Gandi Bar - Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - Comments

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:46:42 +0200

Kouiskas, I understand your concern. This is one fact that we are very wall aware of Indeed, we get a couple of complaints a week where I need to explain to the person who received the spam that the header was forged.

We perform a wide range of tests before any action is taken, and know precisely what needs to be done, or not. This process goes as far as contacting the domain owner personally and discussing the issue with them directly.

Blocking domains when used for spam is not flawed, it just requires that the registrar take a responsible attitude and not behave like wild west cowboys, shooting at the first thing that moves. Whether the domain is used as a fast flux nameserver that is used in connection with a botnet of hijacked machines, or one that is registered with the stolen identity of grandma, these are things that come up in our investigations...or not.

We don't make mistakes in this area, because of how completely we understand the nature of spam and domain abuse, and because our investigations are thorough and well-documented.

But don't just take my word on it! I invite you to refer to CNET, that concluded that Gandi is one of the two registrars that "...offer(s) the most extensive guarantees against unnecessary domain name suspension."

http://www.gandibar.net/post/2007/0...

Thanks for keeping this important debate alive!

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - kouiskas

kouiskas — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 06:55:10 +0200

I'm afraid blocking domains from a domain registrar's perspective is flawed by nature in regards to spam. I've seen spammers forge the source address of their emails as coming from one of my domains, which is really easy to do. I don't use gandi's email system for my domains, so how can gandi tell that these spam messages came from my mail server or not?

In my hosting configuration I could have a different server for inbound and outbound email, so from the information gandi has about the domain configuration (most likely my inbound email server), gandi can't guess whether the IP(s) these emails are coming from are mine or not.

My point is that the source email address in any email can be forged very easily. So there is no point in punishing the owner of the domain used in that source. If the spam message contains a link to a child pornography website whose domain is controlled by gandi, then yes it makes perfectly sense to block that one. But punishing the owner of a domain which is used as some spam's source email address is nonsense.

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - prad

prad — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:38:57 +0200

i appreciate gandi's responsible attitude to improper behaviour and the excellent comments by ryan and KyferEz.

the line between free speech and free screech really need not be as murky as some seem to wish it to be.

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 08:33:18 +0100

Hello BL169-GANDI,

We also use a new-fangled VOIP technology for our telephone, so I do understand what you are talking about! There too, however, you can see what I have been trying to say... As you can see, your domain has not been suspended simply because I could not reach you by telephone (unlike: http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/2... ). Why? well, because I can reach you by e-mail, this forum, by mail, etc...

Of course, you might nonetheless consider changing the telephone number in your whois to one that works better, since, that is still the quickest way to contact you in the event of an emergency.

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - Casino

Casino — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:11:17 +0100

It ultimately comes down to the TOS that the user agrees to. Just like there are hosts that allow porn, there are those that do not.. so is the same for registrars: some are more leniant and open to content than others.

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - Pedophile Expert

Pedophile Expert — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:31:29 +0100

I learned about Gandi from the CNET survey. I am visiting to find out the outlets for maximum free speech available on the net. Gandi seemed like a superior candidate provider of an internet named identity for an entity seeking uncensored speech.

I find statements by KyferEz and Cyborg disturbing and precisely the attitude and thought process against which Gandi and all registrars should be vigilant. Questions- mere questions about Gandi's policies - led to thinly veiled accusations and suspicions of illegal and criminal intent. Suggesting the solution that Gandi allow governments and courts to determine what is and is not legal rather than assume that responsibility themselves was met with the accusation that the petitioner must then *want* to see child porn and phishing on the net. Cyborg suggested that people who fear government usually are doing something they should not be doing or are paranoid. The claim was made that knowledge of illegal activity requires a party to report the activity or stand responsible for the continuation of the activity, and, statements are made such as " support criminal activity by not acting on abuse reports." And finally, petitioners were told, if you don't like Gandi's policies, go elsewhere.

Militant ethnocentrics use such tactics in shaping government and corporate policies.

One of the founding principles of the United States at least is that all people should fear all governments. Gandi's position is that it serves customers so it is completely proper for customers to petition Gandi to change what the customer does not like before "going elsewhere". Tagging people with desires to allow child pornography on the net is clearly inflamatory and in the face of absolutely no affirmative evidence of such is also clearly negligent, reckless, or purposely McCarthyism. I do not know the laws of France, but in many jurisdictions knowledge of illegal activity does not require reporting of illegal activity - in many neighborhoods, reporting local crimes is a quick way to death.

Judgements about legal vs. illegal activity are finally decided by judicial processes, legal judgments by non-judicial processes are guesses. Obviously, such processes are slow to act in many cases such as copyright violations. In cases of real child pornography or terrorist activity, law enforcement and judicial processes can and do work very quickly. Obviously, society and governments have the capability of assigning priority and relative importance and they have done so.

For individuals entities to make such decisions is to usurp the place of the state with the paradigms and epistemes of private entities. Individuals and companies can and do make similar judgements about what they do and do not support. What is not mandated by law and ICANN agreements is regulated by Gandi's choice. The question that has now been brought up by Ryan's initial post and subsequent comments here is how much free speech Gandi intends to service.

Ryan apparently cites "morally objectionable" content as an example of illegal, fraudulent, or prejudicial activity. PM906-GANDI then opines its concern with morality as within Gandi's proper purview. I searched the Gandi general and domain name specific TOS for the word moral and found no such occurrence. Compliance with law is part of the TOS, controlling spam is there too, morality is not explicitly declared. (My guess was that morality was omitted for a reason.)

Morality is generally considered the area of distinction between what is right and what is wrong and these concepts are known to be locally decided. Internet registrars serve so many localities that any reference to morality is therefore highly problematic...to use KyferEz's terms, morality on the world net is impractical to consider or enforce or judge with any sense of integrity except to a particular local set of rules. Local rules are antithetical to the conceptual space created by the internet's unique ability to connect and confuse regions.

This is the dynamic at play in regards to website content as well. I produce and distribute content related to pedophilia and childhood sexuality that is truthful as judged by numerous peer reviewed scientific journals based in various countries across decades of past research. However, these truths are not accepted by 98% of the Western public. The content, even content which has already been published in medical literature, is routinely censored, maligned, and removed from all manner of internet facilities due to "moral objection", "accusation of illegality", "TOS violation", or "harmful to minors".

The agent cause of such actions is almost always a complaint lodged by self-appointed moral vigilantees who pressure internet providers into making a politically correct choice to "save the children" under threat of public exposure for "assisting immoral actions".

Individuals and companies can and do make similar judgements about what they do and do not support. What is not mandated by law and ICANN agreements is regulated by Gandi's choice.

The question here now is how much free speech Gandi intends to service? I am not yet convinced that Ryan meant to say Gandi was now in the business of adjudicating what is moral. He started this post announcing a commitment to fight spam. Spam is considered illegal in many Western jurisdictions and I would guess otherwise as well. But there are many immoral laws in the view of many communities, e.g. anti-etuhenasia laws, prohibitions of medicinal use of marijuana.

But let's assume Ryan is in fact accurately stating a corporate decision by Gandi to terminate service that may abet immoral behavior. PM906-GANDI in effect asks, since Ryan is declaring for the first time that morality with its requisite reliance on local rules will be a criteria for service, what is the local set of morality rules Gandi will use?

I am looking for a registrar who understand's Ibsen's Enemy of the People.

"The minority is always in the right.....The majority never has right on its side. Never, I
say! That is one of these social lies against which an
independent, intelligent man must wage war. Who is it that
constitute the majority of the population in a country? Is it the
clever folk, or the stupid? I don't imagine you will dispute the
fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely
overwhelming majority all the world over. But, good Lord!--you
can never pretend that it is right that the stupid folk should
govern the clever ones I (Uproar and cries.) Oh, yes--you can
shout me down, I know! But you cannot answer me. The majority has
might on its side--unfortunately; but right it has not. I am in
the right--I and a few other scattered individuals. The minority
is always in the right.........I propose to raise a revolution against
the lie that the majority
has the monopoly of the truth. What sort of truths are they that
the majority usually supports? They are truths that are of such
advanced age that they are beginning to break up. And if a truth
is as old as that, it is also in a fair way to become a lie,
gentlemen.....The truths of which the masses now
approve are the very truths that the fighters at the outposts
held to in the days of our grandfathers. We fighters at the
outposts nowadays no longer approve of them; and I do not believe
there is any other well-ascertained truth except this, that no
community can live a healthy life if it is nourished only on such
old marrowless truths."

Now that Ryan has declared morality as a criteria Gandi will use to determine service, I am hoping it will find its way to become the strongest registrar in the world by becoming the registrar that stands most alone in supporting the speech of the smallest minority view unless that activity is illegal, fraudulent, or prejudicial.

Amorality is not immorality, and it may be the most moral stance on the internet.

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - BL169-GANDI

BL169-GANDI — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:34:07 +0100

Ryan, our phone number is correct. The problem is this new-fangled VOIP technology. We continue to own the number and it mostly works. Sometimes though, it doesn't, and we have to figure out silly workarounds like "if you call out first, incoming calls will start working again, so call out every few hours." We also lose business then, but more frustrating is the work involved in getting the crap to work, as well as potential problems like ya'll sticking us through the suspension process.

KyferEz, the suggestion that the price of liberty is eternal vigilence came before Wendell Phillips. John Philpot Curran is usually given credit for this in a 1790 speech, though it likely came before him. You should probably start correcting internet people to the Curran quote, because Curran was massively funnier than Phillips.

Cyborg, PM906 and I are using our Gandi IDs, which are significantly more informative than any other user name posted here. If you look that up you can start finding out all kinds of things about me, like the fact that I'm one of the first people to collect money suing spammers (http://smallclaim.info) or that I work on pot legalization initiatives (http://sensibleseattle.org) and festivals (http://hempfest.org), or that the man sometimes messes with me (http://inwa.net/~ben/trespass/). Your suggestion that nobody should fear their government if they are doing nothing illegal -- well, I'll let that stand on its own.

Thanks again, Gandi.

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - PM906-GANDI

PM906-GANDI — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:10:46 +0100

> Don't spam, it is not nice.

I agree. In fact, I choose to do business with an [ISP][1] that [sues spammers][2].

References:

[1]: http://inwa.net/
[2]: http://smallclaim.info/

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - PM906-GANDI

PM906-GANDI — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:03:08 +0100

cyborg wrote:

> does anyone else think BL169-GANDI's screenname is familiar [ahem:
> PM906-GANDI]. So both people didn't provide a real Name and are both
> arguing the same thing.

If they look familiar, Mr. cyborg (if that's really your name), it's
probably because they both look like the [Gandi-assigned handles][1]
that Gandi customers use.

> I just wanted to comment on your statement "we fear our government."
> If you fear your government, then you obviously have some reason to
> fear them.

I agree, and I'll list some reasons for you:

[Amnesty International stated last year][2] that over the past five years,
they have seen the United States "engage in systematic violations of
international law" including:

* Secret detention
* Enforced disappearance
* Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
* Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating treatment
* Denial and restriction of [habeas corpus][3]
* Indefinite detention without charge or trial
* Prolonged incommunicado detention
* Arbitrary detention
* Unfair trial procedures

And since George W. Bush signed the [Military Commissions Act of
2006][4], we in the United states:

* Allow torture (or rather, our President gets to say what is torture
and what is not)
* Do not have to abide by the Geneva Conventions
* Can grab non-Americans from anywhere and hold them indefinitely,
without charge, without access to a judge or an attorney, based
simply on accusations. (No more innocent until proven guilty -- it's
guilty if we say so, and we don't have to tell you what you're guilty
of.)
* Can label anyone, including Americans, to be an "enemy combatant" if
he is found to have "knowingly provided material support" to a
terrorist, or if a military tribunal (a board of at least three
officers) simply says that he is an enemy combatant.

So, yes, we and everyone else have good reason to fear the United
States government.

References:

[1]: http://www.gandi.net/faq/tutorial/6...
[2]: http://web.amnesty.org/library/inde...
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas...
[4]: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query...

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - PM906-GANDI

PM906-GANDI — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:43:05 +0100

In response to KyferEz's comments:

KE> It is clear that Ghandi is not overstepping any of their obligations
KE> in removing domains used for illegal activity."

PM> I contend that it is not Gandi's responsibility to judge the legality of
PM> their clients' actions. I don't know how it works in France, but in
PM> some nations, guilt in the eyes of the law is determined by a judge, and
PM> when individual citizens determine guilt and impose punishment, it is
PM> called vigilantism.

KE> They are not judging your actions so much as they are following
KE> precedent where it comes to clearly defined laws being broken.

If someone comes to Gandi and says, "Your client is acting illegally,"
and in response, Gandi says, "Yes, it appears that our client is acting
illegally," then yes, they have judged the client's actions. In this
case, I feel it is okay for Gandi to decline to renew service at the end
of the term that was agreed upon. I do not feel that it is okay for
Gandi to suspend the client's domain as some sort of retaliatory or
punative action. It's just not their place to do so.

Violations of previously-agreed-upon terms of service are a different
situation altogether.

PM> This is roughly what I would like to hear from a domain registrar:
PM> "[...] In the event that we are forced by court order to immediately
PM> discontinue your service, we will do so and immediately notify you of
PM> such action."

KE> "It is _beyond_ impractical for registrars to obtain court orders to
KE> suspend domains, and to suggest such is _absurd_. "

PM> I never said that a registrar should obtain a court order in order to
PM> suspend a domain. Please re-read my comment.

KE> No, not in those exact terms, but it certainly sounds as if that is what
KE> you would prefer.

Well, since I did not suggest it, please do not accuse me of having done
so. I still believe that it is not Gandi's place to judge guilt and
impose punitive action, as I do not believe in vigilante justice.

Of course Gandi does not need to obtain a court order to discontinue
service to its customer. I would like for Gandi to state that if they
*choose* to discontinue service to a customer for reasons other than the
customer violating terms of service, they will either complete the term
of service and decline to renew, or assist to some reasonable degree
with transfer to a different registrar. Agreeing to provide a service,
then saying, "Oh, we don't like what you're doing, so we'll take
whatever action we can (regardless of agreements we made with you) to
stop you from doing what you are doing", just doesn't seem ethical to
me. In the case of a court order, Gandi would not be choosing anything.

KE> I've said it once about court orders, and I'll say it again as it
KE> applies here too: If you knew _anything_ about how rampant domain
KE> abuse is, you wouldn't suggest such things unless you want to host a
KE> criminal site or want the internet unusably littered by rampant
KE> amounts of illegal drug, spam, and child porn sites.

That is incorrect. My opinion of whether or not a court order is good
reason for a domain registrar to take action is not affected by whether
or not I know anything about the rampancy of "domain abuse". That said,
I'm still waiting for someone to define "domain abuse".

KyferEz's attitude is troubling. Many people express similar sentiments
when it comes to police combating crime. How does this sound: "If you
only knew how bad crime is in my neighborhood, you would never suggest
that law enforcement officers should obtain a search warrant before
entering the home of someone accused of crime." I do not wish to live
in a police state.

KE> "Ghandi not only sells your the domain name, but they also use their
KE> servers to resolve the domain name to the host."

PM> I think this is only the case if they provide DNS for a domain.

Does anyone care to respond to this? Are Gandi's DNS servers involved
if a domain registered through them uses a third-party DNS service?

KE> If Ghandi can prevent an illegal site from being accessed, then they
KE> have a responsibility to take action. It would be different if they
KE> sold the domain to you but were not responsible for it resolving

...such as would be the case if someone registered a domain with Gandi
then opted not to use Gandi's DNS servers. Also, Gandi doesn't sell
domains (no one can own a domain prior to it's creation by registration)
they simply register them.

KE> Using your own Trademark comparison, if a trademark was revoked for
KE> some reason, you would not be refunded the fees used to obtain said
KE> trademark.

Please don't resort to straw-man arguments. I never said anything about
whether a fee should be refunded when a domain registrar (or trademark
registry, etc.) elects to discontinue service to a customer. The point
that I attempted to make (in response to Ryan's statement about Gandi's
responsibility to police Web sites) is that whoever maintains the
registry of names of organizations is not responsible for the actions of
those organizations.

> Registrars don't necessarily own the domain, however they do provide
> services for it, and can suspend that service at any time

This doesn't even make sense. Gandi makes it very clear that their
customers own domains and that they are simply an intermediary. I don't
know what it means to "provide services for a domain" besides responding
to requests for information about the owner of the domain and to requests
for the name servers for a domain.

Let's go back to one of my previous questions: Should a utility company
providing electricity turn off a customer's electricity because he was
accused of committing some crime that is only tangentially related to
the use of electricity? What about the postal service? Should the local
transportation department be obligated to come and break up the road
leading to a place at which they have been told that inappropriate activity
occurs? It's all absurd.

Gandi is a domain registrar. I believe that their obligation to police
their clients actions ends with actions directly related to domain
registration (and WHOIS data, etc.). The content of a Web site hosted
on a computer using an IP address to which a host name within a
Gandi-registered domain resolves is no more Gandi's business that it is
the business of the operator of the equipment used to build the road to
the location at which the computer is located.

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:52:28 +0100

Wow guys, there is a lot to comment on!

I apologize for not jumping in sooner, but we've been quite busy in the Customer Care Department, and I have a load of botnets that are in the middle of investigation...

Put simply, I will say this: Gandi.net is in France, and as such our business activity is governed by French law (copyright, intellectual rights, etc.). We are also an ICANN-accredited registrar, and so in that respect we must adhere to the terms and conditions of our contract with the registries, and the governing principles of our ICANN accreditation.

What makes us different from other registrars is the people here at Gandi. We are not machines with boolean filters in our brains that say something like:

IF (SPAMRATING >= 2.129) KILL DOMAIN;

...rather, we look at a complaint and say, "Is this really a spam? Who says it is spam? Why is it spam? Is the domain in violation of our T&C? If we continue to allow the domain to be registered with us does that put us in violation of French law? Does the domain adhere to ICANN rules for registrar accreditation? etc.

There are many questions that I ask for each complaint I receive, simply because I am not a robot. If ever, *ever*, I hesitate in a case, the first thing I do is call the person (by the way BL, your telephone number in the whois did not work this morning ), and will call a meeting with Gandi's management to discuss the case, even our lawyer, because I always give our customers the benefit of the doubt.

Everyone is looking for a "black and white" answer to the question "When does Gandi suspend a domain"... I will say this, "the world is full of colors, and we're not trigger happy...each case is very carefully examined (in its content, within its context, with regards to French law and our ICANN accreditation, etc.) and well documented (so that we can prove to all that a suspension was justified) before any action is taken, so unless you are a spammer, fear not!

P.S. Don't spam, it is not nice.

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - cyborg

cyborg — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:09:29 +0100

Humm, does anyone else think BL169-GANDI's screenname is familiar [ahem: PM906-GANDI]. So both people didn't provide a real Name and are both arguing the same thing. Go figure.

PM, I mean BL (haha ), I just wanted to comment on your statement "we fear our government." If you fear your government, then you obviously have some reason to fear them. Usually someone that fears their government is either doing something they shouldn't, or is a bit paranoid. If the former is the case, I suggest you either stop doing what is causing you to fear them, or move to a country that doesn't make you fearful!

cyborg

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - KyferEz

KyferEz — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:34:08 +0100

BL wrote:
" I am grateful for the questions posed by PM906 and would also like to see further discussion. The responses by KyferEz are unhelpful. Suggesting that PM906 wants to host illegal content completely ignores his (legitimate) concerns. He clearly explained that his concerns are related to politics and national boundaries. I have similar concerns."

My Reply:
If you read my last response, dated Friday 16 February 2007, 18:56, you will see I clearly answered ALL of the questions posed by PM. It is likely that you made your post before mine was available (there several days lag before posts are visible after being made), so I won't fault you for this reply, however, most people who wage war with spammers on a daily basis would agree that PM sounds like someone interested in using Gandi's services for questionable purposes... I simply called him out on it to see his response, which was reasonable, unlike a typical spammer.

BL wrote:
" We are a local internet service provider based in the United States. We have for some time directed our customers to Gandi because of their belief that a customer owns their domain. Many registrars believe that they own their customers' domains."

My reply:
Registrars don't necessarily own the domain, however they do provide services for it, and can suspend that service at any time. If that domain was used for illegal purposes, especially if the domain was purchased using stolen CC information, then the registrar does acutally own the domain, as it was never legally purchased. As such, they have the right to suspend and lock out transfers and updates.

BL wrote:
" Many of our customers are progressive political activists. In some countries, some of the web sites we host might be considered illegal because of their political content. In some countries, some of the web sites we host might be considered illegal because they parody copyrighted content. This is protected to some degree in the United States, but as PM906 points out, things change."

My reply:
This sort of situation was responded to by me in my last post dated Friday 16 February 2007, 18:56. Here it is again:

"Like I said, laws "...in their nation or other nations they do business in." should be followed. Lets take the Pirate Bay example. Note I don't speak for Gandi in the following, but this is my opinion of how it should work. Ryan, will you clarify your stand?:
If a registrar was subject to copyright laws by their nation (or by a treaty their nation entered into) then they should abide by those laws or treaties. If there are not under such laws, and the user of the registrar's service was not in a country under any copyright laws either, they there is no reason to abide by another country's laws. However, if the user (the person who registered the domain, not some person browsing the site) of their service is under those copyright laws, then copyright laws should be enforced. If a registrar was under copyright laws, but not the user, the copyright laws should still be enforced. In Pirate Bay's case, neither user nor hosts are under copyright laws, and neither should be required to abide by those laws. As I've said, this is how those things should work, but may not be Gandi's stand."

Read the prior posting for full context.

BL wrote:
" This is the second reason we direct our customers to Gandi: we fear our government. We think french soil might protect us more than the United States constitution and legal system, both of which are under constant attack by forces that oppose the progressive agenda advanced by our company and our customers."

My reply:
I won't argue with that. Certainly RIAA and MPAA are just two such "forces" at work in the USA; and if the site will be used for questionable content, you likely should directly contact Gandi about the type of content to see their stand on that particular site. I'm sure they will be willing to work with you directly, and this is not the place for outlining such specifics.

BL wrote:
We are thankful that Gandi has some of the best domain name registration policies in the world, that they won't suspend domains without cause. PM906's additional inquiries, however, are worth considering. We have a saying, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Keep up the good work, Gandi. Thanks for engaging your customers. We continue to be impressed.

My reply:
Yes, Gandi is an excellent registrar to do business with, and you can be sure you will be treated fairly. As for the rest of your comment, see my reply above.

Aside: The saying is correctly quoted as: “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” - by Wendell Phillips

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - BL169-GANDI

BL169-GANDI — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:54:43 +0100

I am grateful for the questions posed by PM906 and would also like to see further discussion. The responses by KyferEz are unhelpful. Suggesting that PM906 wants to host illegal content completely ignores his (legitimate) concerns. He clearly explained that his concerns are related to politics and national boundaries. I have similar concerns.

We are a local internet service provider based in the United States. We have for some time directed our customers to Gandi because of their belief that a customer owns their domain. Many registrars believe that they own their customers' domains.

Many of our customers are progressive political activists. In some countries, some of the web sites we host might be considered illegal because of their political content. In some countries, some of the web sites we host might be considered illegal because they parody copyrighted content. This is protected to some degree in the United States, but as PM906 points out, things change.

This is the second reason we direct our customers to Gandi: we fear our government. We think french soil might protect us more than the United States constitution and legal system, both of which are under constant attack by forces that oppose the progressive agenda advanced by our company and our customers.

We are thankful that Gandi has some of the best domain name registration policies in the world, that they won't suspend domains without cause. PM906's additional inquiries, however, are worth considering. We have a saying, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Keep up the good work, Gandi. Thanks for engaging your customers. We continue to be impressed.

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - KyferEz

KyferEz — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:56:32 +0100

PM wrote:
"I never said that a registrar should obtain a court order in order to suspend a domain. Please re-read my comment."

My Reply:
No, not in those exact terms, but it certainly sounds as if that is what you would prefer. Yes, yes, I know you say you want assistance transferring the domain or for them to host it until the end of it's term if they decide they don't want your business, but allowing that sort of action enables obvious criminals to easily continue operations and I for one don't want to see _any_ registrar adopt that sort of policy. I've said it once about court orders, and I'll say it again as it applies here too: If you knew _anything_ about how rampant domain abuse is, you wouldn't suggest such things unless you want to host a criminal site or want the internet unusably littered by rampant amounts of illegal drug, spam, and child porn sites.

PM wrote:
"I contend that it is not Gandi's responsibility to judge the legality of their clients' actions."

My Reply:
They are not judging your actions so much as they are following precedent where it comes to clearly defined laws being broken. Whose laws? See below.

PM Wrote:
"Maybe (I don't think so), but with whose set of laws will they determine whether something is legal or not? And will they have their attorneys make such a decision, or just have their abuse department take a guess?"

My Reply:
I've already answered part of that: "...in their nation or other nations they do business in."

I don't see the need for lawyers - unless the actions are questionable. Clear violation of laws (in the case of child porn, spamming, illegal sale of drugs) shouldn't require a lawyer being involved.

PM wrote:
"What if a Gandi-registered domain is used by someone in a place like China, where the government goes to great lengths to censor certain political speech? What if someone hosts information that is "copyrighted" in one nation on a machine located in a nation that does not observe such copyright or regulates it differently (loose examples: The Pirate Bay in Sweden, AllOfMP3 in Russia)? What if Newscorp (MySpace) calls and says that a Gandi client is illegally hosting the archives of a full-disclosure security mailing list, and they want it taken down?"

My Reply:
Like I said, laws "...in their nation or other nations they do business in." should be followed. Lets take the Pirate Bay example. Note I don't speak for Gandi in the following, but this is my opinion of how it should work. Ryan, will you clarify your stand?:
If a registrar was subject to copyright laws by their nation (or by a treaty their nation entered into) then they should abide by those laws or treaties. If there are not under such laws, and the user of the registrar's service was not in a country under any copyright laws either, they there is no reason to abide by another country's laws. However, if the user (the person who registered the domain, not some person browsing the site) of their service is under those copyright laws, then copyright laws should be enforced. If a registrar was under copyright laws, but not the user, the copyright laws should still be enforced. In Pirate Bay's case, neither user nor hosts are under copyright laws, and neither should be required to abide by those laws. As I've said, this is how those things should work, but may not be Gandi's stand.

PM wrote:
"What if Newscorp (MySpace) calls and says that a Gandi client is illegally hosting the archives of a full-disclosure security mailing list, and they want it taken down?"

My Reply:
Ryan already gave a clear answer to that. Stop rehashing please. In paraphrase: They open a case to examine merit of the claim and if it has merit, attempt to contact the client. Lets just suppose your logins and passwords for your bank(s) was posted for all to see. Wouldn't you want it taken down asap? GoDaddy's response was not unreasonable (as long as the claims were verified first), and Gandi's response shows they are even more responsible in attempting to contact their customer.

PM Wrote:
"*Maybe* they should? Of course they should."

My Reply:
Yes, but note that any such listing of things will nearly always be prefaced with: "including, but not limited to". So you still won't have an exhaustive listing, but at least it will be clearer.

If you don't like Gandi's stand on such issues, go somewhere else. It's quite clear they don't want the business of those intending to use their site for illegal content, and if you are using it for questionable reasons, you are taking a chance with Gandi or any other registrar, plain and simle. You have a better understanding of Gandi's policies than any other registrar out there. Make a decision already.

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:53:58 +0100

You are too kind, thank you!

But, of course, now you are really putting us under pressure!!

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - Eddie

Eddie — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:26:25 +0100

> On Wednesday 14 February 2007, 22:21 by Ryan
> " I should add that you are seeing Gandi as we really are! "

Thank you Ryan/Gandi !!
For the record I was mistaken and take it all back !!

With apologies, I have also reflected my sentiments at nanae

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/ne...

Keep up the good work - Gandi is indeed up there with the top registrars !

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - PM906-GANDI

PM906-GANDI — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:14:34 +0100

KyferEz wrote: "It seems to me that you may be interested hosting content that is considered illegal by many nations, and are attempting to bash Ghandi for taking a stand against such sites."

I'm not attempting to bash Gandi at all.

I am not, to my knowledge, interested in hosting content that is considered illegal anywhere, but I am not familiar with the laws of all nations, so who knows? For instance, on my personal blog, I often criticize the actions of my government. I think that is illegal in some places. The way things are going in my country, it's not unreasonable to think that doing so might someday be illegal here, as well.

I'm really just trying to pin down what Gandi's policies are.

"It is _beyond_ impractical for registrars to obtain court orders to suspend domains, and to suggest such is _absurd_. "

I never said that a registrar should obtain a court order in order to suspend a domain. Please re-read my comment.

"It is clear that Ghandi is not overstepping any of their obligations in removing domains used for illegal activity."

I contend that it is not Gandi's responsibility to judge the legality of their clients' actions.

I don't know how it works in France, but in some nations, guilt in the eyes of the law is determined by a judge, and when individual citizens determine guilt and impose punishment, it is called vigilantism.

"If Ghandi can prevent an illegal site from being accessed, then they have a responsibility to take action."

Maybe (I don't think so), but with whose set of laws will they determine whether something is legal or not? And will they have their attorneys make such a decision, or just have their abuse department take a guess?

What if a Gandi-registered domain is used by someone in a place like China, where the government goes to great lengths to censor certain political speech? What if someone hosts information that is "copyrighted" in one nation on a machine located in a nation that does not observe such copyright or regulates it differently (loose examples: The Pirate Bay in Sweden, AllOfMP3 in Russia)? What if Newscorp (MySpace) calls and says that a Gandi client is illegally hosting the archives of a full-disclosure security mailing list, and they want it taken down?

"Ghandi not only sells your the domain name, but they also use their servers to resolve the domain name to the host."

I think this is only the case if they provide DNS for a domain.

"Ryan, maybe you should define abuse of a domain."

*Maybe* they should? Of course they should.

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - Mark Giles

Mark Giles — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:05:02 +0100

>If you don't like the way a company operates DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THEM. Capitalism at its finest.

I agree totally. The corollary is equally true - if you DO like the way a company does business, MOVE YOUR BUSINESS THEIR WAY. I'm not going to jump into the bed of the spammer friendly scammer haven registrars. More capitlalism at its finest.

Gandi fights back against domain abuse! - iH8Spammers

iH8Spammers — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:54:45 +0100

By registering with a company, say Gandi, you're agreeing to THEIR terms for registration of your name. If you don't abide, they can suspend/deactivate as per the TOS you agree to.

I don't see what the issue is... you choose a business for, say, office supplies, based on the company, what they offer and you can choose any company you like. If you don't like the way a company operates DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THEM. Capitalism at its finest.