directNIC Demands SlicksNetwork.com Hand Over Model IDs

[Dave Zan]

Whew, looks kinda extreme:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCView.asp?coid=1014

In a move that could indicate further scrutiny by domain registrars, directNIC has demanded that TGP operator SlicksNetwork.com hand over model IDs on all performers it suspects are underage.

In an email sent by Intercosmos, directNIC’s parent company, and obtained by XBIZ, law clerk Juli Silver Green requested that SlicksNetwork.com submit all state issued photo IDs that clearly show the face and date of birth of the models.

Green threatened the site with closure if the site’s publisher doesn’t comply by Dec. 18. DirectNIC imposed a lock on the domains it alleges have questionable content, preventing the owner from transferring them to another registrar.

SlicksNetwork.com’s owner Slick said that directNIC does not host his sites, it just serves as the registrar. SlicksNetwork.com contains 14 TGP sites that link to sponsor programs.

First Amendment attorney and Free Speech Coalition Chairman Jeffrey Douglas said the ID request is unprecedented, and more importantly, a violation of privacy laws. According to Douglas, the request is illegal, and also could have a chilling effect on the free speech of webmasters that deal in legal teen content.

“This is a blatant and absolute violation of privacy laws,” Douglas told XBIZ. “There’s absolutely no legal liability for the registrar if underage models appear on a website. DirectNIC is an officious intermeddler.”

Upon receiving a complaint of child pornography, there are legal courses of action for directNIC to take, Douglas said. Since it has no legal right to obtain personally identifiable information from the website’s models, the company should have alerted the proper legal authorities, but instead it decided to take the law into its own hands.

DirectNIC's legal fine prints give a hint what they'd do for such things. Time will
tell how this will turn out.

This should be interesting.

 

[pam]

Other registrar terms are similar.

 

[Domagon]

Registrars possess domains not registrants.

If one wants near total flexibility and control over their domains, becoming a registrar is the way to go about it.

For most everyone else, they are truly at the mercy of their registrar - careful registrar selection, having lots TMs, etc can help, but no where near as secure as being a registar themself.

In regards to DirectNIC, they really are overstepping their bounds - it's one thing for them to share information about the registrant to authorities, but locking the domains is the wrong way to go; at most they should have simply asked the registrant to transfer out to another registrar.

Ron

 

[GeorgeK]

You're absolutely correct, Domagon. Under the latest ICANN Transfers policy:

http://www.icann.org/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm

The only reasons that a registrar can deny a transfer are listed as:

"Upon denying a transfer request for any of the following reasons, the Registrar of Record must provide the Registered Name Holder and the potential Gaining Registrar with the reason for denial. The Registrar of Record may deny a transfer request only in the following specific instances:

1. Evidence of fraud
2. UDRP action
3. Court order by a court of competent jurisdiction
4. Reasonable dispute over the identity of the Registered Name Holder or Administrative Contact
5. No payment for previous registration period (including credit card charge-backs) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer.
6. Express written objection to the transfer from the Transfer Contact. (e.g. - email, fax, paper document or other processes by which the Transfer Contact has expressly and voluntarily objected through opt-in means)
7. A domain name was already in “lock status” provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.
8. A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration period.
9. A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs)."

As none of those 9 scenarios appear to exist here, a transfer dispute would be won by the existing registrant should Directnic refuse the transfer. The ICANN Transfers policy trumps anything that Directnic could put into their registrant agreement.