Hacker News Reader

Comment by KGIII | Hacker News Reader

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com