GoDaddy takes away domain use from owner when asked to do by MySpace! Awful...

[woeger]

GoDaddy yanked a person's domain from resolving without any notice (per the account owner) for content on the domain that MySpace objected to. No court order - nada, just from a complaint.

This is a free speech issue and in my opinion shows just how anti-customer rights Godaddy is. See more on this NEWS.COM article about Godaddy's action concerning this one domain:

http://news.com.com/GoDaddy+pulls+s...laints/2100-1025_3-6153607.html?tag=nefd.lede

All GoDaddy customer should take this as a warning shot about how Bob Parson's company will apparently not be looking out for them and their interests, but rather bowing to companys' requests to deactivate or perhaps even delete domains. Your domains do not appear to be safe at GoDaddy...

I recommend switching any domains of value to another registrar that cares about your domain ownership rights ASAP (such as Moniker or other reliable registrars).

 

[verbster]

Are there any registrar TOS' that don't claim the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want and not be held responsible for their actions?

 

[dom35]

Just wait a couple of years and see what is going on with Go Daddy. I always was afraid of them by the way how they push products after products, over the registration, feeling that they were playing many times about a possible mistake of the user.

If you want a private police state then GoDaddy it is OK. If you want a democratic state, the right way to do was to contact the hosting company and take the site inmediately down. If someone is affected take legal action.

Sorry, no more trust on GD. It is the final step after TDNAM wrong (or may be fake) auctions of domains registered by others.

If I was GoDaddy I would have done the same thing and much more, thumbs up GoDaddy.

 

[Dave_Z]

Are there any registrar TOS' that don't claim the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want and not be held responsible for their actions?

No. And it's not realistic to think you'll be able to find a registrar that does.

 

[Tippy]

I cant believe how many dumb a$$es we have at NamePros.

Thumbs up GD

 

[Robert Allen]

If i had my way, i would close CNET for censoring, but it would never happen.

GODADDY is the worst and most popular registar. How could this continue for much longer i dont know? I recommended domainsite and namecheap for a mate who wanted to reg a domain really cheap. Godaddy is generally ok, but this is just too harsh.

Rob

 

[globefrog]

I must say, I try to avoid fine lines in life in general. GoDaddy have always been good with me and if I ever have a prob they respond within a few hours. I have done over 1000 transactions with them. Maybe Im just lucky :D

 

[dotnom]

I cant believe how many dumb a$$es we have at NamePros.Thumbs up GD

With such good reputation it's petty to characterize and underestimate people as "dumb a$$es". Whatever they think if they don't create problems it's their opinion and they should be respected

 

[fish]

Interesting response from Ben Butler, Director of Network Abuse at GoDaddy, here.

 

[Tippy]

With such good reputation it's petty to characterize and underestimate people as "dumb a$$es". Whatever they think if they don't create problems it's their opinion and they should be respected

After sitting back and reading post after post by NP Members more or less supporting this guy well I couldnt hold back.

My choice of words were very suttle compared to what I really felt like saying to them.

GoDaddy acted fast and they had to considering the situation as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Matthew.]

After sitting back and reading post after post by NP Members more or less supporting this guy well I couldnt hold back.

My choice of words were very suttle compared to what I really felt like saying to them.

Oh no...cyber insults...where do i run.

Anyway, you are missing the point. I do not believe anyone here is supporting the content of the site, the discussion is whether (regardless of it being in the TOS which does make it both acceptable and lawful) it is right or not for a registrar to take a domain based on its content without a court order, and personally i don't think it is. It's up to the host.

When you broaden the argument out to pedophilia websites (as i believe was mentioned in an earlier post) then you should consider that they will be taken off line legally by the correct authorities with further action taken...registrars are not the ones that do it. (although obviously they play a part).

With such good reputation it's petty to characterize and underestimate people as "dumb a$$es". Whatever they think if they don't create problems it's their opinion and they should be respected

+1.

 

[NeeJam]

godaddy were right to do that imo

 

[Tippy]

The fact is that ANY Registrar has the power to do what GD did, like you said its in their terms, what this person did was against their domain usage policy thus they acted, they dont need anyone telling them right or wrong / do or dont.

Thus if your against GD and all the other Registrars whos side must you be on?

 

[emega]

The point is not weather the content on the domain was right or wrong. The point is that GoDaddy should not have the right to take a domain name down, that should only be iin the power of the web hosting provider.

 

[Matthew.]

The point is not weather the content on the domain was right or wrong. The point is that GoDaddy should not have the right to take a domain name down, that should only be iin the power of the web hosting provider.

If we're going to be technical to avoid confusion here then the host should have power to suspend or remove a site based on it's content, the host should not have power over the domain as such.

IMO it's like buying a can of beans, and having the supermarket take it back because you may potentially throw it at someone.

:notme:

 

[Tippy]

The Registrar issued the name in the first place so that gives them the right to take it away if they see fit, which they did in this case. Break the rules, lose your name, heck it never was really yours to begin with, you just rented it for whatever term, at the end if you dont pay/renew its gone.

 

[Matthew.]

GoDaddy have done nothing wrong, it's in their TOS which, like i keep saying, the owner will have agreed to. The larger issue is if registrars should be allowed to do this, or more specifically should they be allowed to do this without a court order or injunction and if domain usage should be a condition that allows registrars to revoke the domain.

As has been mentioned, surely it is the hosts job to police content.

 

[emega]

GoDaddy have done nothing wrong, it's in their TOS which, like i keep saying, the owner will have agreed to. The larger issue is if registrars should be allowed to do this, or more specifically should they be allowed to do this without a court order or injunction and if domain usage should be a condition that allows registrars to revoke the domain.

As has been mentioned, surely it is the hosts job to police content.

Just because its in their TOS to do whatever they want, does not mean that it is ethically, the right thing to do.

 

[Matthew.]

Just because its in their TOS to do whatever they want, does not mean that it is ethically, the right thing to do.

That is exactly my point, i am not saying what GoDaddy did was ethically correct (this has been my point all along).

Whhat some people are getting confused with is people saying what GoDaddy did was legally wrong which it's not.

 

[shockie]

i think what GD did was both legal and ethical...

legal: it's in the tos
ethical: i don't see taking down a website with other people's passwords as inappropriate use of their [gd's] power.

i think a lot of people are complaining/worried about this situation because of the power gd (legitimately as per tos) has over their domain names. seeing that we all agree that this site shouldnt be left up, i still havent seen gd wrongly exercise their right to take down any site...

registrars, including gd, should imho always have this clause in their tos. it is comparable to how people can make citizen's arrests. not that i have any stats to prove this, but my instinct tells me that most citizen's arrests end up being right, as with gd's decisions on taking down "bad" sites, making the world a better place

 

[dotnom]

It's REALLY amazing what a good marketing and a bullet proof product awareness can do to people. Black is white and white is black.

I think we lost lot of time with GoDaddy. He will do whatever he wants because he has the supreme power
Right or wrong ?
Time will tell if this domain giant turns to fealty beast or a white knight against internet corruption

IMO opinion the biggest crimes always started with a gentle and innocent excuse

 

[floatingworld]

...if my username and password was broadcast all over a website, I think I would like the offending page pulled asap....consultation? purleaaaze! On the matter in question GD acted correctly. Free speech for what? Some people just don't live in the real world.

 

[dotnom]

...if my username and password was broadcast all over a website, I think I would like the offending page pulled asap....consultation? purleaaaze! On the matter in question GD acted correctly. Free speech for what? Some people just don't live in the real world.

If your username and password was published at the net you should first change them and don't wait when someone else will remove your info
The specific case is not a sample of good will but a$$ covering of GOdaddy

In any case it's a waste of time to repeat the same again and again

I agree that some people really don't understand anything apart the headlines but i don't blame them, you just learn to live with people that understand and other that don't understand, this is the real world

NamePros Court Rests. Let's call it mistrial due to luck of evidence !!

 

[shockie]

If your username and password was published at the net you should first change them and don't wait when someone else will remove your info

obviously if you knew your username/pass was published you'd change it, but what if those thousands of users didnt know? im willing to bet a couple of np$s that they didnt all know, lol.

 

[dotnom]

obviously if you knew your username/pass was published you'd change it, but what if those thousands of users didnt know? im willing to bet a couple of np$s that they didnt all know, lol.

If they didn't know myspace must notify them because i assume at least 1 person saw all the details and he can replicate them to the web again, let's hope not paste them in a blog or somewhere public , especially in GoDaddy's domain

 

[enlytend]

The other side of the story ...

http://seclists.org/nmap-hackers/2007/0000.html

Seclists is a resource used by a number of people in information security ("white hat" as well as "black hat"). It archives several security-related mailing lists (as do a number of other sites), including the FullDisclosure list, which is where the material was posted over a week earlier.

Security is a hot topic, and it's easy to say Seclists was in the wrong and "deserved" it. But does that justify the failure of the other party(ies) to follow proper procedures ? What if someone were to post something in your forum and you didn't see it right away? Should your site be taken down without notification? This wasn't an emergency action to immediately cut off the sole source of sensitive material. The list in question was (and still is) all over the net and had been there for over a week.

(Which poses the question: What was MySpace's security staff doing proactively to safeguard those accounts during that time? Maybe lock them, reset passwords, notify the users??? Maybe rethink the vulnerabilities in their application that have allowed their users passwords to be phished by these no-brainer attacks multiple times? The compromised list should have been completely invalid by then ...)

Technically however, GD acted within what is allowed by their TOS. And that's the unsettling part - they can axe a domain for "morally objectionable activities" and give themselves power to define this at will. How many people on this forum were recently up in arms because a domain sales site delisted a bunch of "morally objectionable" names?

More about Godaddy's response:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/01/godaddy_defends.html