DirectNics legal rights in relation to its recent actions - GoFuckYourself.com

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 04:48 PM

Many people on this board have spent the past few days stating that DirectNic, as a registrar, did not have the legal right or authority to take the actions they did. In fact, it has been taken to the point by some that what they did it is in actuality an unconstitutional infringement on Slick?s free speech rights when they apparently arbitrarily shut down Slick?s sites. Further it has been stated that ICANN does not allow Directnic to take the action it did.

None of it is true. Directnic had the authority to take the action it did. It was not required to do all that it did, but it definitely had the right both through U.S. law and their agreement with ICANN.

First some definitions.

According to the U.S. code an electronic communications service means ?any service which provides to users the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications? (US Title 18 section 2510 definitions paragraph 15). It further defines a remote computing service as the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system. (US Code 18 section 2711 paragraph 2) .

DirectNic, as a registrar, can be considered both an electronic communications service and a remote computing service. It facilitates the sending and receiving of electronic communication because it stores the all-important location of the A record for the DNS system that makes the Internet work. Without this information the DNS system would not be able to locate the name server for a site. It also stores and allows access to the public of its whois database therefore making it an electronic communications system.

US Code Title 42 Chapter 132 subchapter 4 states that any electronic communications service or remote computing service is required if it obtains knowledge of facts or circumstances from which any violation of section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, or 2260 of title 18, involving child pornography (as defined in section 2256 of that title), or a violation of section 1466A of that title. Is apparent. It also states that the electronics communications service or remote communications service is not required to investigate the occurrence nor is it required to monitor the services for violations. However, it does clearly state that the electronics communications service or remote computing service may investigate the incident if they so choose:

(d) Limitation of information or material required in report a report under subsection (b)(1) of this section may include additional information or material developed by an electronic communication service or remote computing service, except that the Federal Government may not require the production of such information or material in that report.

The definition of child pornography in US title 2256 is:

8) "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -

(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

or

(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
US Title 18 section 2256 paragraph 8
The definition of indistinguishable according to US Title 18 section 2256 is:

(11) the term "indistinguishable" used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
US Title 18 section 2256 paragraph 11

So, clearly, in the eyes of US law, DirectNic had to make a report if they received a complaint of possible child pornography on a domain that was registered through their service and they were allowed, if they so chose, to make an additional investigation to accompany the report. Failure to make the report could cost them up to $50,000.00. They then further investigated and I imagine their first step was to look at the site in question. From the reaction on this board when all the directnic stuff broke earlier this week, many people posting clearly thought they were looking at actual minors thereby meeting the definition of indistinguishable as outlined above. At that point they attempted to further investigate by requesting proof of age from the domain holder.

Each registrar draws its authority to assign domain names through a registrar agreement with ICANN. In the registration agreement, ICANN outlines the minimum requirements that a registrar must take to be in compliance with the agreement. (ICANN registrar agreement). Within this agreement is 1 section that deals with the registrars business dealings with registrants. Paragrapgh 3.7.7.11 states that ?The Registered Name Holder shall agree that its registration of the Registered Name shall be subject to suspension,
cancellation, or transfer pursuant to any ICANN adopted specification or policy, or pursuant to any registrar or registry procedure not inconsistent with an ICANN adopted specification or policy".

ICANN clearly indicates that the registrar is allowed to adopt any procedures they want regarding cancellation as long as they are not inconsistent with ICANN?s policies. Further, in section 3.7.7.3 the agreement clearly establishes that there are ?wrongful uses? for a domain name, although it does not specify what those wrongful uses are.

"Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name. A Registered Name Holder licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the Registered Name, unless it promptly discloses the identity of the licensee to a party providing the Registered Name Holder reasonable evidence of actionable harm."

ICANN, through this agreement clearly grants the registrar authority to create the policies that it feels are needed to properly administer their service as long as those policies do not collide with ICANN policy. So DirectNic draws the authority to shut down the domains based on a report of cp from the ICANN agreement most assuredly.

Putting it all together, DirectNic was required by law to act on a report of child pornography on a domain registered through them. Directnic was allowed by law to make an investigation and is allowed by law to monitor domains registered through them. In addition to reporting the incident and undertaking their own investigation they were allowed, by authority granted to them through an agreement with ICANN to cancel the accounts as they saw fit.

Now I?ll just wait for the Ghey Boy and his rainbow entourage to come in and play their whiny drama queen game.

scottybuzz · 12-16-2006, 04:50 PM

Lets hear it for the Sig Spot!

Captain Canada · 12-16-2006, 04:52 PM

If you really wanted to help Directnic you should really let this just go away.

Evil1 · 12-16-2006, 04:53 PM

hey, im straight and not part of any rainbow entourage but directnic can choke on a big gay cock.

Thats like me citizens arresting someone who walked by the front of my house cause they looked like they commited a crime. I'd be sued. as they should be

crockett · 12-16-2006, 04:57 PM

They might legally have the right to do what they did..However with very little research needed on their end, they could have realized he was using FHG's that had 2257 info.

They showed extremely bad judgment on this entire matter, especially the fact that the reason they seemed to have shut the sites down is because Slick brought it to the boards.

Directnic will never see another registration fee from me. I paid their high registry fees to avoid this kind of irrational actions.

BoyAlley · 12-16-2006, 05:01 PM

And the MikeAI Retard Squad continues its mission!

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Canada

If you really wanted to help Directnic you should really let this just go away.

I couldn't care less about helping Directnic. I do care what a registrar is allowed to do and not do and people's confused misrepresentation of what is legal and illegal.

DavieVegas · 12-16-2006, 05:03 PM

their fucked...leave it at that

BoyAlley · 12-16-2006, 05:04 PM

BTW: For those of you that would like to read an opinion from someone that doesn't know what MikeAI's anus tastes like, here's what the chairman of the Free Speech Coalition has to say about DirectNic:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...view&coid=1014

Here's just one little ditty from the article:

Quote:

They are immune from policing content under the law, but now by doing so they have created liability. DirectNIC is lawlessly intruding into their business.”

jollyperv · 12-16-2006, 05:07 PM

This is gonna be interesting.

TurboAngel · 12-16-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyperv

This is gonna be interesting.

Pleasurepays · 12-16-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

BTW: For those of you that would like to read an opinion from someone that doesn't know what MikeAI's anus tastes like, here's what the chairman of the Free Speech Coalition has to say about DirectNic:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...view&coid=1014

Here's just one little ditty from the article:

you're right. the only valid view point ... is yours. there are no others... because anyone else taking the time to create a very lucid, well thought out, well defended point is obviously "retarded" ... because there is such "genius" in name calling vs. actual discussion based on facts and reality and the complexity of the real issues at hand.

if you have anything to say other than "i dont agree with it and anyone who doesn't agree with me is a retard" then lets hear it. otherwise, you have nothing to say and have done nothing but resort to name calling when someone doesn't agree with you. this isn't the third grade. this is actually a very serious incident with wide ranging implications that people should be considering (not to mention all the fucking idiots who arean't even remotely close to being 2257 compliant anyway)

SO.... someone took the time to put it all together, pull up the laws, explain it and so on and all you can do to refute it is point to the response of a free speech attorney and PR man... why is the opinion of this attorney more valid than the opinions of DirectNIC attorneys?

seems to me, thats something worth discussing.

i dont agree with what Directnic did. I dont think they should be policing people. But people don't want to accept the fact that they are most probably acting well within the law and "their rights" and they need to stop and rethink how they are doing business.

dev777 · 12-16-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

BTW: For those of you that would like to read an opinion from someone that doesn't know what MikeAI's anus tastes like, here's what the chairman of the Free Speech Coalition has to say about DirectNic:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...view&coid=1014

Here's just one little ditty from the article:

I really hope ICANN looks into this.

BoyAlley · 12-16-2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

i dont agree with what Directnic did. I dont think they should be policing people. But people don't want to accept the fact that they are most probably acting well within the law and "their rights" and they need to stop and rethink how they are doing business.

I do believe a lot of people have stopped to think about how they're doing business, and I think many have come to the conclusion that they need to stop doing business with DirectNic.

I honestly don't give a damn whether or not they have the legal right to do what they did. I'll leave that to industry attorneys to decide. All I know, is with policies like theirs, and the way they carry those policies out, I'd think an adult company would have to be out of their mind to have their domains registered with them.

That is, with the exception of people that enjoy feasting upon the Anus of those that run the company........

Webby · 12-16-2006, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Many people on this board have spent the past few days stating that DirectNic, as a registrar, did not have the legal right or authority to take the actions they did. In fact, it has been taken to the point by some that what they did it is in actuality an unconstitutional infringement on Slick?s free speech rights when they apparently arbitrarily shut down Slick?s sites. Further it has been stated that ICANN does not allow Directnic to take the action it did.

The only valid point is what may be decided by a court. If anyone wishes to challenge a registrars "rights" - do so. Your lawyers offices are probably open on Monday morning.

If Slick's lawyers elect to take action, that's his biz based on the specifics of any claim/challenge. I'm sure DirectNic can speak for themselves and if they so desire, produce a politically correct statement to justify their action.

Pissing matches of "opinions" on GFY do not count.

BoyAlley · 12-16-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

I'm sure DirectNic can speak for themselves and if they so desire, produce a politically correct statement to justify their action.

Pissing matches of "opinions" on GFY do not count.

You don't honestly believe sarettah came up with all of that on her own do you? Personally, I don't think so.

spacedog · 12-16-2006, 05:32 PM

I beg to differ. Law is to interpretation & you are nothing but a spinster trying to save someones ass by conveniently twisting the law into non relatitive points to make a flawed case that will not stand up in court.

Matter of fact, maybe this is only a coverup.. since the DirectNic brass have so many friends in adult, how do we know that there isn't some hidden ulterior motive here.. something other that what they claim? On the other hand.. I smell bullshit,, where's the alledged complaint that DirectNic reportedly recieved.. I think this alledged complaint is only a cover up made up to falsely justify DirectNics wrongful actions.

When you have a degree in law, then come back here & make a correct interpretation,, otherwise, leave the interpretation to legal professionals.

Webby · 12-16-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

You don't honestly believe sarettah came up with all of that on her own do you? Personally, I don't think so.

Of course not

We all have our opinions and use them to make whatever appropriate biz decisions - irrespective of GFY help

Pleasurepays · 12-16-2006, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I do believe a lot of people have stopped to think about how they're doing business, and I think many have come to the conclusion that they need to stop doing business with DirectNic.

I honestly don't give a damn whether or not they have the legal right to do what they did. I'll leave that to industry attorneys to decide. All I know, is with policies like theirs, and the way they carry those policies out, I'd think an adult company would have to be out of their mind to have their domains registered with them.

That is, with the exception of people that enjoy feasting upon the Anus of those that run the company........

every issue is going to have two sides. every single one. its the weighing and debating the merits and ups and downs of both that a sound and reasonable conclusion and solution can be reached.

"i'm right and you're retarded" is not a position... and its not a discussion point... and its not even useful. certainly it doesn't help you get your views across.

i don't dissagree with you by the way. i don't have questionable content so i dont really care, but i understand the seriousness of this issue. its just weird watching how you do things. you start with what seem to be good intentions and often start a discussion as a reasonable person... then you quickly devolve into a spiteful, hateful and mean person, slinging insults and wondering why people start tuning out.

you have a gift for doing good. you should focus on that to get your points across instead of trying to accomplish what you feel is "right" by ultimately resorting to childish and offensive behavior.

SmokeyTheBear · 12-16-2006, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Putting it all together, DirectNic was required by law to act on a report of child pornography on a domain registered through them. Directnic was allowed by law to make an investigation and is allowed by law to monitor domains registered through them. In addition to reporting the incident and undertaking their own investigation they were allowed, by authority granted to them through an agreement with ICANN to cancel the accounts as they saw fit.

Nobody is arguing these points..

Anyone is required to report child pornography..

Anyone can launch an investigation of their own

Anyone can moniter services they run

Anyone can refuse to serve anyone.

None of these are the problem.. The problem is when they SUSPEND and HOJACK(i.e. not allow transfer ) service based on allegations with no merit.. Otherwise every adult website is susceptible to be shutoff without warning based on no evidence and the onus is on you to "prove" your innocence every time an allegation is made.

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

You don't honestly believe sarettah came up with all of that on her own do you? Personally, I don't think so.

Sarettah is a he (6'4, 225 oogly as hell he). One of the first things I learned about adult boards was to know who you were talking to, learn about who's around, not just the bigwigs but the little guys too.

Secondly, I am 51 years old and yes I came up with all that on my own. Took a couple of hours of research and, I don't know, an hour or so to write up.

It's a wonder what an education can do for you, ya know.

BoyAlley · 12-16-2006, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

The problem is when they SUSPEND and HOJACK(i.e. not allow transfer ) service based on allegations with no merit.. Otherwise every adult website is susceptible to be shutoff without warning based on no evidence and the onus is on you to "prove" your innocence every time an allegation is made.

Exactly........ This time it's registrars determining whether or not something looks questionably underage, what happens if they start determining whether something might look "obscene"? It's a scary, scary road to start traveling down.

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacedog

you are nothing but a spinster

Damn, my wife was quite surprised to find that out.

BoyAlley · 12-16-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Sarettah is a he (6'4, 225 oogly as hell he).

So why do you use a girl's name? Are you teh gay too?

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

So why do you use a girl's name? Are you teh gay too?

put it next to a mirror.

Captain Canada · 12-16-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

I couldn't care less about helping Directnic. I do care what a registrar is allowed to do and not do and people's confused misrepresentation of what is legal and illegal.

If you seriously think that cut and pasting a few parts of several legal documents gives you the ability to tell others what is legal and what is not legal then you have bigger problems than people have been saying.

spacedog · 12-16-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Damn, my wife was quite surprised to find that out.

Spinster.

That's jargon in legal to refer to someone who makes an invalid reference to statute in an attempt to sway opinion in their favor even though the interpretation was erroneous. aka spin doctor.

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Canada

If you seriously think that cut and pasting a few parts of several legal documents gives you the ability to tell others what is legal and what is not legal then you have bigger problems than people have been saying.

When you want to know what a law says, you read it. Those aren't just legal documents, they are the actual laws and the agreement that are in question.

As far as your cut and paste comment, I could almost ignore that except that it proves that you are too stupid to actually read something before making comment on it.

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacedog

Spinster.

That's jargon in legal to refer to someone who makes an invalid reference to statute in an attempt to sway opinion in their favor even though the interpretation was erroneous. aka spin doctor.

Oh, ok. Gotcha. I try not to play spin but I don't think anyone that holds an opinion can completely remove the spin from their arguments.

Captain Canada · 12-16-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

When you want to know what a law says, you read it. Those aren't just legal documents, they are the actual laws and the agreement that are in question.

My goodness - of course if you want to know what a law says you read it - congratulations on figuring that out. However reading a law and interpreting that law requires going to court - as you might know several laws are seen to mean many different things by many different courts.

But please, continue on educating the masses with your legal scholarship.

Nookster · 12-16-2006, 06:01 PM

Gee, I wonder why you're defending them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by whois

ICANN Registrar: INTERCOSMOS MEDIA GROUP, INC. D/B/A DIRECTNIC.COM

BoyAlley · 12-16-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

put it next to a mirror.

You're muslim? I'd rather be a fag.

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE · 12-16-2006, 06:02 PM

And I see this story hasn't stopped yet....

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

You're muslim? I'd rather be a fag.

lolololol.... It is hatteras spelled backwards you fucking ditz. Hatteras as in the island off the North Carolina coast as in my email address at hatteras designs.

MicroChick · 12-16-2006, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Sarettah is a he (6'4, 225 oogly as hell he). One of the first things I learned about adult boards was to know who you were talking to, learn about who's around, not just the bigwigs but the little guys too.

Secondly, I am 51 years old and yes I came up with all that on my own. Took a couple of hours of research and, I don't know, an hour or so to write up.

It's a wonder what an education can do for you, ya know.

sarettah, go back to O Prano and kiss Gonzo's ass. You are not an attorney. You are a bored old fart with too much time on your hands. You could have added a post to Mike or Slicks threads. But you had to bring your same bullshit from O Prano to GFY and preach to us as though you were some kind of expert. Go home, sarettah. You are not adding anything new to the directnic story.

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nookster

Gee, I wonder why you're defending them?

Because I do not feel that they did anything wrong, pure and simple. I will support anyone that legally takes action against the type of apparently illegal content that I saw in the thumbs (not the links, the thumbs) when I looked at one of the pages when this all came up.

From my viewpoint, what I saw was a prepubescent minor in an explicit sexual scene. If what I saw was a model over 18, then it was indistinguishable from what it was trying to depict.

Just because you are not required to take what action you can when you see something wrong does not mean you shouldn't take what action you can.

If we all just do the minimum of what is required we will be a bunch of mediocre idiots. I hate mediocrity. I fully believe that we all need to try to do the best we can do in this world, not just the minimum to get by.

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MicroChick

sarettah, go back to O Prano and kiss Gonzo's ass. You are not an attorney. You are a bored old fart with too much time on your hands. You could have added a post to Mike or Slicks threads. But you had to bring your same bullshit from O Prano to GFY and preach to us as though you were some kind of expert. Go home, sarettah. You are not adding anything new to the directnic story.

Fuck off confucy you shriveled old crone. Go back and kiss Brad's ass and leave me alone.

Captain Canada · 12-16-2006, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Fuck off confucy you shriveled old crone.

Are you really 51 years old?

Brujah · 12-16-2006, 06:23 PM

Always saying nothing.

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Canada

Are you really 51 years old?

Yeah, but confucy's like 500 or so. If you look at her you'll turn to stone.

Nookster · 12-16-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Because I do not feel that they did anything wrong, pure and simple. I will support anyone that legally takes action against the type of apparently illegal content that I saw in the thumbs (not the links, the thumbs) when I looked at one of the pages when this all came up.

From my viewpoint, what I saw was a prepubescent minor in an explicit sexual scene. If what I saw was a model over 18, then it was indistinguishable from what it was trying to depict.

Just because you are not required to take what action you can when you see something wrong does not mean you shouldn't take what action you can.

If we all just do the minimum of what is required we will be a bunch of mediocre idiots. I hate mediocrity. I fully believe that we all need to try to do the best we can do in this world, not just the minimum to get by.

Do you even know what they requested?? If you did know, and realized they were violating a federal law by requesting it, you would stfu. All they were required to do, by law, was report it. Plain and simple. Once you know what you're talking about, come back and add something new.

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nookster

Do you even know what they requested?? If you did know, and realized they were violating a federal law by requesting it, you would stfu. All they were required to do, by law, was report it. Plain and simple. Once you know what you're talking about, come back and add something new.

I know what they were requesting and whoever has been saying the request was illegal are wrong. I have that from a lawyer. They did not ask for information that was forbidden under federal privacy laws because they only wanted the picture and dob, nothing else.

Oh, if I am wrong, please point me to the law they violated by requesting the information.

Nookster · 12-16-2006, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

I know what they were requesting and whoever has been saying the request was illegal are wrong. I have that from a lawyer. They did not ask for information that was forbidden under federal privacy laws because they only wanted the picture and dob, nothing else.

Oh, if I am wrong, please point me to the law they violated by requesting the information.

If you can't realize that one you should seriously just leave before your ass gets ripped open even further.

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nookster

If you can't realize that one you should seriously just leave before your ass gets ripped open even further.

If you mean 2257, forget it. They did not violate anything in 2257.

Point me to the law that was broken, explain how it was broken, then it will be worth something but just claiming a law was broken, insulting and trying to tell me how to handle myself on gfy is all bullshit.

bl4h · 12-16-2006, 06:45 PM

"slicksnetwork" is a bigger danger to this industry than directnic , by far !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Webby · 12-16-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Fuck off confucy you shriveled old crone. Go back and kiss Brad's ass and leave me alone.

Pointless wasting time on this since there is no basis/evidence to evaluate anything and we are neither law enforcement or lawyers...

1) You are not an attorney and not qualified to give any legal advice.

2) Unless you have seen the actual complaint in full detail, name and address of the complainant, the actual content on which the complaint is based, together with any further background information - you know nothing about the complaint or if this exists.

3) Unless you are privy to the legal strategy of lawyers acting on behalf of DirectNic, you have no idea why they may have elected to act in the manner they did, nor what laws they considered when electing to close down domains without any apparent legal process or law enforcement involvement.

4) You know nothing of the results of any investigation about the "apparent illegality". The qualified authority for establishing the fact of any illegality are law enforcement and their lawyers - a qualified authority does not include domain registrars, members of the public, my dog or the president of the US.

Simply put - you are messing in shit you know nothing about - pointless thread.

FetishTom · 12-16-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

.. The problem is when they SUSPEND and HOJACK(i.e. not allow transfer ) service based on allegations with no merit.. Otherwise every adult website is susceptible to be shutoff without warning based on no evidence and the onus is on you to "prove" your innocence every time an allegation is made.

As the point at issue has now been clearly made can we stop with the "Directnic were well within their rights blah blah"

Just a thought

MicroChick · 12-16-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Pointless wasting time on this since there is no basis/evidence to evaluate anything and we are neither law enforcement or lawyers...

1) You are not an attorney and not qualified to give any legal advice.

2) Unless you have seen the actual complaint in full detail, name and address of the complainant, the actual content on which the complaint is based, together with any further background information - you know nothing about the complaint or if this exists.

3) Unless you are privy to the legal strategy of lawyers acting on behalf of DirectNic, you have no idea why they may have elected to act in the manner they did, nor what laws they considered when electing to close down domains without any apparent legal process or law enforcement involvement.

4) You know nothing of the results of any investigation about the "apparent illegality". The qualified authority for establishing the fact of any illegality are law enforcement and their lawyers - a qualified authority does not include domain registrars, members of the public, my dog or the president of the US.

Simply put - you are messing in shit you know nothing about - pointless thread.

So well said, thank you.

MicroChick · 12-16-2006, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Fuck off confucy you shriveled old crone. Go back and kiss Brad's ass and leave me alone.

Now, Sarettah. Be nice. Go back to you wife's website and sell some of that jewelry the two of you have carefully made for all the webmasters. I'll buy a necklace if you promise to stay on O Prano and behave yourself.

Bossman · 12-16-2006, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

Otherwise every adult website is susceptible to be shutoff without warning based on no evidence and the onus is on you to "prove" your innocence every time an allegation is made.

Isn´t that the whole point of the 2257 rules? That the burden of proof is with the website owner? And that the lack of 2257 is evidence something is wrong - especially if the website theme is borderline CP, and even have links to other CP sites?

Also it is not "every adult site", which have to worry... no one is going to check if some granny porn star is of legal age. Sure they might check, but the risk of someone wanting to check the IDs is alot higher with teen sites.

The problem got out of hand, when Slick posted it here on GFY, and a few people started to spin it, and attacked DN with it. DN had just asked for the IDs. The same happens with domains accused of spamming, if a registrar receives a few complaints, then he will ask the owner. Of course the risk of getting closed down grows with the risk the registrar have to take. It is simply business. If the registrar receives alot of spam complaints, then they will just close the domain, and when Slick went public, then the risk the registrar had to take grew tremendously that someone outside the company would use it to attack them.

And what would have happende to Slick and his family, if suddenly there were a report at the FBI for CP? The system is not unbiased - just the last year of cases in the adult industry should teach people that.

Bottomline - a few people do not like DN or they were shocked to learn about a registrar who actual responded to a CP complaint, and they used Slick to attack DN, but in doing so they made the risk go up for both Slick and DN.

12-16-2006, 04:48 PM	#1
sarettah see you later, I'm gone Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 14,054	DirectNics legal rights in relation to its recent actions Many people on this board have spent the past few days stating that DirectNic, as a registrar, did not have the legal right or authority to take the actions they did. In fact, it has been taken to the point by some that what they did it is in actuality an unconstitutional infringement on Slick?s free speech rights when they apparently arbitrarily shut down Slick?s sites. Further it has been stated that ICANN does not allow Directnic to take the action it did. None of it is true. Directnic had the authority to take the action it did. It was not required to do all that it did, but it definitely had the right both through U.S. law and their agreement with ICANN. First some definitions. According to the U.S. code an electronic communications service means ?any service which provides to users the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications? (US Title 18 section 2510 definitions paragraph 15). It further defines a remote computing service as the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system. (US Code 18 section 2711 paragraph 2) . DirectNic, as a registrar, can be considered both an electronic communications service and a remote computing service. It facilitates the sending and receiving of electronic communication because it stores the all-important location of the A record for the DNS system that makes the Internet work. Without this information the DNS system would not be able to locate the name server for a site. It also stores and allows access to the public of its whois database therefore making it an electronic communications system. US Code Title 42 Chapter 132 subchapter 4 states that any electronic communications service or remote computing service is required if it obtains knowledge of facts or circumstances from which any violation of section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, or 2260 of title 18, involving child pornography (as defined in section 2256 of that title), or a violation of section 1466A of that title. Is apparent. It also states that the electronics communications service or remote communications service is not required to investigate the occurrence nor is it required to monitor the services for violations. However, it does clearly state that the electronics communications service or remote computing service may investigate the incident if they so choose: (d) Limitation of information or material required in report a report under subsection (b)(1) of this section may include additional information or material developed by an electronic communication service or remote computing service, except that the Federal Government may not require the production of such information or material in that report. The definition of child pornography in US title 2256 is: 8) "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where - (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. US Title 18 section 2256 paragraph 8 The definition of indistinguishable according to US Title 18 section 2256 is: (11) the term "indistinguishable" used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults. US Title 18 section 2256 paragraph 11 So, clearly, in the eyes of US law, DirectNic had to make a report if they received a complaint of possible child pornography on a domain that was registered through their service and they were allowed, if they so chose, to make an additional investigation to accompany the report. Failure to make the report could cost them up to $50,000.00. They then further investigated and I imagine their first step was to look at the site in question. From the reaction on this board when all the directnic stuff broke earlier this week, many people posting clearly thought they were looking at actual minors thereby meeting the definition of indistinguishable as outlined above. At that point they attempted to further investigate by requesting proof of age from the domain holder. Each registrar draws its authority to assign domain names through a registrar agreement with ICANN. In the registration agreement, ICANN outlines the minimum requirements that a registrar must take to be in compliance with the agreement. (ICANN registrar agreement). Within this agreement is 1 section that deals with the registrars business dealings with registrants. Paragrapgh 3.7.7.11 states that ?The Registered Name Holder shall agree that its registration of the Registered Name shall be subject to suspension, cancellation, or transfer pursuant to any ICANN adopted specification or policy, or pursuant to any registrar or registry procedure not inconsistent with an ICANN adopted specification or policy". ICANN clearly indicates that the registrar is allowed to adopt any procedures they want regarding cancellation as long as they are not inconsistent with ICANN?s policies. Further, in section 3.7.7.3 the agreement clearly establishes that there are ?wrongful uses? for a domain name, although it does not specify what those wrongful uses are. "Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name. A Registered Name Holder licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the Registered Name, unless it promptly discloses the identity of the licensee to a party providing the Registered Name Holder reasonable evidence of actionable harm." ICANN, through this agreement clearly grants the registrar authority to create the policies that it feels are needed to properly administer their service as long as those policies do not collide with ICANN policy. So DirectNic draws the authority to shut down the domains based on a report of cp from the ICANN agreement most assuredly. Putting it all together, DirectNic was required by law to act on a report of child pornography on a domain registered through them. Directnic was allowed by law to make an investigation and is allowed by law to monitor domains registered through them. In addition to reporting the incident and undertaking their own investigation they were allowed, by authority granted to them through an agreement with ICANN to cancel the accounts as they saw fit. Now I?ll just wait for the Ghey Boy and his rainbow entourage to come in and play their whiny drama queen game. __________________ All cookies cleared!

12-16-2006, 04:50 PM	#2
scottybuzz Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Location: NY Posts: 14,800	Lets hear it for the Sig Spot! __________________ $$$$$ MAKE HUGE MONEY IN CAMS - CLICK HERE $$$$$

12-16-2006, 04:53 PM	#4
Evil1 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 3,893	hey, im straight and not part of any rainbow entourage but directnic can choke on a big gay cock. Thats like me citizens arresting someone who walked by the front of my house cause they looked like they commited a crime. I'd be sued. as they should be __________________

12-16-2006, 04:57 PM	#5
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	They might legally have the right to do what they did..However with very little research needed on their end, they could have realized he was using FHG's that had 2257 info. They showed extremely bad judgment on this entire matter, especially the fact that the reason they seemed to have shut the sites down is because Slick brought it to the boards. Directnic will never see another registration fee from me. I paid their high registry fees to avoid this kind of irrational actions. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

12-16-2006, 05:03 PM	#8
DavieVegas Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 6,116	their fucked...leave it at that __________________ SKYPE#: davievegas - email: ddmedia702[at]mail[.]com

12-16-2006, 04:52 PM	#3
Captain Canada Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 469	If you really wanted to help Directnic you should really let this just go away.

12-16-2006, 05:01 PM	#6
BoyAlley So Fucking Gay Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 19,714	And the MikeAI Retard Squad continues its mission!

12-16-2006, 05:07 PM	#10
jollyperv Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 3,927	This is gonna be interesting.

12-16-2006, 05:32 PM	#17
spacedog Yes that IS me. Bitch. Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 14,149	I beg to differ. Law is to interpretation & you are nothing but a spinster trying to save someones ass by conveniently twisting the law into non relatitive points to make a flawed case that will not stand up in court. Matter of fact, maybe this is only a coverup.. since the DirectNic brass have so many friends in adult, how do we know that there isn't some hidden ulterior motive here.. something other that what they claim? On the other hand.. I smell bullshit,, where's the alledged complaint that DirectNic reportedly recieved.. I think this alledged complaint is only a cover up made up to falsely justify DirectNics wrongful actions. When you have a degree in law, then come back here & make a correct interpretation,, otherwise, leave the interpretation to legal professionals.

12-16-2006, 06:02 PM	#33
Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE North Coast Pimp Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: 304-534-757 Posts: 9,395	And I see this story hasn't stopped yet....

12-16-2006, 06:23 PM	#39
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	Always saying nothing. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

12-16-2006, 06:45 PM	#45
bl4h Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 1,282	"slicksnetwork" is a bigger danger to this industry than directnic , by far !!!!!!!!!!!!!!