Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikileaks Calls For Global Boycott Against eNom

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the all-their-heirs-and-assigns dept.

Censorship 137

souls writes "The folks at Wikileaks are calling for a boycott against eNom, Inc., one of the top internet domain registrars, which WikiLeaks claims is involved in systematic domain censoring. On Feb 28th eNom shut down wikileaks.info, one of the many Wikileaks mirrors held by a volunteer as a side-effect of the court proceedings around wikileaks.org. In addition, eNom was the registrar that shut off access to a Spanish travel agent who showed up on a US Treasury watch list. Wikileaks calls for a 'global boycott of eNom and its parent Demand Media, its owners, executives and their affiliated companies, interests and holdings, to make clear such behavior can and will not be tolerated within the boundaries of the Internet and its global community.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How About GoDaddy? (5, Informative)

jellie (949898) | more than 6 years ago | (#22691822)

GoDaddy is another bad registrar, and has been mentioned on Slashdot many times, including here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org] . I'm assuming Dynadot should also be boycotted.

How about goatse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22691920)

Goatse! [twofo.co.uk]

You nerds love it.

Re:How about goatse? (1)

Olix (812847) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692030)

Wow, sweet. I didn't know we have a DC++ hub.

Re:How About GoDaddy? (4, Insightful)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 6 years ago | (#22691926)

What we need is a list of known good registrars and a set of instructions how to escape bad ones.

Re:How About GoDaddy? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22692056)

Registrars who are OpenSRS-sanctioned are often classified as "good", except for the fact that OpenSRS has been known to sell customer contact information (read: not just WHOIS data, but what's actually in customer billing profiles) to whoever the highest bidder is.

So there's no guaranteed way to determine who's "good" or who's "bad". Some consider cheap == good, others consider moral == good, while extremists declare ICANN == good. You have to decide for yourself.

As for me, I'll stick with eNom. Why? Because of all the registrars out there which I've examined, they have one of the best control panel interfaces for managing domains, and support WHOIS privacy for a nominal fee. Their domain prices aren't that great, but you get what you pay for. I went through 4 different OpenSRS-based registrars before saying "fuck this" and went with eNom. Oh, and I sure as hell ain't giving VeriSign (read: NetSol) my money.

Any recommendations? (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692226)

"What we need is a list of known good registrars..."

Any recommendations?

eNom.com [enom.com] is the real provider for many domain name resellers. For example, NameCheap [namecheap.com] is one of many who buy from eNom.com.

eNom.com has been competing with its re-sellers with eNomCentral.com [enomcentral.com] . Note that eNom.com is now apparently doing what GoDaddy does. In my opinion, GoDaddy.com tries to get more money by confusing people who have little technical knowledge.

Some of the negative stories about GoDaddy on Slashdot:

GoDaddy Holds Domains Hostage [slashdot.org]
GoDaddy Caves To Irish Legal Threat [slashdot.org]
MySpace and GoDaddy Shut Down Security Site [slashdot.org]
GoDaddy Serves Blank Pages to Safari & Opera [slashdot.org]
GoDaddy Bobbles DST Changeover? [slashdot.org]
GoDaddy.com Dumps Linux for Microsoft [slashdot.org]
Go Daddy Usurps Network Solutions [slashdot.org]
Alternative Registrars to GoDaddy? [slashdot.org]

Other reasons not to buy from GoDaddy: NoDaddy [nodaddy.com] .

Re:Any recommendations? (1)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693726)

www.gandi.net

Reasonable (though not the lowest) prices.
Good customer support in English and French.
Very nice and clean website and management tools.
In France (outside the jurisdiction of ignorant US judges).

Re:Any recommendations? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22693854)

But w/in the jurisdiction of ignorant EU judges. It's a toss up, really.

Re:Any recommendations? (1)

jellie (949898) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693940)

I've heard a lot of good things about Gandi too. It's a little pricy for my needs, especially considering the weakening US dollar. But I guess it will have to do. Thanks.

Gandi.net is not an eNom.com reseller? (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22694084)

Do you know with certainty that Gandi.net is not an eNom.com reseller? Many or most of the eNom hide the connection.

www.gandi.net (3, Informative)

kandresen (712861) | more than 6 years ago | (#22694198)

I would clearly recommend www.gandi.net as well. I have been using them for years exactly due to them declaring I am the owner of my domain and in charge of my domain, not them unlike most other registrars. The prices have increased over the last couple of years - they have been charging 12 Euro, which when I started clearly was among the best prices in the marked, but with the current strong Euro, you will be aware of the difference. The are now allowing payment in USD which is only $15/year now (thought the strong Euro would have cased higher dollar price). That said - I have used many registrars and I for one will select Gandi over the rest also for other reasons: I feel they are providing a much better overall experience than the rest. I once tried Godaddy as it was a bit cheaper than Gandi, and it seemed like a good provider... Not that I have ever had a problem such as this with them, but the services of Gandi are worth the difference for me, and Gandi do not spam me, or keep sending as much "renew your information" type messages and so on.

Some of the benefits I am using:

You are the owner of the domain name! : See https://www.gandi.net/contracts [gandi.net] Section 1
Gandi includes DNS in its default service so you can edit directions of domains and sub domains without also paying for hosting!
Gandi allows you without hosting to have 5 mail boxes with 1GB mailbox space - again without paying additional for hosting!
Gandi also allow you to add wildcard mailbox aliasing og 1000 e-mail addresses, and may relay the mail to external mailboxes.

Re:How About GoDaddy? (1)

Blackknight (25168) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692492)

Good luck, domain transfers are a royal PITA. We have over 6000 domains in our Enom account, I don't even want to think about transferring them all. Not to mention that all of our internal APIs are tied into Enom's system.

I don't really see what all the furor is about though, Enom only did what they were required to by law.

what we actually need (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693370)

What we need is a list of known good registrars and a set of instructions how to escape bad ones.

I'd say what we really need is a mechanism to get rid of bad registrars altogether. ICANN is so toothless in the matter its beyond disgusting. If you take a look at their list of registrars [internic.org] , you'll see it is pages long. And there is no shortage of fly-by-nights on there that nobody has heard of. Even worse there are many registrars in there that practice bad business tactics, or willingly cooperate with criminal spamming enterprises.

Yet good old ICANN, in their infinite wisdom, choses to leave all the registrars alone. I guess as long as the boys at ICANN are making money, then everybody is doing better, right?

Re:How About GoDaddy? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693438)

a set of instructions how to escape bad ones./quote>

"You can get more with a kind word and a two-by-four than you can with just a kind word." -- Marcus Cole

though with some companies, s/a two-by-four/artillery/

Re:What we need is a list of known good registrars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22693576)

People would still choose bad registrars for the same reason they would choose one OS over another.

Re:How About GoDaddy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22694244)

I've been very happy with http://www.active-domain.com/ [active-domain.com]

Re:How About GoDaddy? (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 6 years ago | (#22691994)

I wouldn't put Dynadot in the same boat - they did, after all, have a court order presented to them.

Re:How About GoDaddy? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692466)

I wouldn't put Dynadot in the same boat - they did, after all, have a court order presented to them.
According to some reports, Dynadot agreed with the bank to shut down Wikileaks.org and the the court order was the result of that agreement, so, yes, Dynadot should be n the same category of registrars as eNom.

Re:How About GoDaddy? (1)

cHiphead (17854) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692852)

According to WHAT reports? That makes absolutely no sense, they could run into other legal issues if they were to make such a deal outside of a court order, and its just stupid business to do so. A court order is a court order, nothing they can do about it.

Backup your bullshit or don't waste time claiming it in the first place.

Re:How About GoDaddy? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692938)

Your apology forthwith, please [complete.org]

The point is that the bank initiated the process, subsequently both the bank and Dynadot went to the court with an agreement to shut down wikileaks.org (if the court agreed). The court agreed and issued an order to do just that.

Re:How About GoDaddy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22692470)

Why are you bringing facts into our boycott topic?

Re:How About GoDaddy? (1)

jellie (949898) | more than 6 years ago | (#22694030)

The point is not that they followed the law, but that they did not fight it. It's the same reason we were angry at Yahoo! (or its Hong Kong subsidiary) when the company gave away the information for Shi Tao to China. Similarly, most of the American telecommunication companies, most notably AT&T, obliged the Executive Branch's request to give telephone records to the NSA.

Sometimes following a court order does not absolve you of all blame.

Re:How About GoDaddy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22692132)

http://www.google.com/support/a/bin/answer.py?answer=48323&topic=9196 [google.com]

If you purchased your domain while signing up for Google Apps, your domain host is either GoDaddy.com or eNom.com. You can check in the control panel by clicking Domain settings, and then the Domain names tab.

Re:How About GoDaddy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22692528)

GoDaddy is a bunch of thieves, and sexist slime, to boot. It's really on my list of companies I'd like to see go down in flames. They are as corrupt as Paypal.

Re:How About GoDaddy? (1)

sharperguy (1065162) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693452)

http://gaddbiwdftapglkq.onion/ [gaddbiwdftapglkq.onion] is the new wikileaks link. I don't think that can be censored :D

Re:How About GoDaddy? (1)

h0dg3s (1225512) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693670)

1&1 is by far the worst. Namecheap is pretty good and they recently broke away from eNom to become their own registrar.

Re:How About GoDaddy? (1)

zenetik (750376) | more than 6 years ago | (#22694012)

True about GoDaddy. After about 10 years of being a GoDaddy customer I've finally made the decision to move my domains to another registrar...eNom. Now where do I go?

First! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22691838)

First.

information versus action (5, Interesting)

yakiimo (1024339) | more than 6 years ago | (#22691846)

Perhaps it doesn't fit with what the wikileaks people intended when they started it, but I wish that wikileaks would let/encourage others to fight using their facts (however much is fact) rather than wikileaks themselves doing it. Somehow their active stance makes me more wary of the information on the site.

Re:information versus action (2, Insightful)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22691932)

This kind of posturing is more likely to rebound badly on WiKileaks than anything else.

So long as they are simply providing access to the kinds of information they normally host, they're being just what they said they were, and remain a powerful influence. If they try to stir up a boycot, and it fails (which it almot certainly will), then they will only have succeeded in demonstrating that they don't have much in the way of ability to influence others.

Its a mistake to even go down this road. A simple document on a web page can be more powerful then any number of boycots and angry marches.

Re:information versus action (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692022)

"I wish that wikileaks would let/encourage others to fight using their facts"

Sorry, are they somehow preventing this from occurring? I don't know much about WL.

Re:information versus action (1)

yakiimo (1024339) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692232)

Ah, good point. It would have been more correct to say "I wish wikileaks would exclusively let/encourage others to fight using their facts..." I guess I can understand they are reacting to an attack on their existence, though as others have said I don't think the method they have chosen is the best.

Re:information versus action (5, Insightful)

zhrike (448699) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692156)

I strongly disagree. Wikileaks is not attempting to act on information someone posted on their site; they are acting in response to something that was done to them directly.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the information they host, aside from the fact that the information that they host was a reason for the acts by eNom et al. It also does
not reflect on the veracity of their information, and interpreting it that way seems odd to me.

Re:information versus action (1)

yakiimo (1024339) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692300)

I don't think the two are quite so independent since they are using the platform that they have created specifically to take this action. I can understand that this is the natural thing to do (and what do I know?? perhaps it IS the best strategy), but when someone uses a somewhat public service they have created to accomplish a personal result (punitive boycott of their attacker) or otherwise jumps into the fray, then I think it does bring up issues of conflict of interest. I really don't think one thing like this reflects on the veracity of their information, but if they start to do it on a regular basis, it would change my perception of WL from being a collection of extremely valuable information about corruption and being somewhat above the fray to being another player in the game.

Re:information versus action (3, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692172)

Well, they were a victim of an unjustified shutdown, and it seems eNom was a part of this shutdown, so I suppose one could cut them some slack on that account only.

Given the recent systematic drive to regulate the internets that's coming from virtually all quarters, it is hard to call their initiative for exposing irregular censorship entirely out of place. On the contrary, I think it is timely, and seems to me quite limited in scope, being concerned mainly with domain registrars.

Besides, Wikileaks is an activist site by definition -- publishing as they are scandalous materials from anonymous sources. I don't quite understand why would you feel more or less uncomfortable just because they publish some more of the same.

Re:information versus action (1)

yakiimo (1024339) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692328)

Agreed on all points except the last. The punitive boycott against their attacker seems more appropriately done without the endorsement of their site, although as you said it is not far from normal. As someone else said, I think they will be more effective activists in any case simply by posting the information as usual.

Re:information versus action (1)

siddesu (698447) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692366)

Well, they have the right to make a point as they see fit, and that doesn't make the materials _other_ people upload to their site more or less trustworthy.

It is always good to be able to find information on a domain registrar, especially when you consider putting your valuable eggs ... errr ... domain records into their database. And the more noise, the more blogs will have it and the smaller likelihood of forgetting.

Be that as it may, I have never heard of the nom-nom-nom domain registrar before. Now I know something about them ...

Re:information versus action (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692818)

Now I know something about them ...

I'd say you know all that you need to know about them. Isn't that, after all, what Wikileaks is all about?

Re:information versus action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22693566)

An organization with an anarchist agenda has a grudge against them. That really doesn't tell me anything. All mesia organizations have an agenda, and Wikileaks is no different.

Re:information versus action (1)

Kludge (13653) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692276)

If they were encouraging an active stance against the Burmese government or something, I would agree with you.

However, their job is to get information out. And when there are internet services that are actively trying to silence them, they must take a stand.

Re:information versus action (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693076)

Somehow their active stance makes me more wary of the information on the site.
A lot like IndyMedia. Good info, but everyone has a bias, me and you...

Stand against censorship and prior restraint! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693942)

No matter who does it, no matter when, and no matter who is the victim. They are fighting the good cause, so WHO CARES if it looks a bit self-serving too?

also publicise the risk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22691848)

A very valuable thing to support this boycott is pointing out the risk of using e-nom. If your name is on E-nom, you have no way to know if it will suddenly be taken down because some hacker or employee of yours posts something against the US or Chinese Govt. on your site. That's not the kind of name service anybody should want, even if they don't care about politics.

other registrars? (4, Interesting)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 6 years ago | (#22691858)

i have dozens of websites registered thru enom

are there any other registrars that are not "evil"?

Re:other registrars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22691996)

Yea. Stop renting the domain and pony up the money and just buy it from them.

Re:other registrars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22692140)

Gandi is supposed to be good (although I can't personally vouch for them): http://www.gandi.net/ [gandi.net]

Re:other registrars? (1)

mitgib (1156957) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692912)

i have dozens of websites registered thru enom

are there any other registrars that are not "evil"?
I have reseller accounts with Enom and ResellerOne (Directi) and I rarely use Enom other than to maintain domains previously registered there as transferring registrars is a major PITA.


I've had to use ResellerOne support a couple of times over the past and I must say their support is fantastic, you get a knowledgeable person who picks up the phone at odd hours of the day. My only beef about ResellerOne is their API, I cannot do everything through it I would want to with my billing software and I do not want my customers seeing their interface, even though I have it customized with my information on it, I do not want them to even see it as they offer hosting as well, and it is a far cry from good hosting for what my customer would be looking for. They are an Indian company, so US law will have no effect, and I think most/all of their datacenters are outside of the US as well.

Any other course of action? (3, Insightful)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 6 years ago | (#22691884)

I know the concept of the internet being non-centralized, and with no real authority to oversee it, which is one of its strengths.

However, it stinks at times like these, when you want an authority to go to to punish actions for a registrar (an d I know some registrars have been shut down, but for more egregious actions).

However, in a case like this, where the "people" of the internet have felt wronged because a company went against the philosophies of the internet, Is there any other course of action besides a boycott (which may or may not be effective due to the terms of registrations, and companies going with what they think is the best price, not necessarily the best price and the right philosophy).

If there is no other course of action, what is the best way to get this out there (besides Slashdot, etc)?

Re:Any other course of action? (1)

DKlineburg (1074921) | more than 6 years ago | (#22691954)

User-Generated Content Vs. Experts [slashdot.org]

Isn't this article on /. proof that people are realizing that the wild west of the Internet isn't the best way to approach it?

Re:Any other course of action? (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692996)

Not really, it's proof that some people get upset when the population starts to create things without any powerful body governing what they create. Personally I didn't need to see any proof to be sure of that.

Re:Any other course of action? (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692890)

However, it stinks at times like these, when you want an authority to go to to punish actions for a registrar (an d I know some registrars have been shut down, but for more egregious actions).


That's a terrible idea. If such an 'authority' existed, it would be far more likely to be on eNom's side than users'. The Internet only exists in anything approaching the form we've gotten used to because there's so little centralized control, particularly over content.

Re:Any other course of action? (1)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693536)

Actually, I was trying to say that while we might want there to be someone who can take absolute action, in a case like this what we want is a philosophical thing. I just wish there was a way to make more of a statement than a boycott, because most domain holders (businesses) probably just don't care, and in fact would likely support enom.

Howto change a registrar (2, Insightful)

dattaway (3088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22691906)

Anyone want to create a step by step guide, howto, or link how to "escape" from a registrar? Is it possible?

Re:Howto change a registrar (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 6 years ago | (#22691960)

With any registrar worthy of existence, transfer is a really simple click button process. No "escape" is necessary.

Re:Howto change a registrar (4, Informative)

JavaRob (28971) | more than 6 years ago | (#22691978)

It's not all that complicated. The horror stories you see here and there are the exception, not the rule.

I don't have any domains registered with eNom, so I'm not sure of the specific procedures for them, but the gist of it is:
* Sign in to your current registrar
* Make sure your email address with them is valid (there will be confirmation steps using it!)
* Unlock your domains (many registrars have "locking" features to prevent others from stealing your domains, plus to make it a little trickier for you to leave
* You might as well disable automatic renewals as well (if they have them), just in case
* Go to your new registrar and click through to "transfer" your domain, and pay for it. Normally they'll honor your existing expiration date (even if it's a couple of years away) and add your new years to the end of that.
* Make sure you set up the domain at the new registrar with the correct nameservers for your host, and you won't have any downtime because of the switch.
* The next steps will often take a few days -- new registrar will submit request to old registrar, who will email you for confirmation (and you'll have to click through to provide that)... possibly multiple confirmations... and then the domain will be transferred, and you're done.

Anyone want to provide details for eNom, or add anything I forgot?

I can also mention that most of my domains are currently hosted with GoDaddy -- who I'm not particularly fond of, but they're cheap and haven't screwed me over personally. Suggestions for alternatives are welcome... it's something I haven't researched in a while.

Re:Howto change a registrar (1)

pgillan (1043668) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692082)

I also do not use eNom, but when I transfered domains from register.com, I had to call them on the telephone to get an 8-10 digit "transfer key" for each domain to include in my transfer reques, in addition to the steps listed previously. The registrar I was transferring to had a required input field for this key, which led me to believe it was pretty standard procedure.

Re:Howto change a registrar (1)

zifferent (656342) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692144)

I can also mention that most of my domains are currently hosted with GoDaddy -- who I'm not particularly fond of, but they're cheap and haven't screwed me over personally. Suggestions for alternatives are welcome... it's something I haven't researched in a while.


For what it's worth, I switched to StarGate [stargate.com] from GoDaddy. They aren't too much more expensive and I like that I'm not pandering to the company that has those awfully stupid commercials that have nothing to do with domain registration, and also I don't like that they're lapdogs to Microsoft. Plus the company's been around for a while (just not registering domains the whole time) stargate.com is like the 20th domain [jottings.com] to have been registered.

Re:Howto change a registrar (3, Informative)

The_DoubleU (603071) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692386)

Try https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ [nearlyfreespeech.net]

Re:Howto change a registrar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22692898)

Then all you have to worry about is NSF.net doing yet another "whoops, your domain seems to have stopped working for no readily apparent reason, we'll fix it as soon as possible, very sorry, this is the last time we promise".

Re:Howto change a registrar (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693120)

I switched to 1&1 [1and1.com] from GoDaddy. Their prices are pretty good, from what I've seen. The only problem I've come across with their hosting is that if I have two 1&1 accounts (A and B) and I have a domain (foo.com) on account A and a hosting package on account B, I can't point foo.com to my 1&1 hosted server... more accurately, I can't set my 1&1-hosted server (on account B) to direct incoming connections for foo.com to a specific folder on the server as I would if the domain were on the same account as the hosting package or on an external registrar. It appears to be something they overlooked when they set up their system.

Boycott DNS (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22691974)

You know it's the only solution. IP addresses are easier to memorize than domain names anyway.

I don't get it (2, Insightful)

softwaredoug (1075439) | more than 6 years ago | (#22691980)

They complied with a lawful court order issued as a result of due process. You don't have to agree with it, but its legal. The US is a nation of laws, not a nation driven by the whims of precocious fan-boys. What would you have them do? Throw abandon to the wind and defy it? The company might get shut down which would threaten their employees and customers. I don't see any other plausible action here. I would only hope my employer would have as much sense in such a case.

Re:I don't get it (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692014)

You must not own a domain.

Re:I don't get it (5, Informative)

Aluvus (691449) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692150)

The court ordered that wikileaks.ORG be shut off. The Wikileaks people argue that eNom incorrectly interpreted the temporary restraining order to also apply to wikileaks.INFO. Additionally, eNom kept the domain out of commission even after the original temporary restraining order had been dissolved and the wikileaks.org domain had been restored.

Re:I don't get it (0, Flamebait)

aeschenkarnos (517917) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692282)

The US is a nation of laws, not a nation driven by the whims of precocious fan-boys

Bwhahahaaaa! *wipes tear from eye* Been asleep for the last eight years, have you?

Re:I don't get it (1)

n6kuy (172098) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692860)

Bwhahahaaaa, yourself!

A sneer is not an argument.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22692862)

They complied with a lawful court order issued as a result of due process. You don't have to agree with it, but its legal.

What part of the First Amendment do you not understand?

The US is a nation of laws

Exactly, so why does a registrar get to go free when it becomes involved with corruptly ignoring those laws?

What would you have them do? Throw abandon to the wind and defy it?

Yes. At the very least, they should not have expanded the gag to domain names not specified in the order.

The company might get shut down which would threaten their employees and customers. I don't see any other plausible action here.

Following orders is not a reasonable excuse for corrupt action. The good news is now we can boycott eNom for "just following orders". Perhaps they will get shut down after all. It would be a fitting end for an accomplice in this corrupt action.

Re:I don't get it (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693540)

I was wondering if anyone would get this. When a big group of people that all have guns tell you to do something, you should do it. Admittedly, just redirecting the domain to a static page saying exactly what they were required to do by law, and linking to some news articles would have met the legal requirement with a lot more style...

What makes you think it was legal? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693992)

Just because a judge did it?

There are at least two points here:

1. United States courts do not have authority over domains. This was hashed out recently over another incident, discussed at length on Slashdot.

2. Even if the court did have authority, the judge exercised PRIOR RESTRAINT against the free speech of third parties, by ordering that the domain be taken down because of the actions of a few. That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22691990)

eNOM NOM NOM

Seems to me its a matter of establishing a ..... (4, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692010)

standard procedure for which to handle domain shut down requests.

a take down request should be specific and start with a request to remove the offending material, not the whole site.

It could be done with laws but would need to be done in any country hosting.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but this is a hosting site issue, not a domain registry issue (or it shouldn't be a domain registry issue).
Registry is like an ID, messing with an ID is like identity theft or other wrongful manipulation of a persons ID. There should already be laws for this.

Anyways, there is the possibility to organize a standards group on the issue just as there is the OSI, linuxs standard base ,
etc.. and openly rate and publish hosting policies compliance level and even registry policies if that is indeed an issue.

There should also be recourse against those who violate. Or at least a bad mark on the open rating report.

Re:Seems to me its a matter of establishing a .... (1)

theonlyaether (1146549) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692148)

As I had posted in another thread about this case and how it proceeded, as anon probably b/c I can't find it...

The very fact that the domain registration was shut down, but the servers not taken offline just goes to show that the legal system (in the U.S. at least) is woefully uninformed regarding modern tech, and likely swarming with 'experts' who do nothing but spout popular buzz.

They've somehow managed to get away with making decisions about these things for the last, what? 20? 30? 40? 50 years? Okay so sure, a few lawyers are not technically inept, but all it takes is one attorney team and a judge who's willing to do what they want, and we can have all sorts of fun.

All this being said, sadly I can't see a solution. It takes so much just to understand how to work with the law, I can't possibly see these people having the time to become informed with regard to what they're asking for and how they go about it. I suppose it will just have to be documented into law through trial and error (no pun intended), feh.

Re:Seems to me its a matter of establishing a .... (1)

aguenter (1060008) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692246)

The registrar was targeted by the court because California court (or any other court in the US for that matter) has no jurisdiction [wikileaks.be] over the co-lo ISP or the publishers of the actual content, since they are overseas.

Re:Seems to me its a matter of establishing a .... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693322)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but this is a hosting site issue, not a domain registry issue (or it shouldn't be a domain registry issue).

Actually, its both. However, a domain owner has many choices for hosting - including of course doing their own. Thus hosting is really a difficult issue to go after.

On the other hand, registration is not something with so many choices, and the vast majority of internet users have no ability to register a domain without the aid of an internet registrar.

And while it may not be completely obvious or fool-proof, a registrar does have limited ability to shut down access to a site. If you look at the WHOIS data for a domain (pick any one you like), you'll see that the registration data includes nameserver information. Without those nameservers defined in the domain registration, there is no way to map the domain name to an IP address and actually get a response for the domain.

Hence, if the registrar removes the nameserver data, or replaces it with useless garbage, then users will not be able to resolve the domain to an address for a request, and will not be able to view the content.

Of course, this is not fool-proof. The domain owner could just tell all his friends the numeric IP address of their page, and those friends tell and their friends, and so on. And of course anyone who has already seen it would likely have the record cached on their computer. But it would stop anyone who hasn't been there before from getting to it, which would hinder the sites ability to disseminate its content to more users.

Use Registrars in a Neutral Country? (5, Insightful)

Aero77 (1242364) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692078)

Rather than cry about eNOM's vulnerability to the US Justice system, Wikileaks should be protecting their domain name with the same care as they do their content.

Re:Use Registrars in a Neutral Country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22692240)

As posted earlier by another user: "The court ordered that wikileaks.ORG be shut off. The Wikileaks people argue that eNom incorrectly interpreted the temporary restraining order to also apply to wikileaks.INFO. Additionally, eNom kept the domain out of commission even after the original temporary restraining order had been dissolved and the wikileaks.org domain had been restored."

so stop trolling.

Re:Use Registrars in a Neutral Country? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693094)

so stop trolling.
You first.

enom is spammers registrar central (0, Flamebait)

sjwest (948274) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692268)

With Godaddy supplying Robert Soloway (rokso spammer) with gb of disk space they too are not trustworthy. If you look at Enom then it appears as if all spammers use them in some form.

One thing is sure Enom voted republican, perhaps they also contribute to the republican party as well?, on that basis all foreigners (all non us citizens) should avoid enom.

Re:Use Registrars in a Neutral Country? (1)

yuna49 (905461) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692556)

I raised this issue in a posting [slashdot.org] in an earlier thread about this case. Is it possible to register in the international TLDs (com/net/org) without using an American registrar?

Re:Use Registrars in a Neutral Country? (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693712)

It doesn't seem like it, even if it were, ICANN is still under the Dept of Comm's thumb. Dept of Comm's thumb does seems to be much lighter than it easily could be, BS like this JB vs. wikileaks/dynadns/enom fiasco just seems to give unnecessary ammo to people who would like to change the present politico-bureaucracy with a different politico-bureaucracy. If the status Quo is going to continue, the USG and the Courts are going to have to realize that the ICANN is an international resource that they are holding in trust for the world, there is no since in letting it become politicized.

Re:Use Registrars in a Neutral Country? (1)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693748)

Wikileaks should be protecting their domain name

That is what they are trying to do. They are going one step further also in saying that everyone else should do the same, like you are saying they should do--so you agree with them.

Yeah? Who is "Neutral"?? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22694004)

Please tell me. I would like to know. Because right now, I sure as hell do not.

I ask this purely out of curiosity, of course... (3, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692200)

But what is the difference between Geek-led boycott and a dead-end road?

The successful Geek boycott seems to belong in the same Fantasyland where "Microsoft is dying" and "This is the Year of Linux on the desktop."

Re:I ask this purely out of curiosity, of course.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22692286)

project CHANOLOGY /b/tards!=geeks?

Cool! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22694010)

So, you are saying: "Closer and closer every day!"

Never, ever use eNom. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22692220)

I was a customer of BulkRegister for quite some time before eNom came along and gobbled them up. BulkRegister wasn't that bad and so I stayed with them since my boss liked them.

However, after eNom took over everything took a sharp nose dive. Their whole user interface is horrible. Managing domains is extremely complicated and time consuming. What's worse though, imo, is that transferring your domains out of there is painfully slow and time-consuming. It took me almost 2 weeks and several phone calls finally retrieve all of my domains from them. The first round of transfers failed (for a reason that nobody explain).

I would never use eNom, and recommend anyone who might think about it to not use it either.

WikiLeaks, you are idiots (0, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692562)

So ... you're boycotting a company which is following the laws of the country it is based in rather than registering your name with a registrar in a country that doesn't have these laws.

Are they really that stupid?

WikiLeaks, thank you for making it obvious you're not a trustworthy source of information, by showing you would rather hold a grudge and use your influnce to damage someone else rather than fixing the problem yourself (a problem in which you created yourself and is due entirely to your ignorance). You can not even be trusted to provide rumors without the worry of bias and censoring of them yourself, very sad.

I don't like eNom either, of course, I'm also smart enough to USE A DIFFERENT REGISTRAR. Its not like they are the only players on the field.

You are a strange man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22692914)

You don't like enom, neither does WikiLeaks.

The only difference is WikiLeaks is saying "don't use them", and somehow you take that to be a really bad thing. Your response is "well, just don't use them". Which is exactly what WikiLeaks is saying too. Really. You're very odd.

Just a guess... does the world seem to work strangely to you? Like... things happen that, to you, seem unconnected with what happens before? Do you find yourself arguing with people a lot, and they keep saying things like "I don't understand why we're having this argument...".

I guessing you are puzzled a lot.

Re:You are a strange man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22693728)

Anonymous Coward: you don't get it, bitztream is saying to boycott enom, but he is putting the accent on a different syllable, which makes it totally different. So instead of wikileaks boycotting enom, he is saying that they should boycott enom. Now, quit trying to point out when people are being stupid, because people are being stupid.

Re:WikiLeaks, you are idiots (3, Informative)

Sique (173459) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692972)

So ... you're boycotting a company which is following the laws of the country it is based in rather than registering your name with a registrar in a country that doesn't have these laws.

Are they really that stupid?
No, Wikileaks is asking to boycott a registrar that overzealously interprets a court order, which orders the shutdown of one domain. Said domain wasn't even registered with the registrar, so the court order wasn't even affecting the registrar.

But instead of just ignoring a paper that didn't matter to them, they shut down a different domain, which wasn't mentioned in the court order at all.

Sentiment Understood; Alternative Suggested (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22692676)

I understand Wikileaks sentiment here. They got a pretty raw deal from their registrar. However, a boycott won't amount to very much.

I would suggest the following instead:

1. Find a registrar with whom you can make a serious deal. A registrar with lawyers who will advise it and give you a call if they receive any notices. A registrar who will give you "wikileaked.org" and "blocked-wikileaks.org" for free (for some time) while the restraining order works itself out. A registrar who will submit these new domain names to Slashdot immediately in case of such a thing.

2. Find multiple registrars all over the world and build up other brand names. They can't hit *all* the countries and take down *all* the brand names at once, can they?

3. Encourage a few 'leaks' on unethical practices inside eNom. Conveniently, you have a popular website to expose that dirty laundry for the whole world to see. A few documents indicating pirated software (go BSA!), hosting pirate MP3s (go RIAA!), hosting bittorrent trackers (go MPAA!), etc could get their DMCA takedown notice department backlogged with work in no time. Not to mention all sorts of legal problems up their asses. Nothing quite so bad as being under a microscope.

4. Offer a free banner ad to your new registrar. Your web traffic volume is probably worth advertising dollars. Every time eNom sees they ad, they will be reminded of their cowardice and negligence. They will also be reminded when it's time to pay the advertising bills.

5. Relax. The kind of crap you went through says one thing: You're doing something right. -- This won't be the last time you see this problem, if you continue to do things right. Take a page from the Risk Management handbook; exposure = impact * likelihood ... assess your exposure, and cover your ass.

Sincerely,

Anonymous Coward

Count me in (1)

PurpleZebra (1201249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692778)

All domain registrar's are sketchy in today's world based on my experiences. That said, GoDaddy is a somewhat decent registrar ... relatively. And as far as the eNom boycott, i'll continue to never use their services.

Boycott Sweden, Belgium, Spain and Germany then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22692998)

The Swedish government gave orders to pull a website offline. It did not contain illegal material.

The Belgian government has banned the Vlaams Blok political party.

The Spanish government has banned a bunch.

Germany routinely infiltrates political parties. Once they tried to shut down a political party for being 'racist', but it was found that the top leadership was so infiltrated that you could not say what was created by someone in the party and what was created by the government, so it failed.

Try to compare pulling a website offline to criminalising membership of a political party.

Stupid (1)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693054)

Should we boycott bees because they sting? For better or worse, eNom was merely complying with properly offered court orders with a valid jurisdiction. Any US-based registrar would have done the same.

If you're going to do business in the US, you have to follow US law. That means when someone sues you have to actually show up in court. If that's a problem for you, don't do business in the US.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22693316)

Your arguement would make sense if in fact eNom had been complying with a court order. But it was not. eNom never received an order to take down wikileaks.info. It did that all on its own.

ICANN.org? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22693084)

Seriously, the boycott page lists ICANN.org as one of eNOM's reseller fronts?

Yawn (0, Redundant)

deblau (68023) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693130)

I'd be much more interested if Wikileaks was boycotting someone who didn't just shut down one of their domains.

eNOM's full of domain squatters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22693376)

ever notice how when you typo a domain you seem to get some squatters page full of ads? I routinely whois these domains and they are always this eNOM company.

GoDaddy hasn't been EVIL bad yet that I've seen, but I'm not about to go testing the legal boundries.

How about working within the system? (2, Insightful)

cellocgw (617879) | more than 6 years ago | (#22693420)

Maybe it's easy to move your domains, maybe it isn't. But why not just work, politely (so to speak), with your domain manager to convince them to drop eNom as their source? For example, I'm quite happy with the service I get from domaindirect. They answer their phones, they have a "network status" page that's pretty accurate and up to date when something happens, and all the intarwebby things JustWork.
I'd rather join a mailing list to urge DomainDirect to switch than just apply a blanket boycott.

Boycott puppy haters! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22693794)

They want me to boycott dailypuppy.com! That settles it. Wikileaks is evil. I'm training my puppy to take a wikileak on those people, and all their whistleblowing won't save them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?