Comments on: FamilyAlbum.com and GoDaddy Update http://domainnamewire.com/2007/03/05/familyalbumcom-and-godaddy-update/ News and Views for the Domain Name Industry Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:56:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Alfred http://domainnamewire.com/2007/03/05/familyalbumcom-and-godaddy-update/comment-page-1/#comment-69100 Alfred Sat, 26 May 2007 12:23:10 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2007/03/05/familyalbumcom-and-godaddy-update/#comment-69100 Until recently we were considering becoming godaddy resellers. But I find it to be an incredible conflict of interest for a registrar to also offer the types of services that make it possible for them to profit off of account suspensions and cancellations. If the original owner of FamilyAlbum.com ever decides to take this to court (Maybe he should contact the EFF?) he could probably win. Until recently we were considering becoming godaddy resellers. But I find it to be an incredible conflict of interest for a registrar to also offer the types of services that make it possible for them to profit off of account suspensions and cancellations. If the original owner of FamilyAlbum.com ever decides to take this to court (Maybe he should contact the EFF?) he could probably win.

]]> By: Nick Wilsdon http://domainnamewire.com/2007/03/05/familyalbumcom-and-godaddy-update/comment-page-1/#comment-47466 Nick Wilsdon Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:23:33 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2007/03/05/familyalbumcom-and-godaddy-update/#comment-47466 Personally I'd like to hear some clarification from ICANN on this issue. From my reading it seems that this regulation was created to target people carrying out online fraud and cybersquatting. Anonymous WHOIS information makes it harder to track these individuals and companies down. The threat of cancellation was there to give the Registrars/Resellers some teeth in making these people correct their contact information. Until this regulation was created AFAIK there was no official clause that explicity allowed Registrars/Resellers to cancel a client domain (although as you say it is a standard TOS clause of the Registrars themselves). While GoDaddy stuck to this regulation rigidly they seem to have missed the spirit in which it was written. I don't believe it was intended to be wielded against legitimate businesses like FamilyAlbum.com. In this respect they left the decision for cancellation up to the 'good judgment' of the provider. Personally I’d like to hear some clarification from ICANN on this issue. From my reading it seems that this regulation was created to target people carrying out online fraud and cybersquatting. Anonymous WHOIS information makes it harder to track these individuals and companies down.

The threat of cancellation was there to give the Registrars/Resellers some teeth in making these people correct their contact information. Until this regulation was created AFAIK there was no official clause that explicity allowed Registrars/Resellers to cancel a client domain (although as you say it is a standard TOS clause of the Registrars themselves).

While GoDaddy stuck to this regulation rigidly they seem to have missed the spirit in which it was written. I don’t believe it was intended to be wielded against legitimate businesses like FamilyAlbum.com. In this respect they left the decision for cancellation up to the ‘good judgment’ of the provider.

]]> By: Basicity http://domainnamewire.com/2007/03/05/familyalbumcom-and-godaddy-update/comment-page-1/#comment-47412 Basicity Tue, 06 Mar 2007 05:41:26 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2007/03/05/familyalbumcom-and-godaddy-update/#comment-47412 For domainers with domains at GoDaddy, start moving your domains out to another registrar! For domainers with domains at GoDaddy, start moving your domains out to another registrar!

]]>