[belovedeagle]

> Can they potentially go to a new registrar and register it there, without additional hassle, and assuming there's a registrar willing to service them?

Not within 60 days, apparently. So I think that claiming that the domain isn't being withheld is disingenuous, because the registrars knew perfectly well that the outcome of refusing service within 60 days after a transfer was that the owner would be locked out of their domain.

[obsurveyor]

> because the registrars knew perfectly well that the outcome of refusing service within 60 days after a transfer was that the owner would be locked out of their domain.

This is a bit disingenuous, the rule was established well beforehand. It's not like they made it up for this specific instance.

[KGIII]

Yeah, I'm not okay with this - as it appears you are correct.

Huh... I'm stuck defending Nazis. Who woulda thunk it? Well, I'm mostly defending some semblance of due process, appeal, and property rights - they just also happen to be pretty much the worst people on the planet.

[dragonwriter]

But what about Google's property rights. If they can't set the terms of use for their property, and enforce those terms, their property rights are denied.

Why are Nazis property rights so much more important that they need to be protected from tenporary harm inflicted on them by their own voluntary action?

[detaro]

Which of their property rights does Google loose by agreeing to a transfer of the domain earlier than they have to? (Nor do we explicitly know if they actually have stopped a transfer or not)

[KGIII]

They aren't the ones being deprived of their property and, probably, income. Even renters have rights.