From WikiLeaks

To begin with, I think we should ask the question, are we going after the right organization. True eNom isn't very up on things like customer services, but the Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/04bar.html) makes the point that:

"It added that American companies must not only stop doing business with the company but also freeze its assets, meaning that eNom did exactly what it was legally required to do."

If that is the case, and eNom is actually doing what is legally required, should we go after eNom or should we be more interested in the Treasury blacklist that is behind eNom's actions?

Telecommatt 03:05, 7 March 2008 (GMT)

WL isn't on the treasury black list (yet), so we can't use that angle. Wikileaks 03:45, 7 March 2008 (GMT)

thats an interesting point! who is responsible here? If the registrar was informed by Lavely & Singer, and naturally these will not inform them that the case finally was dropped, whose responsibility is this? Would Wikileaks have to write mails to anyone this could have bothered? Is not the registrar in a position of responsibility to take care of the status of such things? And how much would L&S be responsible for it? I mean, the one saying A has to say B also, or am I wrong? Raises an interesting topic ...

The orders did not apply to eNom. 1.0.22.53 17:32, 9 March 2008 (GMT)

Contents 1 Court Order 2 It is a matter of... 3 == 3.1 Alternatives? 3.2 tucows/opensrs 3.3 The TRO was still in force on 28th February, so this was not "illegal" 3.4 Why is wikileaks.info still registered with eNom on 10th March 2008  ? 3.5 Illegal 3.6 Hosts file patch

Court Order

Court Order "DNS hosts... hereby enjoined, and restrained as follows:... providing any information for the access or other dissemination of copies of and/or images of the JB Property". eNOM obeyed the law and followed a valid court injunction. Meanwhile, Wikileaks broke the law by ignoring the injunction.

I think that it cannot be stated without reservation that "Wikileaks broke the law by ignoring the injunction"... because there may have been no jurisdictional nexus. The injunction was an ex parte proceeding, without a representative of Wikileaks, and I have seen no evidence or offer of proof that Wikileaks is under the jurisdiction of that court. Glenn 07:40, 19 March 2008 (GMT)

What country has jurisdiction over Wikileaks? There is no indication that any other country was involved. All correspondence occurred within the United States. Wikileaks is trying to say no country has jurisdiction. The proceedings were not ex parte. Wikileaks was properly notified of the proceedings and Wikileaks decided not to attend and present a defence.

It is a matter of...

... LAW! We need to find more cases of cencorship, linked with any registering companies. There must be structure in the content, that will reveal where free speach is being limited. After all, this is not an issue that concerns wikileaks alone - [for me] the internet resembles international free speach. What's going on in China has to change. Access to critical information is important.

However, I would still suggest that there should be restrictions for websites that promote causes that are against the sanctity of life; for example child pornography, animation for suicide or anti semetic (anti any race or mind set).

This builds up to a conflict. Because there are things many of us percieve as morally wrong, we want restrictions for some things, and not for others. So for whom is it to decide where there should be restrictions or not, the internet is a global community and so no particular country should be able to restict or take something away from the whole. One may consider the United Nations, but do they have enough power, experience and expertise to wisely govern the internet? Should the internet be governed by the community, i.e. worldwide web elections, or do we live in a capitalist world where the owner (the host, eNom) is in control over its content.

Important is that the site spreads information, no matter who is hosting it. Everything must be accessable for everyone.

re:

"However, I would still suggest that there should be restrictions for websites that promote causes that are against the sanctity of life; for example child pornography, animation for suicide or anti semetic (anti any race or mind set)."

If you restrict information, then there has to be someone deciding what to restrict, which gives that someone too much power. For instance, under your suggested plan, your post itself would be censored, because it is anti-censorship. And what is child pornography? Does that include a 35 year old woman in pigtails with a lollipop? Under some censorship rules, yes, that's kiddie porn. And if I say that Israel is acting like Nazi Germany in some ways, would that be anti-semitic? Who decides? Censorship is censorship, and will always inevitably lead to someone or group of someones being in a position to arbitrarily decide what is good and what is bad. Glenn 07:49, 19 March 2008 (GMT)

==

While I share your outrage over the takedown, your attack on Paul Stahura for his "secure blob" proposal for Whois records is way off target. Apparently the writer of your attack does not understand the fact that under current ICANN regulations, all the sensitive contact data that would be in the "secure blob" is already COMPLETELY OPEN to everyone and anyone -- including law enforcement. Stahura's proposal was an attempt to RESTRICT access to that information to legitimate law enforcement agencies in possession of a key. That proposal was supported as an advance by many privacy advocates within ICANN, such as myself; it was strenuously opposed by the copyright and trademark interests and other economic interests who want to data-mine Whois or use it for surveillance purposes. Under Stahura's proposal, the only thing open to public access would be the Operational Point of Contact's contact data -- this would be an intermediary selected by the registrant who could be used to shield their personal data from indiscriminate access. I hope you correct this attack on the "secure blob" proposal because it is misleading. Not a big deal, because the proposal is dead anyway -- it actually created TOO MUCH privacy for the taste of the US government and others.

Alternatives?

Are there any suggestions to alternative registrars? I currently register my domains through my ISP, who is an eNom reseller (and the cost to me is very fair and cheap).

tucows/opensrs

They're great, a little more money (you get what you pay for).

http://opensrs.net/

They only sell to resellers, but to become one its $90, and then you can register your own domains.

The TRO was still in force on 28th February, so this was not "illegal"

"On the 28th of February, 2008 while everyone was paying attention to the WIKILEAKS.ORG censorship case, another Wikileaks domain, WIKILEAKS.INFO, was unlawfully locked and seized. The censoring company was domain name registrar eNom, Inc of Bellevue, Washington"

As the wikileaks.org correspondence with Christina Radoch makes clear, the Temporary Restraining Order was still in force on 28th February, so this was not "illegal" censorship by Enom initially.

Many of their rivals are equally as guilty of poor customer service, and tardiness in dealing with anything outside of their standard automated workflow processes.

Why would any Domain Name Registrar or ISP based in the USA not comply with that Order ? Answering a lawyer's letter, even by email, will cost them far more than their profit on a single Domain Name Registration fee.

Did wikileaks.org officially inform all of their other domain name registrars and ISPs about the withdrawal of Judge White's orders ? Lavely & Singer were hardly likely to bother to do so.

Why is the wikileaks.info domain name still registered with Enom, today, 9th March 2008 ?

thats an interesting point! who is responsible here? If the registrar was informed by Lavely & Singer, and naturally these will not inform them that the case finally was dropped, whose responsibility is this? Would Wikileaks have to write mails to anyone this could have bothered? Is not the registrar in a position of responsibility to take care of the status of such things? And how much would L&S be responsible for it? I mean, the one saying A has to say B also, or am I wrong? Raises an interesting topic ...

Why is wikileaks.info still registered with eNom on 10th March 2008  ?

How can this press release and article call for a global boycott of eNom when the wikileaks.info domain name is still registered with eNom on 10th March 2008 ?

Domain ID:D23848680-LRMS
Domain Name:WIKILEAKS.INFO
Created On:18-Feb-2008 21:42:22 UTC
Last Updated On:05-Mar-2008 19:22:24 UTC
Expiration Date:18-Feb-2009 21:42:22 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R126-LRMS)
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED

The "Status" field tells you why. In addition, though it was neglected in the article, wikileaks.info had the eNom privacy service activated. This was also deactivated by eNom, exposing the registrants details to the world and not subsequently reactivated. One day, if it hasn't already, this will lead to someone's death. Wikileaks 23:20, 10 March 2008 (GMT)

Why, then, is wikileaks.org still registered with Dynadot, LLC as of March 13, 2008? There is no such TRANSFER PROHIBITED on that domain.

Domain Name:WIKILEAKS.ORG
Created On:04-Oct-2006 05:54:19 UTC
Last Updated On:01-Mar-2008 01:15:18 UTC
Expiration Date:04-Oct-2008 05:54:19 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Dynadot, LLC (R1266-LROR)
Status:OK

Dynadot complied with US courts in, from what I understand, the same way that eNom has... Death, you say? 1.0.22.53 19:53, 13 March 2008 (GMT)

I'm certain that the above comment ("One day, if it hasn't already, this will lead to someone's death.") was not meant as a threat, but as a dire prediction. Personally, as far as I am concerned, within the US at least, it's a First Amendment issue, and is important enough to die for... people already have died to claim it as a right. Glenn 07:59, 19 March 2008 (GMT)

It is not a United States First Amendment issue because Wikileaks is claiming they are not a United States organization.

Illegal

If Wikileaks believes that eNom did something illegal it would be appropriate for Wikileaks to sue them. But of course, Wikileaks will never appear in any court.

Hosts file patch

1. Begin: eNom & Demand Media, Inc

127.0.0.1 Airliners.net 127.0.0.1 Allgetaways.com 127.0.0.1 Answerbag.com 127.0.0.1 Arcadetown.com 127.0.0.1 Casesladder.com 127.0.0.1 Cracked.com 127.0.0.1 DailyPuppy.com 127.0.0.1 demandmedia.com 127.0.0.1 DemandStudios.com 127.0.0.1 eHow.com 127.0.0.1 eNomCentral.com 127.0.0.1 eNom.com 127.0.0.1 ExpertVillage.com 127.0.0.1 Flowgo.com 127.0.0.1 Freewebgames.com 127.0.0.1 Gamedelight.com 127.0.0.1 Gamerival.com 127.0.0.1 GardenGuides.com 127.0.0.1 Golflink.com 127.0.0.1 Grab.com 127.0.0.1 Heavygames.com 127.0.0.1 Madblast.com 127.0.0.1 Mountainzone.com 127.0.0.1 MyLeague.com 127.0.0.1 Run.com 127.0.0.1 Runtheplanet.com 127.0.0.1 SoYouWanna.com 127.0.0.1 Trails.com 127.0.0.1 100DomainHosting.com 127.0.0.1 101SiteHosting.com 127.0.0.1 10-ECommerce-Web-Hosting.com 127.0.0.1 10WebHosting.com 127.0.0.1 1stSingaporeWebHosting.com 127.0.0.1 1t3.com 127.0.0.1 5GbHosting.com 127.0.0.1 60Host.com 127.0.0.1 Acshosting.net 127.0.0.1 AffiliatePrograms.bz 127.0.0.1 AleTiaHost.com 127.0.0.1 AleTiaHost.net 127.0.0.1 AnHance.com 127.0.0.1 ArteryPlanet.net 127.0.0.1 AssetNic.com 127.0.0.1 AviaDirect.co.uk 127.0.0.1 BaHost.com 127.0.0.1 Best10WebHosting.com 127.0.0.1 BrowseHosts.com 127.0.0.1 BuLixHost.com 127.0.0.1 Cheap-Hosting.com.ru 127.0.0.1 Cheap-Site-Hosting.com 127.0.0.1 CreateHosts.com 127.0.0.1 Ctxhosting.com 127.0.0.1 cyberland-usa.com 127.0.0.1 DedicatedSpace.com 127.0.0.1 DirectCpu.com 127.0.0.1 DomainDirect.com 127.0.0.1 Domainiacs.com 127.0.0.1 Domain-In.com 127.0.0.1 domainsbay.com 127.0.0.1 DreamDesignWeb.com 127.0.0.1 EachNic.com 127.0.0.1 EBizHosting.com 127.0.0.1 EHosting.com 127.0.0.1 Expiry.com 127.0.0.1 Ez-Internet.biz 127.0.0.1 FateBack.com 127.0.0.1 Finance-Informant.com 127.0.0.1 FindHosts.net 127.0.0.1 FineWebHost.com 127.0.0.1 FirestormHost.com 127.0.0.1 Free-Hosting.com.ru 127.0.0.1 Gkg.net 127.0.0.1 HostArc.com 127.0.0.1 HostBulgaria.com 127.0.0.1 HostByte.com 127.0.0.1 HostDome.com 127.0.0.1 HostGal.com 127.0.0.1 hostgator.com 127.0.0.1 HostingDirectories.info 127.0.0.1 Hosting-List.com 127.0.0.1 HostingTrade.com 127.0.0.1 Hosting-Web-Central.com 127.0.0.1 HostLead.com 127.0.0.1 HostOrb.com 127.0.0.1 HostProfessor.com 127.0.0.1 HostVictoria.com 127.0.0.1 HostWhere.com 127.0.0.1 ICANN.org 127.0.0.1 IcuBator.com 127.0.0.1 IDwebhost.sg 127.0.0.1 INeoHost.com 127.0.0.1 Infinity.ws 127.0.0.1 InTreLix.com 127.0.0.1 JaguarPc.com 127.0.0.1 JoltHost.com 127.0.0.1 JuiceWire.net 127.0.0.1 Kndenterprises.com 127.0.0.1 Lfchosting.com 127.0.0.1 LinHosting.com 127.0.0.1 LpAnel.net 127.0.0.1 MegaWebServer.com 127.0.0.1 Mybes.com 127.0.0.1 NameIt.net 127.0.0.1 Names4Ever.com 127.0.0.1 NameSecure.com 127.0.0.1 NeonHq.com 127.0.0.1 Nexusdomains.co.uk 127.0.0.1 NobleHosts.com 127.0.0.1 NuSeek.com 127.0.0.1 Ofshosting.com 127.0.0.1 OriWeb.com 127.0.0.1 PhotographyByGus.com 127.0.0.1 Plwebhost.com 127.0.0.1 ProperComfy.co.uk 127.0.0.1 PublicDomainReseller.com 127.0.0.1 Qksrv.net 127.0.0.1 Qoolhost.com 127.0.0.1 Qopen.com 127.0.0.1 RankMyDomain.com 127.0.0.1 RealityHosting.ca 127.0.0.1 ReAlter.com 127.0.0.1 Registrars.com 127.0.0.1 RegistrarStats.com 127.0.0.1 ResellerHostingSite.com 127.0.0.1 ResellersPanel.com 127.0.0.1 Rfhost.com 127.0.0.1 S4u.org 127.0.0.1 Sb-host.com 127.0.0.1 Sbhosting.net 127.0.0.1 ScotIreHosting.com 127.0.0.1 ServerFreak.com 127.0.0.1 ServerPronto.com 127.0.0.1 SeRvPlus.net 127.0.0.1 SheEZeWebHost.com 127.0.0.1 SignatureDomains.com 127.0.0.1 SimplyWebHosting.com 127.0.0.1 SingaporeWebHosting.com 127.0.0.1 SiteMeter.com 127.0.0.1 StargateInc.com 127.0.0.1 statichosting.net 127.0.0.1 TemplateList.com 127.0.0.1 TemplateMonster.com 127.0.0.1 ThrillHost.com 127.0.0.1 TodaysHost.com 127.0.0.1 TopCheapHosts.com 127.0.0.1 Top-Web-Hosting-Directory.com 127.0.0.1 transparenthosting.com 127.0.0.1 Txvps.com 127.0.0.1 VaPourNet.com 127.0.0.1 vertihost.com 127.0.0.1 verycheapwebhosting.com 127.0.0.1 virtuehosts.com 127.0.0.1 VitalSpeeds.com 127.0.0.1 WebClickHosting.com 127.0.0.1 WebHostingHunt.com 127.0.0.1 Web-HostingResource.com 127.0.0.1 Web-Hosting.uk.com 127.0.0.1 WebIdentity.com.au 127.0.0.1 WebmasterArchive.com 127.0.0.1 WebmasterEmpire.com 127.0.0.1 WebmasterKnowledge.com 127.0.0.1 WebmasterLabs.com 127.0.0.1 WebmasterLinks.org 127.0.0.1 WebmasterSquare.com 127.0.0.1 Webmaster-Talk.com 127.0.0.1 WebmasterTopSites.com 127.0.0.1 WebServio.com 127.0.0.1 WebSpace4Free.biz 127.0.0.1 WebToolBars.com 127.0.0.1 webwowser.org 127.0.0.1 Whois.sc 127.0.0.1 Whois-Source.com 127.0.0.1 Whost.info 127.0.0.1 Wired2Host.com 127.0.0.1 wlhosting.com 127.0.0.1 Worria.com 127.0.0.1 Xaz.biz 127.0.0.1 Zunch.com

1. End: eNom & Demand Media, Inc