Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

GoDaddy Caves To Irish Legal Threat 176

Posted by kdawson
from the lawyers-guns-and-money dept.
crush writes, "An Irish website RateYourSolicitor.com, which aims to let clients find and rate solicitors (a British Isles flavor of lawyer), has received an Irish High Court injunction to remove defamatory material about one such rated solicitor. The site is hosted by a US provider, gmax.net, which has reportedly been served notice by lawyers acting for the defamed solicitor. According to the article, GoDaddy, as the domain name registrar, has locked access to the site (registration or bugmenot required). (Amusingly, the records are all for a 'John Smith' in the Russian Federation at 'lawyercatcher@lawyer.com'!) An interesting twist to all of this is that according to the Communications Decency Act, an ISP, as a publisher, cannot be held responsible or legally liable for what their clients do. So how can GoDaddy justify this censorship? Or are registrars the weak link in a system that seems like it ought to be robust against censorship?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GoDaddy Caves To Irish Legal Threat

Comments Filter:
  • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Saturday September 16, 2006 @12:46PM (#16120830) Homepage
    Perhaps GoDaddy is blocking them not out of pure censorship, but because this scandal has revealed that one of the domains they manage doesn't have correct WHOIS information, which many registrars require in the TOS?
    • by Shkuey (609361)
      That would be giving a company the benefit of the doubt we they havent yet responded to accusations. We don't do that around here.
    • by schwaang (667808) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @01:00PM (#16120888)
      A broadly-worded TOS is the way that ISPs in countries like America perform censorship.

      We ostensibly have freedom of speech, and don't legally ban things like hate speech as they do in France, for example. Instead we use our corporations to enforce the same kinds of restrictions against "offensive content" and such.

      In this case, GoDaddy's TOS includes this gem:
      Go Daddy reserves the right to terminate Services if Your usage of the Services results in, or is the subject of, legal action or threatened legal action, against Go Daddy or any of its affiliates or partners, without consideration for whether such legal action or threatened legal action is eventually determined to be with or without merit.


      So any jackass could shut you down by threatening to sue GoDaddy. Niiiice.

      "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one."

      [TOS = "Terms of Service", you know -- the huge page of small print that you scroll past in order to click the "I agree" button.]
      • by westlake (615356) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @01:19PM (#16120954)
        So any jackass could shut you down by threatening to sue GoDaddy. Niiiice.

        So find yourself another host. One with pockets so deep they don't have to worry about limiting their exposure. Good luck on that one.

      • by Tanktalus (794810) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @01:32PM (#16121002) Journal

        Side note: "your" freedom of speech is one predicated on government involvement. Specifically, the lack therein. It does not, however, compel a newspaper to print your article or letter to the editor. It merely prevents the government (in theory) deciding for the newspaper that it won't. The newspaper is still free to deny your article for any reason, whether trivial (it spelled "its" wrong) or conspiratorial ("for the common good").

        Similarly, ISPs are free to restrict who gets to use their service. (Of course, there are other repercussions here - if they take an overtly active role in this, for example, they lose common-carrier status, and thus become liable for everything, where "overtly" and "active" are loosely defined based on case law.) If GoDaddy doesn't want to provide service to pornographers or spammers, that's their business. If GoDaddy has a weak stomach for lawsuits, that, too, is their business. However, even if they do have a strong stomach for lawsuits, their TOS says that they reserve the right to make decisions to terminate service unilaterally based on their perception of the lawsuit. The "with or without merit" part is simply a cover-your-ass statement that says that you and they could even disagree about the winnability of a lawsuit, but they still get to make the call. That's there just because someone got sued at some point in the past for doing something like capitulating over what turned out to be nothing, I'm sure.

        So, please. Do not bring up freedom of speech. Your constitutional amendment to that effect is irrelevant. At least to this situation.

        (Disclaimer: nothing in here says you are wrong for disliking GoDaddy. Just as you're free to express your view, I am mine. I'm not preventing you from blaming free speech - just trying to explain it a bit more.)

        • Don't you get it? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Travoltus (110240) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @01:57PM (#16121097) Journal
          Freedom from Government censorship isn't worth anything when corporations can make an end run around them and shut you up.

          You can't go anywhere now and put out fliers because there's ordninances against it. You can't broadcast online because ISP's shut you down when you say something "objectionable enough".

          We need free speech zones on the internet that do not depend on corporations or Government.
          • by Infernal Device (865066) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @02:05PM (#16121126)
            We need free speech zones on the internet that do not depend on corporations or Government.

            It's called your computer. Specifically, for you, the one you own.

            You have the Freedom of Speech. Nowhere is it written that you have Freedom of Easy-to-Access Speech or the Freedom of Everyone-has-to-help-you-so-ISP's-gimme-a-cable-li ne Speech.
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Qzukk (229616)
              You have the Freedom of Speech. Nowhere is it written that you have Freedom of Easy-to-Access Speech

              Tell me, Mr. Infernal, what good is a phone call... if you are unable to speak?
              • by Infernal Device (865066) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @03:43PM (#16121489)
                Tell me, Mr. Infernal,

                Technically speaking, using the rules of English, that's Mr. Device. Be that as it may ...

                what good is a phone call... if you are unable to speak?

                Let's see here. There's pen and paper (could get your hands lopped off or perhaps your eyes gouged out) or ultimately, you can still walk out the door and communicate directly with your supplicants.

                I get the general gist of your argument - really, I do. But you need to understand that no one person, corporation, business, or other entity is required to help you with whatever your mission is. Count yourself lucky that for the most part, these businesses aren't too worried about it - it's a side effect of the communications business that you have the ability to spread your screed over a wide area.

                But it doesn't have to be that way and you should not count on it if what you have to say is particularly disturbing to the rest of society (or even some small part of it - as long as it's influential). Ultimately, you are only guaranteed the Freedom, not the means to utilize it in a convenient manner.
                • Ultimately, you are only guaranteed the Freedom, not the means to utilize it in a convenient manner.

                  Mod parent up. So few people seem to get this.
            • No, I get it. (Score:3, Insightful)

              by NeutronCowboy (896098)
              Yeah, I used to think like that as well. Free speech doesn't apply to corporations or private web sites and all that.

              However, do you really want to live in a place where Freedom of Speech is merely a hypothetical idea rather than a practical truth? Is the US really a better place than China, Russia or any other country when freedom of speech only exists when it doesn't offend anyone? Do you have freedom of speech if anyone can shut down your speech?
              • However, do you really want to live in a place where Freedom of Speech is merely a hypothetical idea rather than a practical truth?

                It is a hard fact here in the U.S. No, wait ... read on.

                Is the US really a better place than China, Russia or any other country when freedom of speech only exists when it doesn't offend anyone?

                No. But offensive ideas come in all shapes and sizes and do not just contain curse words, racial epithets, and naked people doing wacky stuff, etc. I think you're not expanding your thinki
                • But offensive ideas come in all shapes and sizes and do not just contain curse words, racial epithets, and naked people doing wacky stuff, etc.

                  I don't think that I stated anywhere that offensive speech only involves cursing or sex. :)

                  Yes, so long as you live in a place where it is guaranteed by law. No one outside of the elected ruling body or other guarantor has to make it easy to exercise, though.

                  I challenge that. To take your example of what offensive speech is, ease of exercise can be defined very n

                  • I don't think that I stated anywhere that offensive speech only involves cursing or sex

                    That was for the benefit of people outside this discussion, just in case they weren't getting it, and to be honest, to make sure you understood the point I was arguing from. At any rate, there are certain things I challenge in your argument.

                    I can't vote a corporation out

                    You don't vote an elected official out - you either re-elect or replace them when their term ends. While you can't vote a corporation "in" or "out", you c
                    • By their very nature, corporations are vulnerable to public perception, which drives purchasing and profits.

                      Yeah, but if there is no way for information about the corporation's behavior to be made public, how is their public perception going to be affected?

                    • You don't vote an elected official out - you either re-elect or replace them when their term ends.

                      I disagree, but not enough to actually argue about it. Point taken.

                      A downturn in perception has very real effects on the bottom line for most industries.

                      Very true. But that's not what matters. The problem is that by definition, my state government and the federal government *has* to listen to me when I vote. They cannot toss my ballot out because it doesn't match their needs or desires. On the other hand, a cor

                    • by devilspgd (652955) *
                      On the other hand, a corporation is perfectly capable (both legally and practically) of ignoring my dollar vote

                      Oh really? So if you stop giving your money to company A and instead give it to company B, then company A can still spend that money?

                      Sure, it takes a lot of people to vote a company out of business, but then your vote really isn't the deciding factor in a gov't election either, now is it?
                    • You missed the point. During an election, the government is legally required to tabulate my vote. It is irrelevant whether it is the deciding vote. However, a company can ignore the fact that I'm spending money elsewhere. As a matter of fact, it is the common procedure for a company to ignore a large chunk of the population in a given geographical area. You are confusing witholding money with voting for someone in an either/or election. Furthermore, you are ignoring the problem of monopolies. If there's onl
                    • by devilspgd (652955) *
                      Not at all -- If a company doesn't choose to service your area, you don't need to vote against it any more then an American needs to vote in a Canadian election.

                      If there is a monopoly, withholding your money is just the same as if there was a competitor -- If enough people do it, the company will still die out. If not, the people have spoken, the company grows larger and life goes on.

                      It doesn't matter what you do with your money, as long as you don't give it to the company in question, you've voted your tw
              • by Reziac (43301) *
                But where do you draw the line? If a corporation is =required= to *facilitate* your freedom of speech, the logical extension is that *anyone* is required to do so as well.

                Under the current system, if some stranger on the street hands you a diatribe and demands that you read it aloud to the whole world, you can refuse, and your refusal does not impinge on this person's freedom of speech.

                Under a system where corporations (which by extension, means ANY person) are *required* to facilitate freedom of speech, yo
          • "Freedom from Government censorship isn't worth anything when corporations can make an end run around them and shut you up."

            So, you would force them to behave as you would wish? Against their free will? Nice.

            There is no issue of freedom of speech as the parent said. You are free to set up the same service and not cave to whomever. No freedom of speech issue, regardless of your desire to cloak your agenda.

            "You can't go anywhere now and put out fliers because there's ordninances against it."

            That is a bla
          • OpenNIC [wikipedia.org] is an alternative DNS root that does not depend on such corporations. Registering a non-ICANN toplevel domain under an opennic registrar would be good insurance against this kind of thing. Even going strictly with ICANN, registering more than one top level domain under different registrars is good insurance.
          • You can't go anywhere now and put out fliers because there's ordninances against it.

            You never could go "anywhere" to hand out fliers. You can hand out fliers on your property, and on public property. You cannot hand out your fliers on someone else's property.

            It sounds to me like you've never tried. Every lunchtime where I live there are dozens of people standing on the streetcorners handing out leaflets for various sandwich joints. It's all perfectly legal. You should go outside and try stuff, in
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Travoltus (110240)
              Try that in my town. They'll round you up faster than you can say "whoops."

              I drive around here every day. No fliers anywhere, except a few staked signs during election time. The ones that do go up, get taken down within a day. I actually timed it once for an unbelieving in-law.
          • ``We need free speech zones on the internet that do not depend on corporations or Government.''

            Tell me you didn't really say that. Free speech zones?!? Free speech zones are a bastardization. They are to free speech as Digital Rights Management is to digital rights. Taken to the extreme, they can boil down to "you're free to say whatever you want - where nobody can hear you".

            Please, if you are in favor of free speech, don't pretend free speech zones are anything but evil.
        • no.. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by plasmacutter (901737) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @03:19PM (#16121402)
          There is a difference betweeen denying service at request, and denying service after a client has been accepted and paid for his services.

          No landlord, once the person has signed a lease, is allowed to evict their tenant for things like voting habits, their tendency to protest their favorite political party, their tendency to denounce the company they work for, etc.

          If they tried it they could be sued into destitution.

          The same thing with wrongful termination. While empolyers have the right to not hire you, once you are hired theyre not allowed to fire you for things like the hobbies you keep in your spare time or your political affiliation.

          Finally, and most importantly, with increased power or wealth comes increased responsibility. Webhosting companies, like corporations who dominate a geographic area in terms of employment opportunity, estensibly have power rivaling a government and carrying the same weight.. as such they should be held to the same constitutional standards as the government, otherwise those constitutional guarantees don't mean jack.
          • by Maestro4k (707634)

            The same thing with wrongful termination. While empolyers have the right to not hire you, once you are hired theyre not allowed to fire you for things like the hobbies you keep in your spare time or your political affiliation.

            Ahh, but if you live in an "at will" employment state they can. They'll be sure to terminate you for some imagined slight, or simply not give a reason, instead of the real reason to avoid those pesky laws, but at will employment allows them to fire you at any time for any/no reason.

        • Our (excl.) *constitutional guarantee* does not, at present, include right of access to media, or to be free-from-censorship when using services owned by others, since it extends only to our government.

          However, our (incl.) *natural rights* (a function of the human condition and/or an "endowment by the creator"), which are distinct from our constitutional guarantees, are grounded in philosophy and not in law - when someone talks about the "right to free speech", they are refering to something that t
        • Similarly, ISPs are free to restrict who gets to use their service. [...] I'm not preventing you from blaming free speech - just trying to explain it a bit more.)

          There are two concepts of "free speech": what the law actually gives us, and what we, the people, understand the concept to mean. If the concept of "free speech" given to us through laws differs from what we understand the concept to mean, then the problem is with the laws, not with our understanding.

          Everybody understands that ISPs currently have
      • So any jackass could shut you down by threatening to sue GoDaddy. Niiiice.

        You have GoDaddy charging next to nothing for domain names and you expect to get the same service you'd get from a real registrar? C'mon.
    • I dealt with godaddy. After Ben and Justin stopped heading up the anti-spam department, their response to phony whois information has become disappointing.

      This is not just somebody threatening to sue. This is a solicitor/lawyer threatening to sue. Of course a threat is not a lawsuit, but a lawyer threatening to sue on their own behalf and then filing a lawsuit is more likely than someone who has to pay an attorney $300/hour.

      I had an attorney not take my threat of filing a suit seriously, until I provided h
    • by dracocat (554744) *
      Agreed!

      If you are going to have a any sort of domain that may cause any kind of controversy the first thing you need is an acurate address. I have had a couple domains shut down because of this.

      All it takes is one person who doesn't agree with you to report your domain name WHOIS information as inacurate!
    • by gmack (197796)

      Perhaps GoDaddy is blocking them not out of pure censorship, but because this scandal has revealed that one of the domains they manage doesn't have correct WHOIS information, which many registrars require in the TOS?

      GoDaddy has a record of "shoot first ask questions later" when it comes to whois details. A previous employer used to have his domains shut down several times a year because the whois info pointed to the Dominican Republic and Godaddy just couldn't get their heads around the fact that the ad

  • by logicnazi (169418) <logicnaziNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday September 16, 2006 @01:03PM (#16120896) Homepage
    If this really is censorship (and if it isn't why didn't they just go get a defamation judgement entered in the US and get the site host to take it down?) it would certainly be nice if GoDaddy stood up to it. However, standing up to legal challenges takes a lot of money and when they are only getting 8.95 for your domain they can hardly afford to defend these legal cases.

    Frankly you get what you pay for. I'm a happy GoDaddy customer but I if I wanted a registrar who will stand up under legal challenges I don't think it would be unreasonable to switch to a registrar who charges more per domain.
    • if I wanted a registrar who will stand up under legal challenges I don't think it would be unreasonable to switch to a registrar who charges more per domain.

      Your argument might be valid if they had to defend every domain from legal challenges. But they don't. Nobody does. And by standing up against the few challenges for the many domains they manage along the way, they probably both reduce the likelihood of future challenges (especially if they seek repayment of legal fees afterwards each time they win

      • What if GoDaddy only charged $5 per year for domains? Or $2? At what point is the domain so cheap that the cost of ANY litigation is not factored in?

        It's quite reasonable that for $8.95/month, GoDaddy can't afford your 'insurance', and if you want to participate in 'domain name lawsuit insurance', you'll have to go with a provider who provides it, and charges $14.95/yr, or more.
      • "Your argument might be valid if they had to defend every domain from legal challenges."

        No, the argument is valid because they can't afford to contest as many challenges as someone who charges considerably more. Since they have less money they would likley only defend actions that would have an immediate effect of their own profitability. I agree fighting back would deter some challenegers but what if their strategy is to simply cut off customers who cause them legal grief. The number of customers is sma
    • If this really is censorship (and if it isn't why didn't they just go get a defamation judgement entered in the US and get the site host to take it down?)

      Um, because they aren't IN the US? 1. The US would not have jurisdiction against the Defendant, since he's apparently an Irishman, in Ireland. 2. US courts would have no reason to judge the case, since basically everything about it (except for a few servers) is in Ireland. All the evidence and witnesses are in Ireland. 3. It's going to be governed b
      • by logicnazi (169418)
        Wait I'm very confused then. I presumed the only reason to involve godaddy in the situation was because the actual defendant (guy who created the web page) was beyond the jurisdiction of the court but godaddy was not.

        If the actual defendant was under irish jurisdiction they could just issue a court order for HIM to take down the page and if he doesn't throw him in jail for contempt of court. Similarly if it was an irish ISP they could order the ISP to take down the page. I don't understand why godaddy go
  • Who's Your Daddy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @01:06PM (#16120906) Homepage Journal
    GoDaddy's IPO attempt failed [bobparsons.com] last month, as their Net company continues to lose money. They're spinning as "we didn't want to go public, anyway". But maybe they've got bigger problems.

    After all, GoDaddy is owned by a Conservative [bobparsons.com] making his fortune from domain squatting [google.com]. I expect there's quite a lot going on under the hood. I'm looking forward to his explanation, as are many, many people who registered with GoDaddy who expect due process before sudden shutdown.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Reaperducer (871695)
      How is it relavant that he's conservative? Is this person somehow more evil than a liberal making his fortune from domain squatting? If you're going to put it in there, you should explain it, unless you're just trolling.
      • by Doc Ruby (173196)
        I'll explain how it's relevant if you'll explain how just mentioning it is "trolling".
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Reaperducer (871695)
          It could be seen as a trolling attempt because you appear to offer the opinion that being conservative is a bad thing, and associated with domain squatting. People who are conservatives may not share the same view. The only purpose including the man political leanings could serve is to inflame, and thus troll.

          Your turn.
      • by beeblebrox (16781)

        How is it relavant that he's conservative?

        It's somewhat "relevant" because in recent years, most prominent "conservatives" have been caught practicing bait-and-switch. This includes, for example, the "conservative" POTUS on whose watch the US went bankrupt (it didn't start with him, but he made it much worse). True conservatives take fiscal responsibility seriously. Another example are those "conservatives" who, in order to OMG SAVE THE CHILDREN! try to pass laws that will socialize the cost - monetary

  • People shouldn't be surprised that lawyers are litigious.

    Seriously, I'm not surprised. It's been a controversial idea in Ireland and there's really not much of an ability to defend your reputation without resorting to tougher measures. There was a lot of similar controversy with ratemyteacher.com when some of the allegations made on the site were troubling. In some cases the site was used to make (false) allegations of sexual and/or physical abuse. Teachers were rightly outraged.

    To be fair I think that

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Mike Myatt (1003237)
      I like a good lawyer joke just like anyone else, but lawyers in and of themselves are not the problem. There are good and bad service providers within any sector, so why should the legal sector be held to a higher standard? The reality is that there are glitches in the legal system and many people don't understand how to manage the legal process. For more insight into this issue you can read "The Truth About Lawyers" http://www.n2growth.com/blog/?p=12? [n2growth.com]
      • Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @01:50PM (#16121077) Homepage Journal
        >why should the legal sector be held to a higher standard?

        A car mechanic who does a bad job can waste money and cause inconvenience. Lawers abusing the system can shut down entire industries, for example light aircraft manufacturing.

        An electrician who does a bad job can make someone's house burn down. A lawyer who does a bad job can let a client go to Death Row (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid= 17&did=442).

        A floor tile installer who does a bad job can shake someone's faith in floor tile installers. A lawyer who does a bad job can shake the trust in the court system that holds society together.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Tim C (15259)
          While I agree with you, this example isn't a good one:

          A car mechanic who does a bad job can waste money and cause inconvenience.

          Said car mechanic could potentially cause death and destruction, if their work screws up the car's brakes or accelerator, etc. In fact, even the bad floor tile installer could lead to someone being injured (or even killed, if particularly unlucky), if they slip or trip on the tiles.

          All the examples you quote could lead to people dying. I agree, though, that in terms of maximum like
        • by westlake (615356)
          Lawers abusing the system can shut down entire industries, for example light aircraft manufacturing.

          The light aircraft industry went into decline after World War II and never really recovered. The technology was stagnant at entry level. There were dramatic improvememnts in travel by road, by commercial air. Take away the lawsuits and nothing much changes, General Aviation - An Overview [centennialofflight.gov]

      • There are good and bad service providers within any sector, so why should the legal sector be held to a higher standard?

        Because of all of the "sectors," lawyers make the laws which they are all required to follow, including themselves. A classic case of the foxes guarding the henhouse.
  • If you violate the terms of your registrar's AUP (acceptable-use policy) then you only have your self to blame, you've broken a contract.

    Also, it *sounds* as though the domain was registered with fraudulent information (okay, I guess there *could* be a John Smith in Russia). If this is true it would be a violation of ICANN's policy on domain registration, not GoDaddy's.
  • WHOIS (Score:3, Informative)

    by DrunkenTerror (561616) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @01:12PM (#16120930) Homepage Journal
    Registrant:
    John Smith
    krasnaya ploschad
    Moskva 00000
    Russian Federation

    Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
    Domain Name: RATEYOURSOLICITOR.COM
    Created on: 02-Jul-05
    Expires on: 02-Jul-10
    Last Updated on: 15-Jul-05

    Administrative Contact:
    Smith, John lawyercatcher@lawyer.com
    krasnaya ploschad
    Moskva 00000
    Russian Federation
    714987650

    Technical Contact:
    Smith, John lawyercatcher@lawyer.com
    krasnaya ploschad
    Moskva 00000
    Russian Federation
    714987650

    Domain servers in listed order:
    PARK13.SECURESERVER.NET
    PARK14.SECURESERVER.NET

    Registry Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
    Registry Status: clientDeleteProhibited
    Registry Status: clientUpdateProhibited
    Registry Status: clientTransferProhibited
    Registry Status: clientRenewProhibited
  • An interesting twist to all of this is that according to the Communications Decency Act [CC], an ISP, as a publisher, cannot be held responsible or legally liable for what their clients do. So how can GoDaddy justify this censorship?

    The Communications Deceny Act is American law. That doesn't insulate you from the law of the U.K.

    The CD Act protects ISPs from liability for third-party content. Not from content that the ISP creates or publishes itself. You might want to host MySpace. You might not want to o

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by crush (19364)

      Ireland is not in the U.K. so the laws there have absolutely no bearing on this situation. It is my understanding that the Irish fought against British occupation for several centuries and then topped it off with a war from 1916 to 1922. There's a good new movie out called The Wind that Shakes the Barley [imdb.com] about it.

      So, a better question might be, are US hosted websites and registrars under the control of Irish courts? I don't understand how an Irish court ruling makes any difference to a US company. Wha

      • Oh and one other point, its not the British Isles, submitter. Except in Britain. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, its the Republic of Ireland, something that irritates the brits no end. :D

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by tbjw (760188)
          With all due respect, and I happen to know something about this, the name of the state is Ireland. It is commonly called the Republic of Ireland in order to prevent the state (ROI) being confused with the island (Ireland). The name is 'Ireland' in English & 'Éire' in Irish. It's in the constitution.
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @01:27PM (#16120979)
    This is just one more strike against GoDaddy in my book. Just who owns and controls the domain that you've paid for anyway? I wonder if JS can transfer it away to another registrar?

    But GD was already on my don't do business with list when they tried to trick me into transferring my own domain to them. Mine is paid through 2008, and they sent several e-mails to the contact address basically implying that to save it I needed to transfer it to them quickly and pay more money. I despise that tactic from any domain registrar of trying to poach customers in this manner.

    Having very sexy women in their TV ads isn't enough to make up for the above.

  • ... for they are subtle and quick to anger.

    And, being solicitors, are never far from, er, a solicitor.

    Fair play to them for trying though.
  • by Animats (122034) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @03:33PM (#16121458) Homepage

    The owner of that domain is listed as

    John Smith
    krasnaya ploschad
    Moskva 00000
    Russian Federation
    714987650
    lawyercatcher@lawyer.com

    ("krasnaya ploschad" is Red Square, the big plaza in front of the Kremlin.)

    Ordinarily, faced with obnoxious registrar behavior, you can transfer the domain to another registrar. Given this phony domain registration info, thus domain owner can't do that.

    That's the price of phony domain registration info - any trouble, and you lose the domain.

  • by moz25 (262020) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @03:46PM (#16121503) Homepage
    Perhaps slightly off-topic, but which registrars would you guys recommend who have a proven track record of siding with the registrant?
    • I just did a quick survey of controversial sites, that I won't link to here. They don't need any more help in their search engine results. But basically, I was looking for anti-gay and KKK chapter sites.

      They were all registered at Network Solutions.

Sigmund Freud is alleged to have said that in the last analysis the entire field of psychology may reduce to biological electrochemistry.

Working...