-
Blogs
-
News
-
Industry
-
Community
-
Topics
In the aftermath of the shutdown of Wikileaks.org by a court order issued at the request of Swiss Bank Julius Baer, Wikileaks has called for the boycott of registrar eNom.
eNom is best known as the domain registrar that complied with the federal government's order to shut down a Spanish travel agency because it did business with Cuba — the agency was not under U.S. jurisdiction and so was hardly violating U.S. law, but their domain was registered in the United States, and that was good enough for the feds.
Although eNom's culpability in that incident is doubtful, since they were probably under orders from the federal government, their involvement in the shutdown of Wikileaks.info was not so innocent.
In a nutshell, bank Julius Baer was able to get a court order shutting down Wikileaks.org, but not wikileaks.info, which was a mirror site not mentioned in the TRO. However, learning of the court order against wikileaks.org, eNom apparently took it upon themselves to shutdown wikileaks.info as well — without a court order of any kind.
Wikileaks made repeated requests — and then demands — to eNom asking them to identify who, if anybody, had told them to lock the wikileaks.info registration, and what claims had been made. When eNom failed to answer, Wikileaks issued their call to boycott. Wikileaks accuses eNom, and their parent company Domain Media, Inc. , of a pattern of censorship and other unethical practices that goes beyond the shutdowns of Wikileaks.info and the Spanish travel agency.
Related link: CNET: Survey: Are domain registrars free-speech friendly?
By Edward Falk, Computer professional. Visit the blog maintained by Edward Falk here.
Related topics: Censorship, DNS, Internet Governance
To post comments, please login or create an account.
Top-Level DomainsSponsored byMinds + Machines | |
MobileSponsored bydotMobi | |
DNSSECSponsored byAfilias | |
DNSSponsored byNeustar UltraDNS | |
SecuritySponsored byVerisign |
"not so innocent"
The order which issued in that case was vague and difficult to make sense of. The name has been turned back on.
Is it at all possible for someone to make an error in good faith without being viciously slammed?
The Wikileaks people go after a band with whom some Enom employee is connected. Do you really think that all of the people personally named on that page got together and said "hey, let's screw Wikileaks"?
You really believe that?
IMHO, what Wikileaks is doing in general is a pretty nifty idea. However, they are every bit the disproportionately vindictive a-holes as the plaintiff in the case.
Just what the world needs - more people making inflated self-righteous accusations in the belief that two wrongs make a right.
Ms. Radocha's email to Wikileaks answered such:
Seems like eNom subsequently received a copy of the judge's amended amended order and restored the .info.
If Wikileaks is thinking of moving their registrations to, say, Canada, they'd better make sure it doesn't post details of a pending criminal prosecution as John mentioned somewhere.
That's what it looks like. So now Wikileaks posts the myspace page of some Enom employee who had no decision making authority in the matter, apparently so that people can pee on a totally unrelated hobby of hers?
So much for the moral high ground. These people are abusive jerks.