Is Spam a registrar's jurisdiction?

[Steen]

Say someone gets complaints about a domain name sent to the host, upstream and registrar.

Now, IMO, this is the network and web-host's issue. Now what role CAN the registrar play?

Unfortunately eNom has "disconnected" under my control due to a spam complaint. I am just wondering where I stand and if they should be doing this.


IMO, it is the web host and the UPSTREAM's jurisdiction. The registrar should have NOTHING to do with spam complaints (unless, possibly, if the DNS is set to their own).

Does anyone have any comments, opinions or legal views on this matter?


And before any nay-sayers come in, please remember that you are unaware of the situation and don't know how the spam was dealt with or even what it was. I am strictly interested in the registrar's commitments and actions in regard to domain names and spam complaints.

[Acro]

Was it a single instance of spam? Were you using Enom's nameservers?

AFAIK, GoDaddy.com is notorious for doing this, even for domains that do not use their DNS. In effect, GD hijacks your domain.

[Steen]

I am aware of GoDaddy doing this and I agree, they take rash measures, rumored t be from the founder’s personal views.

The domain was NOT on eNom's name servers, no.

AFAIK, there was one official complaint lodged that ended the site up in SpamHaus, which was resolved the next day (or two) and the site/IP is clear after termination of the spamming member.


I hope someone pursues legal action against registrars who do this. It would be nice to see.

[missedcall]

Of course and it is a registrar's issue since they have an AUP
On the other hand they should invastigate before removing a dn
I had someone who has used dn of mine and it was sending spam....GD sent me a warning and I said I have no idea for this spam but they deactivated it !.
After several email's I manage to restore it BUT I didn't put MX records on it .
Now all my domains have no MX records on them so since most mail servers do a lookup before accepting mail this will preven spammers to use your domains.

[jberryhill]

Now what role CAN the registrar play?

Any role they want to.

Does ANYONE here read the terms of service for their registrar? Do you know what you've agreed to?

[Dave Zan]

I once asked that same question here and other forums. Majority have spoken
that they'd prefer a registrar doesn't step in on that aspect and leave it to
those "authorities" who specialize on that.

But as jberryhill said, you should read their terms so you know what they'll do
and won't do.

Under the e-signature law signed by Clinton in 2000, if you checked the box
beside the "I have read the service agreement and agree to its terms" prior to
registering or renewing any service with your chosen registrar, you practically
agree to their terms and renew your contract with them. For US-based users,
anyway.

If you don't check that, you don't use them. Period.

Incidentally that's the main reason I transferred away from Go Daddy. It never
happened to me but why risk it?

[theparrot]

I don't think it is their role. I think they are not really in a good position to judge the accuracy of spaming complaints. I did ask enom just what they meant once by their zero spam policy. They told me this applied to using their mail and forwarding services only.

[Steen]

They told me this applied to using their mail and forwarding services only.

That's interesting.

Becuase the domain they have turned off I would classify as "premium" and it is a very active website that is now (obviously) loosing money by the hour, for 24 hours now. Legal@eNom doesn't accept phone calls, I am told, so apparently the only thing I can do is wait?

The domain was not on their name servers, not using their MX mail feature and not using any forwarding services.

To me, this is ridiculous. The worst is that no one was notified!

[Dave Zan]

That's interesting.

Becuase the domain they have turned off I would classify as "premium" and it is a very active website that is now (obviously) loosing money by the hour, for 24 hours now. Legal@eNom doesn't accept phone calls, I am told, so apparently the only thing I can do is wait?

The domain was not on their name servers, not using their MX mail feature and not using any forwarding services.

To me, this is ridiculous. The worst is that no one was notified!

Hmmm, if they're like Go Daddy, they should've tried to notify the domain's
admin contact and registrant. But then, they're enom.

Actually I became aware of this after reading their legal fine prints, so I made
sure to stay away from them and any of their resellers until I'm sure what I'm
going to do with my domain/s with my chosen registrar. From now on, I ask
the registrar I'm considering what their stand is on this issue.

Aside from Name.com's price and practically free features, their stance to
refer spam complaints to the domain's host is what finally convinced me to try
them out.

[theparrot]

That's interesting.

Becuase the domain they have turned off I would classify as "premium" and it is a very active website that is now (obviously) loosing money by the hour, for 24 hours now. Legal@eNom doesn't accept phone calls, I am told, so apparently the only thing I can do is wait?

The domain was not on their name servers, not using their MX mail feature and not using any forwarding services.

To me, this is ridiculous. The worst is that no one was notified!

Yes, that is, since I specfically asked them about this, before I signed up to become an ETP. Since they took this action I can only say they lied to me.

How did they turn if off if you were not using their nameservers? Change them to theirs anyway?

[Steen]

Yes, that is, since I specfically asked them about this, before I signed up to become an ETP. Since they took this action I can only say they lied to me.

How did they turn if off if you were not using their nameservers? Change them to theirs anyway?

On a technical side? The nameservers according to WHOIS are correct. When you type the domain in, it just won't go through.

The domain has now been placed on the "HOLD" status according to WHOIS/Internic. I guess I can say good bye to the transfer out from eNom. A ping gives me:

Ping request could not find host aaa.aa. Please check the name and
try again.

A ping to the nameserver w/ the domain resolves fine. I don't know how they're blocking it, but they are, and yesterday this was confirmed by eNom.

I wil told the only way to resolve this is to email legal@enom.com, they wouldn't accept phone calls. It's been over a day now, I am not impressed, to say the least.

[Domagon]

A .com domain in "on-hold" status will typically be removed from the .com TLD zone file - and when that happens the domain will eventually stop resolving.

Ron

[diverge]

This happened to me -- but it was a NameCheap domain. Interestingly it was eNom's legal department that shut off the domain (NameCheap is just a shell for eNom). However, when registering or buying a domain at NameCheap, you are never required to read eNom's AUP, and NameCheap's AUP says nothing about this.

eNom's legal department did resolve the issue within a couple business days, though.

Additional details that may have weighed into their decision: WHOIS data was outdated and domain was using NameCheaps (really eNom's) DNS servers. But in Steen's case, it looks like neither of these were the case.

[Steen]

This happened to me -- but it was a NameCheap domain. Interestingly it was eNom's legal department that shut off the domain (NameCheap is just a shell for eNom). However, when registering or buying a domain at NameCheap, you are never required to read eNom's AUP, and NameCheap's AUP says nothing about this.

eNom's legal department did resolve the issue within a couple business days, though.

Additional details that may have weighed into their decision: WHOIS data was outdated and domain was using NameCheaps (really eNom's) DNS servers. But in Steen's case, it looks like neither of these were the case.

I was also told to email eNom legal. The thing is, this site is making money all day long! It's been off over 36 hours if I calculate correctly. This damages the brand, member database and ultimately, the site's overall value. May I ask how long it took eNom legal to resolve? I emailed them yesterday, called yesterday, emailed via support ticket to "abuse/spam" today. I wish the Vice-Prez was still there. Matt's ethics must be beyond eNom, a failing organization imo, over the years.

Fle8, I would think you have a case against NameCheap, wouldn't you? I wonder if there's anything I can do in this situation.

[diverge]

Fle8, I would think you have a case against NameCheap, wouldn't you? I wonder if there's anything I can do in this situation.

Probably. This was about 6 months ago, and although I was p*ssed at the time, in my case, it was my client's stupidity that got the domain blacklisted, so I didn't figure it was worth pursuing.

By my best recollection, it took 2 business days to get the domain "ACTIVE" again. This included a weekend, unfortunately. Hopefully yours is back up soon.

[Steen]

Probably. This was about 6 months ago, and although I was p*ssed at the time, in my case, it was my client's stupidity that got the domain blacklisted, so I didn't figure it was worth pursuing.

By my best recollection, it took 2 business days to get the domain "ACTIVE" again. This included a weekend, unfortunately. Hopefully yours is back up soon.

I greatly hope it's up tomorrow, if not Friday. I don't think I can wait over the weekend.

A .com domain in "on-hold" status will typically be removed from the .com TLD zone file - and when that happens the domain will eventually stop resolving.

Ron

I have seen domains placed on REGISTRAR-HOLD for protection purposes. Seems to be an option used once-in-a-while for premium domains, instead of locked.

Aside from Name.com's price and practically free features, their stance to
refer spam complaints to the domain's host is what finally convinced me to try
them out.

That sounds great so I had to check it out.

19. RIGHT OF REFUSAL. You agree that Name.com LLC, in its sole discretion and without liability to You, may refuse to accept the registration of any domain name. Name.com also may in its sole discretion and without liability to You delete the registration of any domain name during the first sixty days after registration has taken place. In the event that Name.com refuses a registration or deletes an existing registration during the sixty days after registration, You will receive a refund of fees paid to Name.com in connection with the registration either being canceled or refused. Name.com may also cancel the registration of a domain name, after sixty days, if that name is being used in association with spam or morally objectionable activities. Objectionable activities may include, but are not limited to: activities designed to defame, abuse, threaten, or harass third parties; activities prohibited by the laws of the United States; activities prohibited in foreign territories in which You conduct business; activities designed to encourage unlawful behavior by others; activities that are tortuous, invasive of the privacy of a third party, racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable; activities designed to impersonate the identity of a third party. In the event Name.com deletes the registration of a domain name being used in association with spam or objectionable activities, no refund will be issued.

From: http://www.name.com/agreement.shtml

--

I just did some looking around.

Now Gandi's got a handle on things: https://www.gandi.net/spam.html.en

I will be registering my most important domain names there and Xfering to them from now on.

[Dave Zan]

I read that portion, too. That's why I emailed name.com about it before.

Looking thru my email correspondence with them, they said they'll refer the
complaining party to the domain's Hosting provider or the domain name owner
if the domain's WHOIS info is correct. It just gives complainants a leg to stand
on if the WHOIS is invalid.

Makes sense, in a way.

But go ahead and ask them, and I'll ask them again just in case they changed
their minds suddenly. Thanks, Steen!

[tnt]

Any role they want to.

Does ANYONE here read the terms of service for their registrar? Do you know what you've agreed to?

It's very early in the morning, and I'm maybe not thinking clearly but...

My daddy taught me a long time ago never to argue with a lawyer, but it's my not so humble opionion that domain registrars should adopt the telcos' "common carrier" approach (I think that's what it's called). If they start putting fussy stuff in their AUP, then I'd think they should be required to have the duty to police every domain they sell for violations. And yes, I do read AUPs, but thousands of words that would make even the eyes of IBM's documentation writers glaze over is asking a lot. (These days, it's the *NIX folks who go are the ones that often ramble on endlessly without ever making it clear what they're getting at -- when they bother to write docs at all.)

There are all sorts of anti-spam laws, ant-phishing laws, anti-obscenity laws, and so forth. I think that stuff properly falls to the legal authorities. Domain registrars usurping governmental authority just seems wrong. They're neither law enforcement, judges nor juries.

Once registrars start interfering with their clients' uses of domains, the potential for abuse is way too high to be comfortable. Where will it end? If it's true that a registrar can play any role it wants to, is it possible that an AUP could say, "even if we just think your site's ugly, we'll revoke your domain name?" Or, "You're making way too much money off the $10 bucks we charged you - pay us 10% of your net income, or goodbye domain?"

It seems it's time to start a letting writing campaign to Congress for those of us in the US. A lot of good that'll do, but there's a lot of interest by some in Congress when it comes to the net (some good interest, some I think is bad.)

Not to mention the whole idea that once I register a domain, it's my intellectual property... unless I'm stealing someone else's. Again, there are properly constituted authorities to deal with that.

When I get down to it, I think that the net sort of just developed without a plan. Maybe it's time to throw the switch and turn it off (and I'll bet that could be done -- a backhoe cutting a line can bring down a goodly part of the net) and start over now that we understand it better. That's how frustrated I'm getting trying to understand all the laws, silly TM issues, etc. First thing I'd do is give up on the idea of .com, .net and all the other gTLDs. It's one of those ideas that seemed good at the time, but in actual practice, just creates confusion.

[Dave Zan]

When I get down to it, I think that the net sort of just developed without a plan. Maybe it's time to throw the switch and turn it off (and I'll bet that could be done -- a backhoe cutting a line can bring down a goodly part of the net) and start over now that we understand it better. That's how frustrated I'm getting trying to understand all the laws, silly TM issues, etc. First thing I'd do is give up on the idea of .com, .net and all the other gTLDs. It's one of those ideas that seemed good at the time, but in actual practice, just creates confusion.

Now now, tnt. Like most if not everything else, it's simply growing pains. :-D

Nobody could've possibly anticipated the explosive growth and potential legal
issues it entailed despite all the planning. That's where the word "progress"
comes in.

[tnt]

Now now, tnt. Like most if not everything else, it's simply growing pains. :-D

Nobody could've possibly anticipated the explosive growth and potential legal
issues it entailed despite all the planning. That's where the word "progress"
comes in.

Yes, you're right of course, although I'm not sure there was much planning. Seems to me the net is made up stuff that a couple of people worked out with no idea how it was going to be used. Did Berners-Lee ever envisions what the W3 could or would become? And while there's an arguement about whether or not Usenet is properly considered a part of the Internet, who could have guessed that it would someday contain terabytes of often dubious info and files.

Anyhow, I'm just frustrated these days -- there's a lot of projects I want to develop but I'm tired of trying to figure out all the legal angles. Plus there's stuff like spammers spoofing my email address, so people who aren't familiar with headers think I'm the one sending out the spam. It happened a lot with with my ISP and I kept calling them to explain until they assured me they knew how to read headers.

I still think having more than one gTLD is just looking for problems. I remember once doing business with a .net. The .com version was offline for renovations to the site, and I often I forgot it was .net, not .com I was looking for. The .net owner was a domain reseller, and I wound up writing him a very nasty letter about his site being offline so often, even though I was the one using the wrong extension. Poor guy didn't have the dimmest idea what I was talking about and my embarassment over the whole situation was enormous. Of course, using the .net wasn't the smartest decision on his part.

Note to mods: Sorry to get offtrack. Would have written a PM, but if I vent in public, I feel it's proper to explain in public, because if I ever try to do business here, people who research my posts would probably think I was too far off my rocker to be legitimate.