> if I was them I'd just start selling off the domains slowly while I watch Twitter melt down.
Why do something you know to be bad and will lead to many people being angry?
Why not... be nice and helpful?
Why do something you know to be bad and will lead to many people being angry?
Why not... be nice and helpful?
Because there are rules around this stuff. Rules designed to maintain integrity of dns and trust in the system. They can't flaunt the rules, and if they did, they'd be at risk of losing accreditation.
These companies are allowed to end a business relationship. They are not allowed to just "take away" a domain without just cause^. That domain is still registered and you are free to take it to another registrar.
>NameCheap cancels peoples domains prematurely due to their country of origin - gets away with it.
If you're referring to their actions about Russia, they didn't "cancel" a domain. They gave all of their users a time frame to transfer their domains out before they ended the business relationship. Now, personally, I believe their timeline was too short - but a week is a reasonable notification.
This is very different from a more colloquially understood usage of cancel, which would imply that they immediately terminated service and did not allow the domain registrant to keep the domain. That is simply not the case, and also within line with ICANN policies.
^ im not an expert on the tos or legalities of this stuff, but things like fraud or spam can definitely get your domain "taken away" on most (if not all?) tlds
Im not sure you read or understand the links correctly so let me clarify.
>This is very different from a more colloquially understood usage of cancel, which would imply that they immediately terminated service and did not allow the domain registrant to keep the domain.
that is exactly what CloudFlare did. They manually set the domain to expire quickly and prevented the user from transferring it out.
In the case of NameCheap, while they did allow transfers out, also manually set the domain to expire quickly and failed to give users adequate time to transfer.
Overriding a domains expiration date to a date in the near future is akin to cancellation. Sure we could split hairs and argue semantics about the technical difference between a "forced accelerated expiry" and a "cancellation". But ultimately what matters is, in both cases, the registrars manually overrided the domains registered expiration dates with a date in near future, effectively cancelling them. 100% "taking them away without just cause".
I did in fact.
>Sure we could split hairs
That is literally, LITERALLY the whole point of if they are "flaunting rules" or not. You said they were flaunting rules. According to those links you posted, it turns out they are not flaunting the rules. Your statement is false, your language imprecise. These things matter.
Were their actions distasteful? Sure. But they were in accordance with the rules.
Wild and unbased speculation. In fact, there have been lawsuits around de-platforming that haven't gone well for the plaintiff - I can't imagine a more cut and dry scenario would make it easier :)
>Sure there is a technical distinction in the WHOIS
Now you're getting it.
As much as I dislike crypto-crap as the article points out ENS itself would handle this situation fine and GoDaddy reversing its position on this is pretty much the opposite of the argument for centralized services being better able to handle these scenarios.