On 1/17/06, Bill Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Ghali wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
> >> The first and second paragraphs are sane. The last paragraph gives Go
> >> Daddy the right to capriciously and arbitrarily delete your domain for
> >> any reason they wish ("Morally objectionable activities will include,
> >> but not be limited to...")
> >
> > Do you believe that your philosophical objections to the language absolves
> > you as a customer from the minimal due dilligence of knowing what you are
> > agreeing to?
>
> Find me a registrar that DOESN'T have that kind of language in their user
> agreements, then tell me if anyone wishing to do any kind of e-commerce
> has a choice.
Yes, but that language DOESN'T have to stay in YOUR agreement.
Many registrars will negotiate contract language, at least for larger customers.
My employer isn't a huge network operation, with just a few hundred domains,
but is big enough to have staff counsel, and stubborn enough to routinely
stonewall ISPs and registrar's into removing content related clauses from
their contracts.
Messes with my project deadlines, but better late than Godaddy.
> I've gone off on a tear about this before: A registrar has a license to
> print money. Boilerplate user agreements that leave the user zero recourse
> are the standard. I haven't seen a registrar yet that doesn't have this
> kind of verbiage completely freeing them from liability for *any* action
> taken on a domain registration, including none.
And this is why, if any money is riding on the service at all, you
have
at least one law talking guy vet all contracts at the front of the process.
Kevin Kadow
