Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Censorship The Internet Your Rights Online

Wikileaks Calls For Global Boycott Against eNom 137

souls writes "The folks at Wikileaks are calling for a boycott against eNom, Inc., one of the top internet domain registrars, which WikiLeaks claims is involved in systematic domain censoring. On Feb 28th eNom shut down, one of the many Wikileaks mirrors held by a volunteer as a side-effect of the court proceedings around In addition, eNom was the registrar that shut off access to a Spanish travel agent who showed up on a US Treasury watch list. Wikileaks calls for a 'global boycott of eNom and its parent Demand Media, its owners, executives and their affiliated companies, interests and holdings, to make clear such behavior can and will not be tolerated within the boundaries of the Internet and its global community.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks Calls For Global Boycott Against eNom

Comments Filter:
  • How About GoDaddy? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jellie ( 949898 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @08:10AM (#22691822)
    GoDaddy is another bad registrar, and has been mentioned on Slashdot many times, including here [] and here []. I'm assuming Dynadot should also be boycotted.
    • by cp.tar ( 871488 ) <> on Sunday March 09, 2008 @08:54AM (#22691926) Journal

      What we need is a list of known good registrars and a set of instructions how to escape bad ones.

      • "What we need is a list of known good registrars..."

        Any recommendations? [] is the real provider for many domain name resellers. For example, NameCheap [] is one of many who buy from has been competing with its re-sellers with []. Note that is now apparently doing what GoDaddy does. In my opinion, tries to get more money by confusing people who have little technical knowledge.

        Some of the negative stories about GoDaddy on Slashdot:

        GoDaddy []

          Reasonable (though not the lowest) prices.
          Good customer support in English and French.
          Very nice and clean website and management tools.
          In France (outside the jurisdiction of ignorant US judges).

          • by jellie ( 949898 )
            I've heard a lot of good things about Gandi too. It's a little pricy for my needs, especially considering the weakening US dollar. But I guess it will have to do. Thanks.
          • Do you know with certainty that is not an reseller? Many or most of the eNom hide the connection.
          • (Score:4, Informative)

            by kandresen ( 712861 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @04:06PM (#22694198)
            I would clearly recommend as well. I have been using them for years exactly due to them declaring I am the owner of my domain and in charge of my domain, not them unlike most other registrars. The prices have increased over the last couple of years - they have been charging 12 Euro, which when I started clearly was among the best prices in the marked, but with the current strong Euro, you will be aware of the difference. The are now allowing payment in USD which is only $15/year now (thought the strong Euro would have cased higher dollar price). That said - I have used many registrars and I for one will select Gandi over the rest also for other reasons: I feel they are providing a much better overall experience than the rest. I once tried Godaddy as it was a bit cheaper than Gandi, and it seemed like a good provider... Not that I have ever had a problem such as this with them, but the services of Gandi are worth the difference for me, and Gandi do not spam me, or keep sending as much "renew your information" type messages and so on.

            Some of the benefits I am using:

            You are the owner of the domain name! : See [] Section 1
            Gandi includes DNS in its default service so you can edit directions of domains and sub domains without also paying for hosting!
            Gandi allows you without hosting to have 5 mail boxes with 1GB mailbox space - again without paying additional for hosting!
            Gandi also allow you to add wildcard mailbox aliasing og 1000 e-mail addresses, and may relay the mail to external mailboxes.
          • It has always seemed to me that having the registrar and registry for your domain in different judristrictions would increase your legal exposure not reduce it.
          • I've used GANDI before in the past, they're definitely good, and they play the game straight. Currently my domains are registered through Register4Less, who are reselling Tucows. Service is good and I haven't heard about Tucows doing anything awful either. I could be wrong on that though.
        • by h0dg3s ( 1225512 )
          Namecheap is currently a reseller for eNom, though they are now ICANN accredited and should sell as their own entity soon.
          • This is correct. They're listed with InterNIC, but they still aren't listed with Verisign GRS, which means they don't have access to the .COM and .NET registries at this time.
      • Good luck, domain transfers are a royal PITA. We have over 6000 domains in our Enom account, I don't even want to think about transferring them all. Not to mention that all of our internal APIs are tied into Enom's system.

        I don't really see what all the furor is about though, Enom only did what they were required to by law.
      • What we need is a list of known good registrars and a set of instructions how to escape bad ones.

        I'd say what we really need is a mechanism to get rid of bad registrars altogether. ICANN is so toothless in the matter its beyond disgusting. If you take a look at their list of registrars [], you'll see it is pages long. And there is no shortage of fly-by-nights on there that nobody has heard of. Even worse there are many registrars in there that practice bad business tactics, or willingly cooperate with criminal spamming enterprises.

        Yet good old ICANN, in their infinite wisdom, choses to leave al

      • by Nimey ( 114278 )

        a set of instructions how to escape bad ones./quote>

        "You can get more with a kind word and a two-by-four than you can with just a kind word." -- Marcus Cole

        though with some companies, s/a two-by-four/artillery/
      • Survey: Are domain registrars free-speech friendly? []

        Personally, I prefer; they have an excellent reputation.

        In general, it's probably not safe to host a controversial domain or registration within the United States.

      • I've had pretty good luck with []

        The guy runs a small shop so you don't have to deal with the big company BS.
    • I wouldn't put Dynadot in the same boat - they did, after all, have a court order presented to them.
      • I wouldn't put Dynadot in the same boat - they did, after all, have a court order presented to them.
        According to some reports, Dynadot agreed with the bank to shut down and the the court order was the result of that agreement, so, yes, Dynadot should be n the same category of registrars as eNom.
        • by cHiphead ( 17854 )
          According to WHAT reports? That makes absolutely no sense, they could run into other legal issues if they were to make such a deal outside of a court order, and its just stupid business to do so. A court order is a court order, nothing they can do about it.

          Backup your bullshit or don't waste time claiming it in the first place.
          • Your apology forthwith, please []

            The point is that the bank initiated the process, subsequently both the bank and Dynadot went to the court with an agreement to shut down (if the court agreed). The court agreed and issued an order to do just that.
            • by cHiphead ( 17854 )
              Ok I see where we crossed up and perhaps I was a bit harsh, but I'm still on it like white on rice. Its normal for attorneys with limited technical knowledge to seek an clarification with the other party, in this case Dynadot, that what they are proposing is technically feasible. The 'agreement' between the two was most likely along the lines of 'is the wording of this proposed order feasible and sensible in terms of disabling the domain?' and 'yes'. Its all about covering your ass, and Dyn
              • Its normal for attorneys with limited technical knowledge to seek an clarification with the other party, in this case Dynadot, that what they are proposing is technically feasible.

                It is normal for attorneys to ask those with technical knowledge to clarify what is possible and the implications of doing that. Dynadot could have attempted to educate the judge about what shutting down a domain name means, vs. taking down the infringing content and they obeyed whatever court order ensued. Attempting to educate

      • by jellie ( 949898 )
        The point is not that they followed the law, but that they did not fight it. It's the same reason we were angry at Yahoo! (or its Hong Kong subsidiary) when the company gave away the information for Shi Tao to China. Similarly, most of the American telecommunication companies, most notably AT&T, obliged the Executive Branch's request to give telephone records to the NSA.

        Sometimes following a court order does not absolve you of all blame.
        • eNom took down their domain without a court order that applied, which IMO makes them far, far more nasty.

          You can think that Dynadot should've fought the order, but I'd probably err on the side of avoiding fines and jail time when faced with one too.
    • http://gaddbiwdftapglkq.onion/ [gaddbiwdftapglkq.onion] is the new wikileaks link. I don't think that can be censored :D
    • by h0dg3s ( 1225512 )
      1&1 is by far the worst. Namecheap is pretty good and they recently broke away from eNom to become their own registrar.
    • by zenetik ( 750376 )
      True about GoDaddy. After about 10 years of being a GoDaddy customer I've finally made the decision to move my domains to another registrar...eNom. Now where do I go?
  • by yakiimo ( 1024339 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @08:23AM (#22691846)
    Perhaps it doesn't fit with what the wikileaks people intended when they started it, but I wish that wikileaks would let/encourage others to fight using their facts (however much is fact) rather than wikileaks themselves doing it. Somehow their active stance makes me more wary of the information on the site.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rucs_hack ( 784150 )
      This kind of posturing is more likely to rebound badly on WiKileaks than anything else.

      So long as they are simply providing access to the kinds of information they normally host, they're being just what they said they were, and remain a powerful influence. If they try to stir up a boycot, and it fails (which it almot certainly will), then they will only have succeeded in demonstrating that they don't have much in the way of ability to influence others.

      Its a mistake to even go down this road. A simple docume
    • "I wish that wikileaks would let/encourage others to fight using their facts"

      Sorry, are they somehow preventing this from occurring? I don't know much about WL.
      • Ah, good point. It would have been more correct to say "I wish wikileaks would exclusively let/encourage others to fight using their facts..." I guess I can understand they are reacting to an attack on their existence, though as others have said I don't think the method they have chosen is the best.
    • by zhrike ( 448699 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @09:51AM (#22692156)
      I strongly disagree. Wikileaks is not attempting to act on information someone posted on their site; they are acting in response to something that was done to them directly.
      This has absolutely nothing to do with the information they host, aside from the fact that the information that they host was a reason for the acts by eNom et al. It also does
      not reflect on the veracity of their information, and interpreting it that way seems odd to me.
      • I don't think the two are quite so independent since they are using the platform that they have created specifically to take this action. I can understand that this is the natural thing to do (and what do I know?? perhaps it IS the best strategy), but when someone uses a somewhat public service they have created to accomplish a personal result (punitive boycott of their attacker) or otherwise jumps into the fray, then I think it does bring up issues of conflict of interest. I really don't think one thing l
    • by siddesu ( 698447 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @09:55AM (#22692172)
      Well, they were a victim of an unjustified shutdown, and it seems eNom was a part of this shutdown, so I suppose one could cut them some slack on that account only.

      Given the recent systematic drive to regulate the internets that's coming from virtually all quarters, it is hard to call their initiative for exposing irregular censorship entirely out of place. On the contrary, I think it is timely, and seems to me quite limited in scope, being concerned mainly with domain registrars.

      Besides, Wikileaks is an activist site by definition -- publishing as they are scandalous materials from anonymous sources. I don't quite understand why would you feel more or less uncomfortable just because they publish some more of the same.
      • Agreed on all points except the last. The punitive boycott against their attacker seems more appropriately done without the endorsement of their site, although as you said it is not far from normal. As someone else said, I think they will be more effective activists in any case simply by posting the information as usual.
        • by siddesu ( 698447 )
          Well, they have the right to make a point as they see fit, and that doesn't make the materials _other_ people upload to their site more or less trustworthy.

          It is always good to be able to find information on a domain registrar, especially when you consider putting your valuable eggs ... errr ... domain records into their database. And the more noise, the more blogs will have it and the smaller likelihood of forgetting.

          Be that as it may, I have never heard of the nom-nom-nom domain registrar before. Now I kn
          • Now I know something about them ...

            I'd say you know all that you need to know about them. Isn't that, after all, what Wikileaks is all about?
    • by Kludge ( 13653 )
      If they were encouraging an active stance against the Burmese government or something, I would agree with you.

      However, their job is to get information out. And when there are internet services that are actively trying to silence them, they must take a stand.
    • Somehow their active stance makes me more wary of the information on the site.
      A lot like IndyMedia. Good info, but everyone has a bias, me and you...
    • No matter who does it, no matter when, and no matter who is the victim. They are fighting the good cause, so WHO CARES if it looks a bit self-serving too?
  • other registrars? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ionix5891 ( 1228718 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @08:29AM (#22691858)
    i have dozens of websites registered thru enom

    are there any other registrars that are not "evil"?
    • by mitgib ( 1156957 )

      i have dozens of websites registered thru enom

      are there any other registrars that are not "evil"?

      I have reseller accounts with Enom and ResellerOne (Directi) and I rarely use Enom other than to maintain domains previously registered there as transferring registrars is a major PITA.

      I've had to use ResellerOne support a couple of times over the past and I must say their support is fantastic, you get a knowledgeable person who picks up the phone at odd hours of the day. My only beef about ResellerOne is their API, I cannot do everything through it I would want to with my billing software and I do not

  • by Cryophallion ( 1129715 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @08:39AM (#22691884)
    I know the concept of the internet being non-centralized, and with no real authority to oversee it, which is one of its strengths.

    However, it stinks at times like these, when you want an authority to go to to punish actions for a registrar (an d I know some registrars have been shut down, but for more egregious actions).

    However, in a case like this, where the "people" of the internet have felt wronged because a company went against the philosophies of the internet, Is there any other course of action besides a boycott (which may or may not be effective due to the terms of registrations, and companies going with what they think is the best price, not necessarily the best price and the right philosophy).

    If there is no other course of action, what is the best way to get this out there (besides Slashdot, etc)?
    • User-Generated Content Vs. Experts []

      Isn't this article on /. proof that people are realizing that the wild west of the Internet isn't the best way to approach it?
      • Not really, it's proof that some people get upset when the population starts to create things without any powerful body governing what they create. Personally I didn't need to see any proof to be sure of that.
    • However, it stinks at times like these, when you want an authority to go to to punish actions for a registrar (an d I know some registrars have been shut down, but for more egregious actions).

      That's a terrible idea. If such an 'authority' existed, it would be far more likely to be on eNom's side than users'. The Internet only exists in anything approaching the form we've gotten used to because there's so little centralized control, particularly over content.
      • Actually, I was trying to say that while we might want there to be someone who can take absolute action, in a case like this what we want is a philosophical thing. I just wish there was a way to make more of a statement than a boycott, because most domain holders (businesses) probably just don't care, and in fact would likely support enom.
  • by dattaway ( 3088 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @08:47AM (#22691906) Homepage Journal
    Anyone want to create a step by step guide, howto, or link how to "escape" from a registrar? Is it possible?
    • With any registrar worthy of existence, transfer is a really simple click button process. No "escape" is necessary.
    • by JavaRob ( 28971 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @09:09AM (#22691978) Homepage Journal
      It's not all that complicated. The horror stories you see here and there are the exception, not the rule.

      I don't have any domains registered with eNom, so I'm not sure of the specific procedures for them, but the gist of it is:
      * Sign in to your current registrar
      * Make sure your email address with them is valid (there will be confirmation steps using it!)
      * Unlock your domains (many registrars have "locking" features to prevent others from stealing your domains, plus to make it a little trickier for you to leave
      * You might as well disable automatic renewals as well (if they have them), just in case
      * Go to your new registrar and click through to "transfer" your domain, and pay for it. Normally they'll honor your existing expiration date (even if it's a couple of years away) and add your new years to the end of that.
      * Make sure you set up the domain at the new registrar with the correct nameservers for your host, and you won't have any downtime because of the switch.
      * The next steps will often take a few days -- new registrar will submit request to old registrar, who will email you for confirmation (and you'll have to click through to provide that)... possibly multiple confirmations... and then the domain will be transferred, and you're done.

      Anyone want to provide details for eNom, or add anything I forgot?

      I can also mention that most of my domains are currently hosted with GoDaddy -- who I'm not particularly fond of, but they're cheap and haven't screwed me over personally. Suggestions for alternatives are welcome... it's something I haven't researched in a while.
      • I also do not use eNom, but when I transfered domains from, I had to call them on the telephone to get an 8-10 digit "transfer key" for each domain to include in my transfer reques, in addition to the steps listed previously. The registrar I was transferring to had a required input field for this key, which led me to believe it was pretty standard procedure.
      • I can also mention that most of my domains are currently hosted with GoDaddy -- who I'm not particularly fond of, but they're cheap and haven't screwed me over personally. Suggestions for alternatives are welcome... it's something I haven't researched in a while.

        For what it's worth, I switched to StarGate [] from GoDaddy. They aren't too much more expensive and I like that I'm not pandering to the company that has those awfully stupid commercials that have nothing to do with domain registration, and also I don't like that they're lapdogs to Microsoft. Plus the company's been around for a while (just not registering domains the whole time) is like the 20th domain [] to have been registered.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by The_DoubleU ( 603071 )
        Try []
      • I switched to 1&1 [] from GoDaddy. Their prices are pretty good, from what I've seen. The only problem I've come across with their hosting is that if I have two 1&1 accounts (A and B) and I have a domain ( on account A and a hosting package on account B, I can't point to my 1&1 hosted server... more accurately, I can't set my 1&1-hosted server (on account B) to direct incoming connections for to a specific folder on the server as I would if the domain were on the same
        • by JavaRob ( 28971 )
          I think they assume you will upgrade your package instead of just buying a second one... that's the problem.
          I suspect the solution would be that you'd need to transfer the registration over to your hosting package... though of course, that might run into similar problems.

          You could always transfer it elsewhere then bring it back. But yeah, PITA.

          Their DNS handling in the control panel is pretty poor. You can usually do what you need, but they don't make it easy.

          I even managed to configure hosting a
      • by mrmeval ( 662166 )
        I've had good luck with [] but my needs are minimal. I use their free service and have one of the '' dynamic dns addresses and I have a couple of domains registered with a 'web hop' to redirect to another website.
      • probablly the most important point

        DO NOT TRY AND MOVE A DOMAIN THAT IS ABOUT TO EXPIRE IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO. The combination of imminent expiry and a move attempt is a recipie for mixups. If you have a name with less than a couple of months left on it and you want to keep that name the first thing you should do is renew it where it is.
      • 1 - Get the transfer authorization code (EPP code). At most registrars it is available at the same place you unlock the domain, but it is critical to the transfer.

        2 - Some registrars don't let you transfer for 60 days if you update your ownership info on that domain (account holder, email address, whois admin details, legal name change). This is SOP for Godaddy (and probably most others), and to be fair I do see how this can prevent serious abuse. Check before you update, and if you must, call the registr

      • I can also mention that most of my domains are currently hosted with GoDaddy -- who I'm not particularly fond of, but...

        Damn it. I meant *registered* with GoDaddy. Not hosted.
        Here I am clicking through the recommendations for replacements, thinking "but... these all seem like primarily hosts, not registrars..". Duh. Of course, lots of hosts do both.

        NearlyFreeSpeech does registrations at $8/year, but only offers domain registration for "members" -- meaning if you host with them, I assume?
        DynDns is expensive -- minimum 15/year (and they list prices for 2 & 5 years, but there's no discount -- huh?)

        Any registrar suggest

  • I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)

    They complied with a lawful court order issued as a result of due process. You don't have to agree with it, but its legal. The US is a nation of laws, not a nation driven by the whims of precocious fan-boys. What would you have them do? Throw abandon to the wind and defy it? The company might get shut down which would threaten their employees and customers. I don't see any other plausible action here. I would only hope my employer would have as much sense in such a case.
    • by dattaway ( 3088 )
      You must not own a domain.
    • Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)

      by Aluvus ( 691449 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @09:49AM (#22692150) Homepage
      The court ordered that wikileaks.ORG be shut off. The Wikileaks people argue that eNom incorrectly interpreted the temporary restraining order to also apply to wikileaks.INFO. Additionally, eNom kept the domain out of commission even after the original temporary restraining order had been dissolved and the domain had been restored.
    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      The US is a nation of laws, not a nation driven by the whims of precocious fan-boys

      Bwhahahaaaa! *wipes tear from eye* Been asleep for the last eight years, have you?

    • I was wondering if anyone would get this. When a big group of people that all have guns tell you to do something, you should do it. Admittedly, just redirecting the domain to a static page saying exactly what they were required to do by law, and linking to some news articles would have met the legal requirement with a lot more style...
    • Just because a judge did it?

      There are at least two points here:

      1. United States courts do not have authority over domains. This was hashed out recently over another incident, discussed at length on Slashdot.

      2. Even if the court did have authority, the judge exercised PRIOR RESTRAINT against the free speech of third parties, by ordering that the domain be taken down because of the actions of a few. That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
  • by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @09:18AM (#22692010) Homepage Journal
    standard procedure for which to handle domain shut down requests.

    a take down request should be specific and start with a request to remove the offending material, not the whole site.

    It could be done with laws but would need to be done in any country hosting.

    Perhaps I'm wrong, but this is a hosting site issue, not a domain registry issue (or it shouldn't be a domain registry issue).
    Registry is like an ID, messing with an ID is like identity theft or other wrongful manipulation of a persons ID. There should already be laws for this.

    Anyways, there is the possibility to organize a standards group on the issue just as there is the OSI, linuxs standard base ,
    etc.. and openly rate and publish hosting policies compliance level and even registry policies if that is indeed an issue.

    There should also be recourse against those who violate. Or at least a bad mark on the open rating report.
    • As I had posted in another thread about this case and how it proceeded, as anon probably b/c I can't find it...

      The very fact that the domain registration was shut down, but the servers not taken offline just goes to show that the legal system (in the U.S. at least) is woefully uninformed regarding modern tech, and likely swarming with 'experts' who do nothing but spout popular buzz.

      They've somehow managed to get away with making decisions about these things for the last, what? 20? 30? 40? 50 years? Okay

      • The registrar was targeted by the court because California court (or any other court in the US for that matter) has no jurisdiction [] over the co-lo ISP or the publishers of the actual content, since they are overseas.

        • Ok, color me ignorant, but why then did a Swiss bank file in California, again?
          • I'm not quite sure, the only thing I can speculate is that the US based portion of the company filed, not their headquarters in Switzerland. Anyone have any info on this?
    • Perhaps I'm wrong, but this is a hosting site issue, not a domain registry issue (or it shouldn't be a domain registry issue).

      Actually, its both. However, a domain owner has many choices for hosting - including of course doing their own. Thus hosting is really a difficult issue to go after.

      On the other hand, registration is not something with so many choices, and the vast majority of internet users have no ability to register a domain without the aid of an internet registrar.

      And while it may not be completely obvious or fool-proof, a registrar does have limited ability to shut down access to a site. If you look at the

  • by Aero77 ( 1242364 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @09:34AM (#22692078)
    Rather than cry about eNOM's vulnerability to the US Justice system, Wikileaks should be protecting their domain name with the same care as they do their content.
    • by yuna49 ( 905461 )
      I raised this issue in a posting [] in an earlier thread about this case. Is it possible to register in the international TLDs (com/net/org) without using an American registrar?
      • It doesn't seem like it, even if it were, ICANN is still under the Dept of Comm's thumb. Dept of Comm's thumb does seems to be much lighter than it easily could be, BS like this JB vs. wikileaks/dynadns/enom fiasco just seems to give unnecessary ammo to people who would like to change the present politico-bureaucracy with a different politico-bureaucracy. If the status Quo is going to continue, the USG and the Courts are going to have to realize that the ICANN is an international resource that they are hol
    • Wikileaks should be protecting their domain name

      That is what they are trying to do. They are going one step further also in saying that everyone else should do the same, like you are saying they should do--so you agree with them.

    • Please tell me. I would like to know. Because right now, I sure as hell do not.
  • by westlake ( 615356 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @10:07AM (#22692200)
    But what is the difference between Geek-led boycott and a dead-end road?

    The successful Geek boycott seems to belong in the same Fantasyland where "Microsoft is dying" and "This is the Year of Linux on the desktop."

  • So ... you're boycotting a company which is following the laws of the country it is based in rather than registering your name with a registrar in a country that doesn't have these laws.

    Are they really that stupid?

    WikiLeaks, thank you for making it obvious you're not a trustworthy source of information, by showing you would rather hold a grudge and use your influnce to damage someone else rather than fixing the problem yourself (a problem in which you created yourself and is due entirely to your ignorance).
    • by Sique ( 173459 ) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @12:37PM (#22692972) Homepage

      So ... you're boycotting a company which is following the laws of the country it is based in rather than registering your name with a registrar in a country that doesn't have these laws.

      Are they really that stupid?
      No, Wikileaks is asking to boycott a registrar that overzealously interprets a court order, which orders the shutdown of one domain. Said domain wasn't even registered with the registrar, so the court order wasn't even affecting the registrar.

      But instead of just ignoring a paper that didn't matter to them, they shut down a different domain, which wasn't mentioned in the court order at all.
  • All domain registrar's are sketchy in today's world based on my experiences. That said, GoDaddy is a somewhat decent registrar ... relatively. And as far as the eNom boycott, i'll continue to never use their services.
    • GoDaddy disabled my website ( once because an email address I had registered with was bouncing. A major website, down for hours because of a bouncing email address. It sure got my attention right away, that's for sure -- and I'm in the market for a better registrar.
  • Should we boycott bees because they sting? For better or worse, eNom was merely complying with properly offered court orders with a valid jurisdiction. Any US-based registrar would have done the same.

    If you're going to do business in the US, you have to follow US law. That means when someone sues you have to actually show up in court. If that's a problem for you, don't do business in the US.

  • Yawn (Score:1, Redundant)

    by deblau ( 68023 )
    I'd be much more interested if Wikileaks was boycotting someone who didn't just shut down one of their domains.
  • Maybe it's easy to move your domains, maybe it isn't. But why not just work, politely (so to speak), with your domain manager to convince them to drop eNom as their source? For example, I'm quite happy with the service I get from domaindirect. They answer their phones, they have a "network status" page that's pretty accurate and up to date when something happens, and all the intarwebby things JustWork.
    I'd rather join a mailing list to urge DomainDirect to switch than just apply a blanket boycott.
  • This name sure rings a bell. Don't they reject all spam complaints using the Barracuda filtering system? Accounts like abuse@ and postmaster@ just bounce, RFCs be damned. Or maybe some spammer ISP is using a similar domain name? Perhaps the .net or something?
  • everything even remotely affiliated with eNom? That might mean we shouldn't buy anything at all. For sure their portfolio extends pretty wide, well beyond all things internet. Could leave us with this []. Which may be a good thing.
  • Is the on the list?

    It is all about young women and girls showing Bush that they are not afraid to die for their cleric-politicians.

    Just before they insert their activated bullet-shaped detonator in the perfect hiding spot, and strap on their suicide-corset to better hide the slightly noticeable baby-belly, they read from a script to help explain how Islamic abortion works to fulfill the will of others, and allow mass-murder for fornicating forgiveness.

    Go to the Martyr Gallery for great Bush sho

"An open mind has but one disadvantage: it collects dirt." -- a saying at RPI