"Abusive use of a domain is described as an illegal, disruptive, malicious, or fraudulent action
and includes, without limitation, the following: .... illegal, malicious and fraudulent defamation of Oprah Winfrey, Daniel Negari, or Justin Bieber"
[QUOTE, page 22]
Abusive use of a domain is described as an illegal, disruptive, malicious, or fraudulent action
and includes, without limitation, the following:
● distribution of malware;
● dissemination of software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system without
the owner's’ informed consent, including, without limitation, computer viruses, worms,
keyloggers, trojans, and fake antivirus products;
● illegal, malicious and fraudulent defamation of Oprah Winfrey, Daniel Negari, or Justin Bieber;
[/QUOTE]
I think that's included as an example, the actual line reads:
> Abusive use of a domain is described as an illegal, disruptive, malicious, or fraudulent action
and includes, without limitation, the following
So the real rule is not to defame anyone of sufficient public standing (ie. someone like Justin Beiber or Oprah Winfrey. Daniel Negari is the CEO of the company, so of course him too)
I disagree, this states 'the following' then list bullets so it should be
> Abusive use of a domain is described as an illegal, disruptive, malicious, or fraudulent action and includes, without limitation, illegal, malicious and fraudulent defamation of Oprah Winfrey, Daniel Negari, or Justin Bieber.
I'm about to buy a .xyz domain, and - out of curiosity - looked up the TLD on Wikipedia, and found the defamation line from the original submitted title on Wikipedia, with the linked PDF as a source. (For those who missed the original title, it was something like "On .xyz domains, it's forbidden to defame: Justin Bieber, Oprah Winfrey, and Daniel Negari".) Mostly I found it a curiosity, but I was hoping it might spur some conversation about issues with centralized control in DNS.
The HN practice of renaming submissions made this super confusing. What's the best practice here - write a blog post with a one-line comment and link to the source? (Although I guess that could fall victim to updating the link to point to the original source.)
19 comments
[ 50.4 ms ] story [ 936 ms ] threadWhy not just "illegal, malicious and fraudulent defamation". Publicity stunt?
"Abusive use of a domain is described as an illegal, disruptive, malicious, or fraudulent action and includes, without limitation, the following: .... illegal, malicious and fraudulent defamation of Oprah Winfrey, Daniel Negari, or Justin Bieber"
● distribution of malware;
● dissemination of software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system without the owner's’ informed consent, including, without limitation, computer viruses, worms, keyloggers, trojans, and fake antivirus products;
● illegal, malicious and fraudulent defamation of Oprah Winfrey, Daniel Negari, or Justin Bieber; [/QUOTE]
[edit: formatting]
> Abusive use of a domain is described as an illegal, disruptive, malicious, or fraudulent action and includes, without limitation, the following
So the real rule is not to defame anyone of sufficient public standing (ie. someone like Justin Beiber or Oprah Winfrey. Daniel Negari is the CEO of the company, so of course him too)
Also, since he has claims on .security and .theatre, why doesn't he go for the obvious and add .securitytheatre?
> Abusive use of a domain is described as an illegal, disruptive, malicious, or fraudulent action and includes, without limitation, illegal, malicious and fraudulent defamation of Oprah Winfrey, Daniel Negari, or Justin Bieber.
https://ceo.xyz/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.xyz