Dreamhost domain registration vs. GoDaddy

Given this recent item about GoDaddy suspending domains without notice based on a complaint:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/1542218

What is Dreamhost's policy on similar issues regarding domains registered with them? Do they enforce any TOS regarding what the domain is used for (or allegedly used for) and suspend or remove domains without prior notice, as GoDaddy does? I'm asking because I have some domains registered through GoDaddy and I'm thinking of switching them in protest of their actions, but want to know if DH is actually a better place to put my domain registrations in that regard.

(Not that I'm doing anything with any of the domains that I think is remotely a violation of either GoDaddy or Dreamhost's TOS, but I just dislike on principle a registrar acting as judge, jury, and executioner like that.)

-- Dan

DH host websites as long as they are legal.

I can't answer in the name of DH, but if there is a webpage with a big security flaw (with hundreds of username and password) it' normal to (at least temporary) disable this website.

When you have to act fast, you can't wait for a court or a juge to ask for it.

In reply to:
When you have to act fast, you can't wait for a court or a juge to ask for it.

I disagree. While I can understand why a *host* might take down a site that contains objectionable or illegal content, I don't really think a *registrar* should be disabling domains because of content, unless ordered by the relevant authorities to do so. In my opinion, GoDaddy has set a dangerous precedent here.

As for DreamHost, I think the best option would be to contact DreamHost themselves and ask for their position on issues such as this.

Mark

In reply to:
While I can understand why a *host* might take down a site that contains objectionable or illegal content, I don't really think a *registrar* should be disabling domains because of content, unless ordered by the relevant authorities to do so.

My feelings exactly! The host has certain responsibilities, in the U.S., under DMCA, and I expect they will be presented with takedown notices from time to time. A registrar taking it upon themselves to "take down" a site (even for the "safety of the internet" to paraphrase the abuse guy at GoD*ddy) is just not right - there is no "process" or oversight except what they feel is appropriate, and I don't think they should have that power.

--rlparker

I believe there must be come rules about this.

I agree with Raz2133 and rlparker, I don't believe it is the registrars place to be disabling domains, any issues should be directed to the company hosting that domain, since that is where the objectionable/illegal content if any is located. This is not a good precedent GoDaddy have set imo.

In reply to:
A registrar taking it upon themselves to "take down" a site (even for the "safety of the internet" to paraphrase the abuse guy at GoD*ddy) is just not right

I just hope that all the negative publicity over this particular case will result in some concrete guidelines on exactly what a registrar can and can't do, if such guidelines do not already exist.

I think that many of the people siding with GoDaddy in this case have 'missed the point' entirely. Allowing registrars to arbitrarily take down domains for content reasons is a slippery slope. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that the content in this particular case should have remained accessible, but it was not the registrars responsibility to remove it.

I mean, where do we draw the line? Will we see future cases where domains will be taken down because they contain content offensive to a particular government / company?

Mark

Similar things can happen here. More examples can be found. It's a difficult balancing act for all parties to play, and I expect dreamhost plays the game the best they can, with due consideration for protecting their own assets. I'll say this for godaddy - the other day they gave me a refund for a year-old incorrect charge, without a moment's hesitation. smile

But are there any examples of DH stepping in as a registrar and changing nameservers? They'll suspend hosting accounts, just like every other host out there... but GoDaddy basically hijacked the domain name, as a registrar.

Having said that, I've used Godaddy for years (still have domains there) and never had any problems.

The discussion/situation you linked is not similar at all. In the linked situation, the *host* suspended operation of a site they felt had been compromised. In the situation the OP was posting about, a *registrar* disabled a *domain name*.

While the "results" may appear to be the same, there is a world of difference in the decision making process, and the various constituents' responsibilities and potential exposure. wink

--rlparker

In reply to:
The discussion/situation you linked is not similar at all. In the linked situation, the *host* suspended operation of a site they felt had been compromised. In the situation the OP was posting about, a *registrar* disabled a *domain name*.

While the "results" may appear to be the same, there is a world of difference in the decision making process, and the various constituents' responsibilities and potential exposure.

--rlparker

Indeed, the way GoDaddy handles such matters impacted me personally, which is why I went to DreamHost.

Here's a link to an article I posted on the subject, which explains it all:

http://macnightowl.com/newsletter/2007/01/28/newsletter-issue-374/#godaddy

By the way, after just about a month, I can say that DreamHost smokes GoDaddy when it comes to performance, even though our bills are a mite higher now.

Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Co-Host, The Paracast
http://www.theparacast.com

In reply to:
there is a world of difference in the decision making process

I suppose you're right. Jeff probably wears a different thinking cap depending on whether it's a registrar issue, hosting issue, or both coming at him. The precedent is taking adverse action without warning, and without even subsequently informing you of details of the circumstances. To think it would be significantly different for "serious" registration issues seems wishful.

Damn you all for causing me to even look at this crud, cool but there appears to be plenty of weasel room to allow inconvenient action with little or no warning.

http://www.dreamhost.com/register-agreement.html

"When we are threatened with suit by a third party, we may seek written assurances from you concerning your promise to indemnify us; your failure to provide those assurances may be considered by us to be a breach of your Agreement and may result in deactivation of your domain name."

http://www.dreamhost.com/domains-udrp.html#3

"We may also cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to a domain name registration in accordance with the terms of your Registration Agreement or other legal requirements."

Gene,

Any remotely credible complaint of spamming will get Dreamhost to take you down too, or at least make you scramble and beg for a 2nd chance.

BTW, anybody know where dreamhost-sucks.com went? Coincidence? Extraterrestrial action? laugh

In reply to:
anybody know where dreamhost-sucks.com went? Coincidence? Extraterrestrial action?

Perhaps it has something to do with this dreamhoststatus.com post. Although, Jeff did state in the comments that critical sites were legally protected.

Mark

Ah, yes, and this would be just over 30 days notice. cool

In reply to:
Perhaps it has something to do with this dreamhoststatus.com post. Although, Jeff did state in the comments that critical sites were legally protected.

That could very well have something to do with it. A quick "google" will make it pretty obvious that the "tide has turned" a bit on the whole "sucks sites" situation.

For years it was pretty much a crapshoot - the court rulings were pretty inconsistent, with the "suck site" operator prevailing at times and the trademark holder prevailing at other times. That seems to be changing, as most recent rulings have landed squarely on the side of the trademark holder.

The content of critical sites may well be protected legally, but the "law" seems to be evolving more toward supporting the trademark holder when it comes to the use of a trademark in a domain name, "parody" and "criticism" considerations notwithstanding.

Of course, given that quality, and content, of that particular site (old content, not updated, few contributors, puppet-population, etc.) "natural selection" might have just kicked in resulting in its demise. No real loss. wink .

--rlparker

In reply to:
Gene,

Any remotely credible complaint of spamming will get Dreamhost to take you down too, or at least make you scramble and beg for a 2nd chance.

BTW, anybody know where dreamhost-sucks.com went? Coincidence? Extraterrestrial action?

The key in your response is "credible complaint of spamming," which is not one lone complaint about an announcement for a free program that contains family-friendly content.

I agree that, with compelling evidence of spamming, the registrar and/or host may indeed be put in a position where they have to make some important decisions. In this case, however, the client needs to be given proper notice to explain his or her actions and provide the requested indemnification.

But I think you see the distinction here between the former and the latter. I'll vote for the latter every time.

Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Co-Host, The Paracast
http://www.theparacast.com

In reply to:
A quick "google" will make it pretty obvious that the "tide has turned"

That could have some to do with the recent defusing of google bombs.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/01/quick-word-about-googlebombs.html

In reply to:
A quick "google" will make it pretty obvious that the "tide has turned" - That could have some to do with the recent defusing of google bombs.

I suppose it *could*, if you launched a "google bomb" for your search. Using any reasonable series of appropriate and relevant search terms makes the whole handling of your search by any change in "google-bomb" handling completely irrelevant.

Or, you could use another search facility, or just research the last couple of years WIPO trends reports, or use any other method of research that suits you.

Whatever method of research you use, the fact is that the trend on the handling of "suck sites" disputes is changing, partly because of a WIPO report on trends in domain name dispute decisions, published in March 2005.

"On 'sucks' sites, it agreed that non-fluent English speakers would fail to recognize the negative connotations of the word. " - Source

--rlparker

In reply to:
BTW, anybody know where dreamhost-sucks.com went?

Maybe Dreamhost doesn't suck anymore? :D

In reply to:
which is not one lone complaint about an announcement for a free program that contains family-friendly content.

It starts with one complaint that looks potentially credible. Neither free nor family-friendly has anything to do with it, AFAIK.

In reply to:
I'll vote for the latter every time.

Me too.

Simon, I'm sure you're correct on the trends. I just thought it was interesting and coincidental that a reduced number of hits of "sucks" sites from "google" could have something to do with a recently announced change.

In reply to:
Maybe Dreamhost doesn't suck anymore? :D

Did they ever?! laugh

In reply to:
Did they ever?

No.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rhetorical , Jack.

In reply to:
It starts with one complaint that looks potentially credible. Neither free nor family-friendly has anything to do with it, AFAIK.

It's a matter of how the registrar and/or host provider handles it, however. They could simply email the sender and ask what happened. In most cases, it can probably be easily explained as a mistake on the part of the recipient, or unintentional.

If the company goes overboard in investigating the matter, however, threatening to demand a "tribute" payment to keep from suspending a domain, or hold it hostage from transfer without paying an exorbitant fee, that's another issue.

The first is proper due diligence. The second is excessive, and unjustified.

Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Co-Host, The Paracast
http://www.theparacast.com

In reply to:
That could very well have something to do with it.

It turns out to be another hosting sucks situation, with a suspected DNS/registrar/hosting fubar (if you believe the story and diagnosis). This illustrates an advantage of having registrar and host at the same company - they can't blame the other company for problems.

I predict coming soon: assplus.com and/or aplus-sucks.com sites. dreamhost-sucks.com is probably lowest priority of his sites to bring back online.

Excerpt here, in case it goes down again. laugh

In reply to:
http://www.finnishschool.com/2007/01/23/finnish-school-back-online/

"...Over the past few days, Finnish School and all my other sites have been experiencing some serious problems involving the DNS server (Click on the link below for a full report).

"All of this has been completely out of my control and in the hands of my worthless soon-to-be-ex web host provider. This site has been running strong for over four years now and the moment I make it donation-based, it goes down for a few days.
...
"Again, I am really really sorry for this downtime and I truly appreciate your patience. I�m now in the process of changing web hosts so this should never happen again. Hopefully tonight I�ll get my first good night of sleep in six days. And hopefully all the hair I�ve pulled out will grow back.

For anyone who is interested in the detailed report of my server�s downtime�

On Wednesday evening, the DNS server on my dedicated server stopped connecting to other DNS servers. My web host, APlus.net (I�m calling them AssPlus from now on), claimed it was a problem with my domain registrar, GoDaddy.com - and of course, GoDaddy.com said it was a problem with my web host.

On Thursday Neil (owner of Finland Forum) was investigating the problem, on Friday he put me in touch with a friend of his who was absolutely sure it was a problem with my web host. He e-mailed all his findings to my web host. (Big hat tip to Neil & Florian for all their help!!)

On Friday AssPlus admitted it was a problem on their end, and they were fixing it. On Saturday I phoned them up, bitched them out, and found out that they have the weekends off (so much for 24/7 support) and will continue on Monday.

Saturday night I began a new contract with Go Daddy for web hosting. Everything was finalized Sunday morning and I began making the transfer.

On Monday morning (I was up till 5:30am watching football & working on the server) I had the sites up and running (but with some problems). On Monday afternoon, the sites went down, and I discovered that GoDaddy had suspended my account. I called GoDaddy, it appears they gave me an IP address from a previous client who had been receiving a DoS attack - the client had left but the DoS attack continued.

So now�s it�s Tuesday afternoon, it appears that AssPlus has fixed their problem (only took them six days) and I have pointed all the DNS entries back here to AssPlus until I get GoDaddy worked out. Then I�ll slowly migrate them over. "

----

In reply to:
It turns out to be another hosting sucks situation...I predict coming soon: assplus.com and/or aplus-sucks.com sites. dreamhost-sucks.com is probably lowest priority of his sites to bring back online.

...and then, shortly, a GoDaddySucks version, no doubt. This guy obviously has patently "bad luck" with hosts. wink

--rlparker

In reply to:
This guy obviously has patently "bad luck" with hosts. [wink

Perhaps there is a generic 'hosting-sucks' site in the making. wink

Mark

In reply to:
Perhaps there is a generic 'hosting-sucks' site in the making.

No, because web hosting is fun.

Dreamhost domain registration vs. GoDaddy