[cfsucks]

Which violates their registrar agreements:

> Registered Name Holders must be able to transfer their domain name registrations between Registrars

(Note that sections 3.7-3.9 do allow registrars to deny transfers, f.e. given "evidence of fraud", but given that they reinstated the domains I doubt they have evidence of fraud.)

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-0...

[car_analogy]

Why does a private corporation get to unilaterally decide something is fraud and seize someone's property? Is this what ownership is supposed to be like?

[fbrchps]

You never "own" a domain. You just rent it from a registrar, who had permission from ICANN to let you rent it. There is no "good" that you can take with you when you give a registrar money for a domain.

[i67vw3]

The only way to 'solve' this problem is to be an ICANN accredited registrar by yourself as an individual on an individual basis.

Edit:- Then the problem comes from registry. So, along with being a registrar, that individual will need to become a registry recognized by ICANN

[TheEternalKim]

Another way to solve it is by switching to a bloclchain based registry like IPFS or nameCoin.

[nix23]

>There is no "good" that you can take with you when you give a registrar money for a domain.

Ah, cant wait until you understand the nature of money itself ;)

[OJFord]

But they ('re automated system or through mistake or whatever) thought they did have evidence of fraud right, so that's consistent?

[OJFord]

Perhaps I wasn't clear.. I mean that they sent some vague email saying it they'd detected fraud, and took other 'we've found fraud' actions (it was a false positive yes, but beside my point) - so it would be weird if they then acted like they couldn't take registrar actions that they could only take if the reason was fraud.

The behaviour was wrong and concerning yes, but it seems internally consistent, all along the 'fraud' path.