resides, the site is hosted, and where it was registered - so don't even start with the Canadian law thing), no federal laws violated as it was not a request for 2257 documentation, no laws violated whatsoever. Also, a big difference between Feds/2257 and DN/id request is that when you register a name with DN, you agree to a contract giving them the power to ask for this information. The feds never gave us the choice to agree or not agree - they simply slammed down the law and forced us to adhere to it.