Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web3 Domain Name Service Could Lose Web Address-Owner Who Can Renew Is in Prison

coindesk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: Web3 Domain Name Service Could Lose Web Address-Owner Who Can Renew Is in Prison

#61

Post by UncleEntity »

LewisVerstappen wrote: post #28
gregmac wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Basically" is doing a lot of work in that sentence: > In September, Griffith pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate international sanctions against North Korea. Griffith was arrested in November 2019 after giving a talk at a cryptocurrency conference in Pyongyang in April of that year. > “What you see here is an intentionality…and a desire to educate people on how to evade sanctions,” [U.S. District Ju…

It's so funny how people are so happy to jump in defense of the US regime. Are international sanctions laws just? Should the US government have the right to bar other countries from transacting financially with the world? > Griffith has been limited to two or less meals a day, usually peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, because gangs in MDC control the kitchens and the commissary Gangs control US prisons because the…

> Are international sanctions laws just? Should the US government have the right to bar other countries from transacting financially with the world?

The US government supporting international sanctions by penalizing institutions and individuals who violate said sanctions?

Yeah, I have no problem with that…

And prison is designed to be a n unnice place, for the longest time the Maricopa County (where Phoenix is) jail was a bunch of tents because they didn’t want people to be there. Foreign nationals got nice air conditioned cells but your basic DUI offenders (and random petty criminals) got to go to Tent City.

Re: Web3 Domain Name Service Could Lose Web Address-Owner Who Can Renew Is in Prison

#62

Post by detaro »

unknownaccount wrote: post #60
detaro wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specifically do you mean by "cancels domains prematurely"?

I mean canceling the domain early, before the contractually agreed up expiration date. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31576353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30504812

These are two quite different cases from "what happens to the domain" perspective, and for Namecheap I don't see the formal problem - I don't believe the accreditation requires them to never terminate a customer contract, and the domain remains active and can be transferred.

Re: Web3 Domain Name Service Could Lose Web Address-Owner Who Can Renew Is in Prison

#63

Post by woojoo666 »

blueflow wrote: post #45
lizardactivist wrote: post #44

EasyDNS CEO Mark Jeftovic had previously struck a deal to renew the domain address for another year before the domain provider allegedly decided to stop honoring the deal “suddenly” and “without notice.” Another one in the great pile of reasons to avoid GoDaddy and other US American domain name services -- you don't own your domain name, you're just an authorized user as long as the US government allows it.

> you don't own your domain name You never do, authority over a DNS zone is a service that is provided to you.

I think with web3 naming services (like ENS), regular people can actually own domains, since there is no service provider besides the blockchain

Re: Web3 Domain Name Service Could Lose Web Address-Owner Who Can Renew Is in Prison

#64

Post by charles_kaw »

unknownaccount wrote: post #57
charles_kaw wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Registrars seem to flaunt the rules all the time and not lose accreditaion. CloudFlare cancels peoples domains prematurely due to "false positives" - gets away with it. NameCheap cancels peoples domains prematurely due to their country of origin - gets away with it.

You seem to be using "cancels" in a very loose sense. When you're talking about actions of these providers, and their duties/responsibilities, some precision is required.

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

Re: Web3 Domain Name Service Could Lose Web Address-Owner Who Can Renew Is in Prison

#65

Post by unknownaccount »

charles_kaw wrote: post #64
unknownaccount wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Registrars seem to flaunt the rules all the time and not lose accreditaion. CloudFlare cancels peoples domains prematurely due to "false positives" - gets away with it. NameCheap cancels peoples domains prematurely due to their country of origin - gets away with it.

You seem to be using "cancels" in a very loose sense. When you're talking about actions of these providers, and their duties/responsibilities, some precision is required. 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 p…

>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.

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".

Re: Web3 Domain Name Service Could Lose Web Address-Owner Who Can Renew Is in Prison

#66

Post by nr2x »

csdvrx wrote: post #5
smoldesu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no problem to 'fix'. The people who paid for eth.link domains do not own them, so GoDaddy has zero obligation to even acknowledge their existence. Hell, they're lucky they even got a statement at all, if I was them I'd just start selling off the domains slowly while I watch Twitter melt down.

> 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?

Not everybody deserves help.

Re: Web3 Domain Name Service Could Lose Web Address-Owner Who Can Renew Is in Prison

#67

Post by charles_kaw »

unknownaccount wrote: post #65
charles_kaw wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be using "cancels" in a very loose sense. When you're talking about actions of these providers, and their duties/responsibilities, some precision is required. 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 p…

>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. 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 doma…

>Im not sure you read or understand the links correctly so let me clarify.

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.

Re: Web3 Domain Name Service Could Lose Web Address-Owner Who Can Renew Is in Prison

#68

Post by unknownaccount »

charles_kaw wrote: post #67
unknownaccount wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. 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 doma…

>Im not sure you read or understand the links correctly so let me clarify. 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 distast…

How is preventing a person from transferring out their domain + setting it to expire quickly effectively any different from outright cancelling a persons domain immediately? The end result is the same. Sure there is a technical distinction in the WHOIS but I can see how a court could find it to be the same thing in spirit(and thus, a violation of the ICANN-registrar agreement)

Re: Web3 Domain Name Service Could Lose Web Address-Owner Who Can Renew Is in Prison

#69

Post by Canada »

solarengineer wrote: post #40
Canada wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I try to also do that, as the domains are so important to me that I want to front-load as many things that could fail as possible. This one domain I have only allows me to renew it when it's less than 60 days to expiry and it's not possible to auto-renew, which really sucks.

Have you explored shifting that domain to a Domain Registrar who _does_ allow you to auto-renew via a topped-up account that you maintain with them?

Auto-renew is fine with all my other domains, it's an issue with that particular ccTLD, I don't see a way around it.

Re: Web3 Domain Name Service Could Lose Web Address-Owner Who Can Renew Is in Prison

#70

Post by duskwuff »

lizardactivist wrote: post #44

EasyDNS CEO Mark Jeftovic had previously struck a deal to renew the domain address for another year before the domain provider allegedly decided to stop honoring the deal “suddenly” and “without notice.” Another one in the great pile of reasons to avoid GoDaddy and other US American domain name services -- you don't own your domain name, you're just an authorized user as long as the US government allows it.

You say that as though this arrangement is unique to American registrars. It isn't.
Post reply on HN