Wikileaks Calls to Boycott Enom

[plaggypig]

Wikileaks has announced that it is calling for a boycott on Enom, the popular domain registrar involved in the systematic censoring of domain names. On Feb 28th Enom hijacked the wikileaks.info domain name, which pointed to a mirror of the wikileaks.org website. Additionally, they hijacked domain names owned by a European tourism business who sold travel packages to European customers. Apparently the US Treasury Dept. and Enom both think that the whole world must abide by America's embargo on Cuba, its own domestic laws, and be censored by its unaccountable bureaucrats.

"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."

Will the Namepros community get behind this boycott?

 

[shockie]

this boycott is misguided and misdirected.

afaik enom hasn't announced an opinion either way about their feelings towards cuba, but they are based in the united states and will abide by its laws. simple as that.

 

[plaggypig]

shockie: On the contrary, they have broken the law:

Perhaps you don't know about the circumstances surrounding the case of Mr. Marshall's Spanish travel company - Enom saw his company name on a US Treasury Dept. blacklist and took matters into their own hands by hijacking his domain names. He had no opportunity to challenge this decision, and has since had to switch to using alternate domain names using a European registrar. IANAL but from what I gather this action of seizure was unlawful.

The seizure of wikileaks.info was also unlawful. Wikileaks has also discovered a proposal by Enom to release, in bulk, its customers information to US law enforcement agencies. Again, unconstitutional and unlawful.

You still don't think a boycott is appropriate?

 

[shockie]

so treating mr. marshall's company as a blacklisted company is wrong...?

is it not a registrar's responsibility to manage the domains that are registered under them (aka, "taking matters into their own hands")?

and btw, shouldn't this boycott include more than just "eNom, its parent Demand Media, its owners, executives and their affiliated companies, interests and holdings". ie, include the people who sell servers to enom, provide running water and catering services, etc etc?

this boycott seems a lot like wikileaks getting upset over what happened to them and trying to vent their anger and frustration by riding the treasury dept. issue.

and since when was complying with a tro "unlawful"?

 

[plaggypig]

shockie: IANAL but shouldn't the Treasury Dept. or whoever first have to get a judge to sign some kind of order sanctioning the seizure of property, rather than Enom marching to the beat of their own drum and acting as both the judge, jury and executioner? There is due process of law to follow.

 

[XJ]

The treasury dept. would have got a judge to sign some kind of order ... but to punish enom, a US company. US companies are subject to US laws, simple as that.

 

[saurabh0]

I stopped using eNom when they disabled one of my domains without notice (I was using eNom though Registerfly back when they were ok). I have domains with over 10 registrars and till date they are the only ones I have had a domain disabled.

 

[Dave_Z]

shockie: IANAL but shouldn't the Treasury Dept. or whoever first have to get a judge to sign some kind of order sanctioning the seizure of property, rather than Enom marching to the beat of their own drum and acting as both the judge, jury and executioner? There is due process of law to follow.

In an ideal world, that would be nice.

But in the real world, some U.S. government agencies are empowered by some
laws to act on certain issues. Look at the FTC website and see how many are
resolved before going to court.

Discussed lengthly:

http://www.namepros.com/legal-issues-and-disputes/440542-us-agency-shuts-down-web-sites.html

http://www.circleid.com/posts/83420_controversial_domain_names/

Some additional clues:

http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statute.shtml

http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/ascii/cuba.txt

http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/index.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act

This one might also explain what happened in Mr. Marshall's case:

http://www.domainnamenews.com/up-to-the-minute/us-government-blacklists-80-tourism-websites/1470

If my experience with the Treasury Dept. is any guide, it’s not that they told eNom to block a site. Instead, they probably told eNom that it was illegal to do trade with Cuba (or profit from it), and that since this travel did business there, and eNom profited as the registrar of the name, eNom might be violating U.S. law.

And since it so happens there's a specific law dealing with the specific issue of
banning U.S.-based providers from doing business with countries in their OFAC
list or so, what other choice does eNom or any other registrar have if they're
faced with this sort of thing? Why should they risk spending thousands in just
legal fees alone over an $8 to $10 a year contract?

If eNom has the financial muscle of, say, Google, can afford the costs, and is
not potentially violating any law, then they might be in a better position to tell
a government agency to get a court order first. But...they don't.

And if you're running a business, then eventually served a court order involving
you and a client of yours, don't you think you're obligated to follow that or be
ready to fight and spend costs you may not be able to recoup? What will you
do if you do fight and lose?

IANAL either, but Mr. Lim's email:

Please see
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/julius-baer-bank-and-trust-v-wikileaks
in particular the order of the 29th of February disolving the TRO

Only applies to the parties involved in that case. It doesn't expand to eNom,
which isn't a party to that specific dispute.

I can certainly understand why Wikileaks is doing this. But I agree with shockie
this is potentially misguided and misdirected.

While some will likely go along with Wikileaks on this one, chances are that lots
of people and companies will still do business with eNom as long as they're fully
happy with them. Business is business, after all.

Offtopic: if you think it's tough enough getting the NamePros community to stand behind this,
imagine what ICANN's supposedly trying to do with the multiple constituencies representing a
variety of interests. I don't envy them on that score.

Isn't NamePros an ETP also? No offense, RJ! :D

 

[Christopher Hunt]

wikileaks.info resolves to wikileaks.org as of right now ...

 

[plaggypig]

In any case, it seems the best solution is to avoid doing business with any US domain registrar. However, I still support the boycott against Enom: its practices have been unlawful and unethical.

 

[shockie]

or perhaps you should avoid doing business with any u.s. company since they all have to abide by u.s. codes of conduct.

 

[plaggypig]

shockie: Of course, I would avoid doing business with any company who breaks the law, irrespective of which jurisdiction they are in. I would also be cautious of dealing with companies in a certain sector where law breaking has become precedented, as happened in the US with telecoms companies illegally spying on their customers, and perhaps now, domain registrars taking it upon themselves to censor companies doing business in foreign jurisdictions.

 

[fxtrader28]

I must agree with plaggypig

 

[Jeffrey]

We should not boycott but avoid as much as we can to purchase domains through a US based registrar.

 

[gorilla_bob]

I boycott enom... not because of the above... but because their reg fees are so high.

:P

- Bob

 

[Dave_Z]

In any case, it seems the best solution is to avoid doing business with any US domain registrar.

We should not boycott but avoid as much as we can to purchase domains through a US based registrar.

And you think non-U.S. registrars don't have similar terms?

http://www.melbourneit.com.au/policies/gtldtermcond.php3

Registrant agrees that registration of its domain name shall be subject to suspension, cancellation or transfer by any ICANN procedure, or by any registry administrator procedure approved by ICANN policy:

• to correct mistakes by Registrar or the registry administrator in registering the domain name;

• for the resolution of disputes concerning the domain name; or

• in case of arbitration or court proceedings being commenced with respect to the rights to the domain name. In addition to the above rights, Melbourne IT may suspend or cancel the registration of Registrant's domain name, or, suspend the delegation of Registrant's Domain Name, if as reasonably determined by Melbourne IT in its sole discretion, the Registrant or any other person uses the domain name in connection with any:

• activity that infringes the intellectual property rights or other rights of any third party;

• activity that defames or disparages any third party; or

• otherwise illegal or fraudulent activity, or otherwise in accordance with Melbourne IT's Acceptable Use Policy.

http://registrar.schlund.info/xml/r...ons+for+the+registration+of+.com+domain+names

Should a domain be registered incorrectly by Schlund+Partner or any other person involved in the registration process, e.g. not according to the order, domain holder hereby irrevocably consents to all necessary measures being taken for the correction of such mistake. Such measures may e. g. be suspension, cancelation, transfer or any other appropriate and equal action.

http://www.rebel.com/TermsAndConditions.aspx

You agree that, if your use of our domain name registration services is challenged by a third party, you will be subject to the provisions specified in the Rebel dispute policy (the "Dispute Policy") in effect at the time of the dispute.
The Dispute Policy is currently as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, you agree that in the event a domain name dispute arises with any third party, (i) you will submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to the jurisdiction of the courts of your domicile and the Province of Ontario, Canada; and (ii) you will indemnify and hold us harmless pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth below in this Agreement. If we are notified that a complaint has been filed with a judicial or administrative body regarding your domain name registration or your use of our domain name registration services, you will not be permitted to make any changes to your domain name record without our prior approval. We will not allow you to make changes to such domain name record until:
7.1 we are directed to do so by the judicial or administrative body, or
7.2 we receive written notification by you and the other party contesting your registration or use of our domain name registration services that the dispute has been settled.
Furthermore, you agree that if we and/or you are subject to litigation regarding your registration or use of our domain name registration services, we may deposit control of your domain name record into the registry of the judicial or administrative body by supplying a party with a registrar certificate from us.

I'd post those from Gandi and PublicDomainRegistry. But they're in PDF.

Start boycotting them registrars.

 

[BigSotong.com]

I will work with only reputable registrar with reasonable rate!

 

[Dave_Z]

Just thought I'd post here and correct myself. Apparently the TRO eNom had
mentioned in their email with Wikileaks is the same one the judge ordered from
the Julius Baer-Dynadot-Wikileaks suit.

Since the judge issued a rather broad order, which included service providers,
eNom probably felt obliged to obey that since it's within U.S. soil. They either
caved in to public pressure, or they finally received the judge's later order to
restore Wikileaks.info, anything goes.

At any rate, if Wikileaks is going to transfer their domain names to an offshore
registrar, they might want to try to be familiar with the laws of that registrar's
jurisdiction lest they develop unrealistic expectations. Unfortunately the same
practically goes for everyone else around here.