Hacker News Reader

The first registrar (GoDaddy) gave them 24 hours to GTFO. They could have moved to any other registrar, but their next try also told them to GTFO. So what happened is exactly what you're calling OK.

I hope so, but revoked appears to mean taken away. That's different than not allowing to register, I think?

I would be pretty happy to be mistaken.

I have no idea where you got a mistaken impression of what's going on, but if you google [godaddy daily stormer] you'll find a ton of news stories explaining that godaddy told Daily Stormer to find a new registrar. While written by non-technical reporters for a non-technical audience, it's pretty clear what's going on.

What does the word revoke mean? I've read a dozen articles that simply say revoked. When I see the rules for registration, I see revoke along with terms like suspend and terminate.

Can they register it again, if they find a company willing to service them? If not, I'm not okay with this. I'm not seeing any answers out there. Maybe they use the word revoke differently?

Given that you appear to be reading non-technical articles aimed at non-technical readers -- you haven't said what article you're reading, so I'm just guessing -- the word revoked doesn't mean anything technical at all. I see tons of articles getting it right that yes, they can move the domain to any registrar for .com that is willing to do business with them.

This is what happens when you give government authority to private entities. Bullying. In the sense that they are given power over someone else's property/livelihood/thing, with no accountability or fairness. And they then use it as a stick over someone's head with a technicality.

In this case, sure, a lot of us might not like the content of this website. That doesn't change the nature of the scenario. If I were to compare it to a simpler scenario: Prepaid electricity. Here in South Africa, the government sells it at "wholesale" prices to government-approved entities, so that they may re-sell to individuals. What would then be our response if one of those entities decided to refuse electricity to a house/building that this website was being hosted from?

In the US, the electric utility is required to provide service by the government.

One the Internet, from a US point of view, you are correct that there is no equivalent of a "public square" that first amendment rights apply to. That is a problem, but, it's not GoDaddy's problem.

> I don't think I'm okay with this. I'm okay with them telling them to get a new registrar in short order. I'm not okay with a private company revoking a domain name

“revoking” is Reuters’ imprecise description of GoDaddy and then Google dropping thir business for ToS violations.

> and, if I understand correctly, not allowing it to be registered elsewhere.

I think you misunderstand; they got bounced for ToS violation shortly after moving to a new registrar (because they got bounced for the same reason by a previous registrar), and therefore ran into limits on the frequency of registration preventing moving to a new (third) registrar.

> Doesn't ICANN have a process for this?

ICANN specifically allows transfers (that aren't transfers back to the original registrar with that registrar's agreement) to be blocked within 60 days of a prior transfer.

> Isn't there a legal way, with due process, for this?

If the Daily Stormer feels their rights have been violated, the courts are open to them. Due process rights, however, apply to government action, not most private action.

Yeah, I know what due process means.

It seems to me that some sort of property rights must apply. It's not even really a speech issue, at that point. That's what the excuse was, but they're being deprived of their property, however intangible it may be.

Maybe it'll make it to court? If so, it may be an interesting case. They seize domains as assets, so they are already asserting it is property and has value. I think?

> It seems to me that some sort of property rights must apply.

The Daily Stormer certainly has a property interest in the name, however, they presumably contractually agreed to both regitrars policies (and, through them, the ICANN Transfer Policy) when signing up for service, and the present result is the consequence of each register imposing consequences for ToS breaches and Google additionally exercising the provisions of the ICANN policy addressing repeated, closely timed transfer requests.

It's theoretically possible the Google and/or GoDaddy actions were contractually improper, in which case remedies are available at law, but the existence of a property right does not prevent out from impairing your own ability to make use of that property by a combination of poorly-chosen voluntary actions including contracts touching on the property.

I'm not sure you can cede certain rights and, even if so, I'm still not okay with it. Just because something isn't against the law does not mean I'm okay with it.

If this is how it works, it is broken. Require an injunction from a court of law, perhaps? It's broken. Please fix it.

> I'm not sure you can cede certain rights and, even if so, I'm still not okay with it.

Sure, you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't contract away your right to vote, and there are some others. Your interest in transferable property like a domain name, you absolutely can cede, in whole or in part, by contract. That's what makes markets work.

> Just because something isn't against the law does not mean I'm okay with it.

What, specifically, are you not okay with? What are the bounds of the limits of the right to contract that out want to impose to correct it?

I'd start with the ability to take away their property without any oversight, independent authority, and appeal process. You shouldn't even be able to cede that right by contract.

A private company took their property. I'm not okay with that. I'd probably be willing to compromise and say they have to give them five business days to move the domain name. It's not like DNS is hard to host. I'd rather they be forced to use some sort of independent body, complete with appeals and representation.

Markets work because of property rights. While the registrars have some, they are the least harmed.

This isn't something I'm comfortable with, even if it's Nazis. I'd much rather it go through some sort of court/arbitration prior to revocation. They weren't abusing the service, they were just being crappy people. Which, I might add, seems to be a running theme for Nazis.

> I'd start with the ability to take away their property without any oversight, independent authority, and appeal process.

There is oversight, independent authority, and appeal process as long as the courts are open. And the property isn't “taken away”, though there is a temporary impairment of its use.

> You shouldn't even be able to cede that right by contract.

That makes no sense if you can cede the property itself by contract. Even if the degree of arbitrary control you suggest was done it would be identical to ceding the underlying property and recieving back limited and terminable use from the party to whom it had been ceded. Clearly, in a world where you can transfer the property, you should be able to do this, as well.

> A private company took their property

No, they absolutely did not.

So, if bring your car back, sixty days after taking it, it wasn't taken away?

They took their property. They are deprived of its use. It really can't be more clear. That they may get it back later doesn't mean it wasn't taken.

> So, if bring your car back, sixty days after taking it, it wasn't taken away?

If you give me your car as part of a contracted arrangement where, in certain circumstances, you will temporarily lose your access to it, then I haven't taken it from you, even if those circumstances materialize (as a result of your action or otherwise.)

I may have denied you access to it, but that happens all the time, with all kinds of property, in contracted relationships, without prior involvement of an outside arbiter.

And there are many times when this can not happen. Example? Eviction. That requires a process, complete with appeals. Good.

Do that.

This is not okay, even if Nazis suck.

> And there are many times when this can not happen. Example? Eviction. That requires a process, complete with appeals. Good.

Sure. Now where is the argument that the special protection granted to real property tenants but not applied to most other contractual property arrangements should be paralleled for domain name registration?

> This is not okay, even if Nazis suck.

Repetition of a conclusion is not an argument for it.

> Yeah, they are crappy people who do crappy things.

I mean, yeah, but to be clear, one of them killed a woman on Saturday on purpose. That's not crappy, that murder. Like, Nazis deserve rights like all people do. But when you start killing people and you shout a lot about how you are going to kill more people and 'cleanse' the US of a lot of people, like, I dunno, maybe we should do something more than just talk about how Nazis have rights. Like, come on guys, they're real actual Nazis, not video-game sprites. They want to kill you and your family and your friends and everyone you love and the are VERY clear and loud about this

EDIT: Here's a quote to back it up: "The thing about us fascists is, it's not that we don't believe in freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want. We'll just throw you in an oven."

-"Unite the Right" attendee, Pete Tefft, speaking to his father Pearce Tefft.

> if I understand correctly, not allowing it to be registered elsewhere.

Citation on that? From all I've read GoDaddy and Google refused to provide their service to them and haven't done anything to prevent a transfer? (They possibly technically could by keeping the domain registered on them, but AFAIK they can't legally do that)

What does revoked mean, in this case?

I would so love to be misunderstanding.

From my understanding of the terminology, it means that the registry (Verisign) took away control of the domain from the registrar (first GoDaddy, then Google), since those informed the registry that their contract with the site operator (which formed the legal basis for GoDaddy/Google managing the domain) has ended.

Can they potentially go to a new registrar and register it there, without additional hassle, and assuming there's a registrar willing to service them?

If so, I'm good and crisis mostly averted. If not, I'm not okay with that. The term revoke, from the article and some searching, appears to be a permanent thing. As said already, I'd love to be wrong - but that's what revoke means to me and to a couple if quick searches.

When they revoke your license, you lost permission to drive.

Yes (EDIT: maybe? see below and comments)

To my knowledge, a registrar can't legally stop another registrar from taking over an arbitrary domain (they only have a say over domains delegated to them, and they have a contractual obligation to agree to a transfer of those if the domain owner requests it (potentially with exceptions of active lawsuits, but that doesn't seem relevant here)).

EDIT: Rereading the transfer policy and Google's terms, it looks like Google might actually hold onto the domain for the 60 day period despite having terminated their contract, they don't seem to be clearly required to release the domain in that case (which I assumed, apparently wrongly) and could block it for that period if they wanted?

> To my knowledge, a registrar can't legally stop another registrar from taking over an arbitrary domain (they only have a say over domains delegated to them, and they have a contractual obligation to agree to a transfer of those if the domain owner requests it (potentially with exceptions of active lawsuits, but that doesn't seem relevant here)).

There is a specific rule allowing denial of outbound transfer to a third registrar within 60 days of inbound transfer to the second from the first. (I.A.3.7.6 of the ICANN Transfer Policy.)

I assumed that did not apply in this case, but you are right, there does not seem to be an exception for the case of a registrar terminating the contract one-sided.

There's, IMO, a good reason for not having the restriction you assumed: it discourages serial abuse (whether or not the DS is a valid example, in terms of actual ToS violations, Being a separate issue), assuming that there are likewise appropriate ICANN and/or civil law constraints on abusive termination by regitrars.

Another poster indicated it would take 60 days.

Yeah, if that's true, I'm not okay with this. I don't even like Nazis. I'm just not okay with property (albeit rented, s to speak) being taken without due process.

From my searching, I appear to not be alone in this sentiment. Hell, in the past, even the ACLU has defended the Nazis. So, I may still be in good company.

> Can they potentially go to a new registrar and register it there, without additional hassle, and assuming there's a registrar willing to service them?

Not within 60 days, apparently. So I think that claiming that the domain isn't being withheld is disingenuous, because the registrars knew perfectly well that the outcome of refusing service within 60 days after a transfer was that the owner would be locked out of their domain.

Yeah, I'm not okay with this - as it appears you are correct.

Huh... I'm stuck defending Nazis. Who woulda thunk it? Well, I'm mostly defending some semblance of due process, appeal, and property rights - they just also happen to be pretty much the worst people on the planet.

But what about Google's property rights. If they can't set the terms of use for their property, and enforce those terms, their property rights are denied.

Why are Nazis property rights so much more important that they need to be protected from tenporary harm inflicted on them by their own voluntary action?

Which of their property rights does Google loose by agreeing to a transfer of the domain earlier than they have to? (Nor do we explicitly know if they actually have stopped a transfer or not)

They aren't the ones being deprived of their property and, probably, income. Even renters have rights.

> because the registrars knew perfectly well that the outcome of refusing service within 60 days after a transfer was that the owner would be locked out of their domain.

This is a bit disingenuous, the rule was established well beforehand. It's not like they made it up for this specific instance.

Media reports and GoDaddy's blog say that GoDaddy told Daily Stormer to find a new registrar within 24 hours, and facilitated a transfer to that new registrar, which was Google. That doesn't appear to match what you're saying.

You argument only makes sense in the US. In most countries, hate speech is outlawed.

Both companies are in the US.

I have no idea where the registrant lives, however.

>That's pretty much the definition of the worst people you can find. However, much like I believe they deserve rights

It's possible to "deserve" some rights and not others on a case-by-case basis.

>Still, they appear to have been deprived of property and due process,

What property?

The domain name. I'm pretty sure that's considered property, legally speaking. They will seize it as an asset, for example.

However, it may be that they have a different definition for revoked than I have. That would make me happy.

Does one actually own a domain name? I thought one owns a license to a domain name, which can be revoked at any time by the issuer, and that if it is seized, then it is the license that is seized. Interesting.

Courts have seized and transferred them as assets. I would like to think there is some rights there, much like the rights of renters. It doesn't appear as though there are many. I consider this to be a bad thing.

One might consider domains to be personal property, in that they exist only as a mapping on servers owned by people. On the other hand, registrars collect rent from them, so one could consider them private property. So I am not sure if I am in favour of domain names being considered property of any single person or not.