7 ms·

Be aware of "morality" clauses from domain registrars

138 points by zacwest 15y ago

ceol 15y ago
The last part of his blog post says he chose Gandi[0] as a registrar because they do not have this clause, but I found a similar one in their General Conditions[1] contract[2]: >By accepting Our Contracts and using Our services, You agree to abide to Our code of ethics which consists, in particular, of protecting and respecting minors, human dignity, public order and good moral standards, not infringing on the rights of third parties (private life, image, honor and reputation, trademarks, designs and models, copyrights, etc.) or the security of persons, property, the government, or the good working order of public institutions, and to help in the fight against abusive and/or deviant uses of the Internet (spamming, phishing, hacking, cracking, or attempts at hacking or cracking), or any other infraction as cited in the Penal Code. I don't see anything about terminating your account "in its sole discretion", though. I personally use Gandi because they have a ton of TLDs and they've been fast and reliable, but I wouldn't hold it against them if they stuck one of these clauses in there. [0]: https://www.gandi.net/ https://www.gandi.net/ [1]: https://www.gandi.net/static/contracts/en/g2/pdf/MSA-1.0-EN.pdf https://www.gandi.net/static/contracts/en/g2/pdf/MSA-1.0-EN.... [2]: https://www.gandi.net/contracts https://www.gandi.net/contracts
- anamax 15y ago
  > the Penal Code. Which penal code?
  - andyking 15y ago
    Presumably France, since that's where they're based.
    - DASD 15y ago
      Gandi is also incorporated in the US. ----- Legal Notice The owner and publisher of this website is Gandi SAS, a simplified joint-stock company registered under French law with a capital of 37,000 Euros. Registered with the Paris RCS – French Trade Registry - under number 423 093 459. Intracommunal VAT number FR81423093459 Headquarters: 63-65 boulevard Massena, Paris (75013), France Telephone: +33.(1)70.37.76.61 Fax: +33.(1)43.73.18.51 US office: Gandi US Inc. 124 Lakefront Drive Hunt Valley, MD 21030 Fax: +1.410-449-4499
      - hub_ 15y ago
        The US office is a subsidiary. I don't know the legal requirements, but I believe that in the worst case scenario both US law and French law would apply. It is my understanding that the registrar is still the French company, therefor subject to French law. IANAL.
        einhverfr 15y ago
        So I cant register a domain there and sell memorabilia from Nazi Germany, right?
  - hub_ 15y ago
    French penal code.
    - rawrly 15y ago
      This is an important concern for any US citizen who may migrate their domains to a Gandi. French law differs dramatically from US laws when it comes to matters of libel, slander and privacy. Why does this matter? If your a US site, and you piss off someone in France then the pissed off individual has a target local to them (Gandi) who they can send legal threats to based on French laws. Or really a mixture of US and French laws. If you would like to look up more on the subject when dealing with international law conflicts, consider reviewing US-EU safe harbor.
ohashi 15y ago
One thing to note, Godaddy has acted on those in the past. I've not once seen NameCheap do it. In fact, I've seen them take the legal hit multiple times and had lawsuits filed against them because they didn't move. http://domainnamewire.com/2011/05/09/namecheap-sued-over-whoisguard/ http://domainnamewire.com/2011/05/09/namecheap-sued-over-who... http://www.domainnamenews.com/up-to-the-minute/solidhostnl-sues-namecheap-and-enom/2070 http://www.domainnamenews.com/up-to-the-minute/solidhostnl-s... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/can-a-mere-domain-name-be-defamation-glenn-beck-says-yes.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/can-a-mere-d... These are a few instances of that, NameCheap doesn't budge on their customers rights despite it being in the agreement. Disclaimer: I know the owner and think he's one of the most respectable people in the domain industry based on my interactions with him over almost a decade now.
TomGullen 15y ago
I honestly don't see a problem with this, it's just a 30 days "we can get out if we want" and/or covering their asses clause from the business providing the service. I don't see anything sinister about it.
- nachteilig 15y ago
  My reading of this is not the same. The clause says "after thirty (30) days", which to me means they can cancel it any time after an initial 30 days.
  - eli 15y ago
    No, that comma before "after" is important. They're giving you a 30 days notice.
sunchild 15y ago
I wish more people would push back on these kinds of open-ended vague clauses in consumer agreements. When I represent big clients in arms-length negotiations, I usually take the position that my client will comply with laws – no more, no less. That leaves the definition of what is "objectionable" up to the (in theory, objective) standards of the law.
- CGamesPlay 15y ago
  Which laws? In Internet-related cases, this is often ambiguous.
  - sunchild 15y ago
    There isn't anything special about the Internet in this context. Lots of laws are ambiguous. That's why, in the common law system, we have courts and precedent. You missed my point: either the standard is the law, or it's "we'll let you know when we have a problem with what you're doing".
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      I think he may have meant, "whose laws"? If you and your client are both in the United States, and your client only has customers in the United States, that's clear. But that's also rare.
      - sunchild 15y ago
        Again, it doesn't really matter. Most countries have laws and respect the rule of law. Same principle applies, except places where the rule of law doesn't hold.
nachteilig 15y ago
It seems that Tucows doesn't have a clause like that, unless I'm reading this incorrectly. http://www.opensrs.com/docs/contracts/exhibita.htm http://www.opensrs.com/docs/contracts/exhibita.htm
- paxswill 15y ago
  That's the the impression I get as well from looking over the ToS for Hover as well.
  - freejack 15y ago
    Yup, that's correct. We can terminate your contract with us and force a transfer out. We can also suspend DNS and email service if you use us and we can be required by the registries or law enforcement to take specific action based on our contract with them and you or national law, but we don't make special carve outs to extend our rights beyond that already provided under law. (FYI: I'm the GM for Hover...)
alanh 15y ago
Avoid BlueHost for this reason.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Avoid every company on the web for this reason...
  - seanp2k2 15y ago
    DNS is broken. Let's fix it: http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page We could also establish a viable alternative DNS root zone and nameservers that people could use if their country censors the internet. See also: Jon Postel rolling in grave.
hechtic 15y ago
Registrars have rules set by Registries (For example, Verisign is the registry for .com, .net). I would assume these rules go back to the original issuers of the domains. Regardless, I think that any registrar would have to have some "we reserve the right to shut down your domains" clause given the number of botnets and other uncool stuff on the net which use lots of domains (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker#Payload_propagation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker#Payload_propagation for example)
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Yes, thank you for your reasonable comment. I don't get why everyone gets all apocalyptic any time there's something even remotely "bad" sounding in any Internet company TOS. If we read the TOS of every site we ever visited we'd have an HN with nothing but submissions about how every website on the entire web is impinging on user rights. Let's focus less on all this minutia and get back to startups and code, please.
- freejack 15y ago
  Yeah - mostly, sorta... :) Registries and ICANN do require registrars to include certain clauses in their contracts with end-users/registrants, but I'm not aware of any that include vague morality clauses. This document - http://www.opensrs.com/docs/contracts/exhibita.htm http://www.opensrs.com/docs/contracts/exhibita.htm - is an enumeration of the terms and conditions that ICANN and the registries require us (Hover/Tucows) to include in our contract with our customers/registrants. These requirements aren't specific to us. I was in the room in the late '90s when most of these clauses were negotiated and then again in the early '00's when the new registries came online (Afilias, Neulevel, etc.) and most of the new registries just simply absorbed the existing T&C's in order to smooth out the approval process associated with them launching their new TLDs. They've grown and evolved in the last ten years and aren't as uniform as they once were, but generally, you can still see the pattern in there. Generally, most of the power a registrar requires to prevent the bad guys from doing bad things comes from national laws and not all these extra clauses. We (Hover/Tucows) find that all these extra conditions just make it harder for our customers to do business with us and so we've left out as much as we can and rely mostly on national laws to get what we need done.
tnuc 15y ago
Avoid .cx for this reason as well. We all saw what happened to goatse.
CGamesPlay 15y ago
Just as a thought exercise, I wonder what kind of ramifications we would see if a registrar shut down a major domain name like google.com or facebook.com (beyond the obvious lawsuit; what would come of that suit?). Lost revenue for either company would very quickly exceed the value of the registrar.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
Let's not piss our pants again over this language... Again. That language is what I like to call "cover my ass" language. By that I mean a lot of companies add in clauses that sound real bad but in reality they're just standard legal jargon that lets them cover their ass in the event that they're forced to. This isn't some totalitarian conspiracy and none of the companies using this language actually want to or have any interest in canceling your domains. This is a very insignificant thing. Let's stop getting our panties in a twist over every little clause in every company's TOS and get back to startups and the cool interesting stuff that used to get posted around here.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  Forced to is a problematic term though. A company can be "forced to" because they don't want to stand up in court for the rights of their customers. They can be "forced to" because not doing so would subject them to bad press or just look bad. The problem here is that the terms can be read in a very one-sided way (leaving aside the questions of adherence contract interpretation) and therefore all the power in the interaction is held by the registrar.
- wnight 15y ago
  You're wrong. One-sided contracts are not insignificant. If you think they are you're in for a world of hurt. But if you don't like reading about them, don't. I don't see how you're being forced into these threads. In fact, feel free to vote them down. But don't pollute them.
nirvana 15y ago
Unfortunately, every registrar in the USA has, essentially, a "morality" clause imposed upon it by the US government. I'm not just talking about ICE seizures of .com domains, but also state judges ordering that domains be seized without regard for ICANN rules, and the federal governments widely healed belief that they can demand people be shut down. I'd love to find a "no bullshit" registrar that was outside the USA. In a jurisdiction where censorship is actually forbidden. Iceland could be a good candidate. [1] I'm much more worried about a domain being stolen by the US government than I am by hackers. And that's not because I'm doing anything the US government shouldn't like... just that, with all these massive seizures, they're going to get domains by mistake. Then try and get your domain back... ugh. [1] http://www.slaw.ca/2010/06/17/iceland-passes-law-to-protect-press-freedom/ http://www.slaw.ca/2010/06/17/iceland-passes-law-to-protect-...
- ohashi 15y ago
  The worry circulating around the domain industry is that they will use VeriSign and Virginia jurisdiction at the registry level. I can't remember if this has happened or not yet though.
  - freejack 15y ago
    The ICE seizures relied on this. Also of worry is the nexus created by the Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, etc.) which manage the address space and associated policy. ARIN manages the IP address space for US, Canada, many Caribbean and North Atlantic islands and could easily be hobbled by over-reaching legislation from any of those national interests - with possibly a much deeper and broader impact than anything that could be inflicted by similar legislation affecting the domain name system.
    - ohashi 15y ago
      Ah that makes sense. I thought it was used before but I couldn't remember a specific case; so I didn't want to just spout misinformation :)
LeafStorm 15y ago
This is especially hypocritical from GoDaddy considering their advertising practices.
- Joakal 15y ago
  They believe it's good. If the consumer doesn't, they can walk.
mutagen 15y ago
NearlyFreeSpeech.net appears not to have any such clause. https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/policies/ https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/policies/ As with any registrar / host operating in the US, they will be subject to court orders.
- 8ig8 15y ago
  A little more detail on the topic: http://faq.nearlyfreespeech.net/section/domainregistration/difftos#difftos http://faq.nearlyfreespeech.net/section/domainregistration/d...
nvk 15y ago
I've been using Hover for quite some time now, they are great.

138 points by zacwest 15y ago

ceol 15y ago

The last part of his blog post says he chose Gandi[0] as a registrar because they do not have this clause, but I found a similar one in their General Conditions[1] contract[2]: >By accepting Our Contracts and using Our services, You agree to abide to Our code of ethics which consists, in particular, of protecting and respecting minors, human dignity, public order and good moral standards, not infringing on the rights of third parties (private life, image, honor and reputation, trademarks, designs and models, copyrights, etc.) or the security of persons, property, the government, or the good working order of public institutions, and to help in the fight against abusive and/or deviant uses of the Internet (spamming, phishing, hacking, cracking, or attempts at hacking or cracking), or any other infraction as cited in the Penal Code. I don't see anything about terminating your account "in its sole discretion", though. I personally use Gandi because they have a ton of TLDs and they've been fast and reliable, but I wouldn't hold it against them if they stuck one of these clauses in there. [0]: https://www.gandi.net/ https://www.gandi.net/ [1]: https://www.gandi.net/static/contracts/en/g2/pdf/MSA-1.0-EN.pdf https://www.gandi.net/static/contracts/en/g2/pdf/MSA-1.0-EN.... [2]: https://www.gandi.net/contracts https://www.gandi.net/contracts

anamax 15y ago
> the Penal Code. Which penal code?
- andyking 15y ago
  Presumably France, since that's where they're based.
  - DASD 15y ago
    Gandi is also incorporated in the US. ----- Legal Notice The owner and publisher of this website is Gandi SAS, a simplified joint-stock company registered under French law with a capital of 37,000 Euros. Registered with the Paris RCS – French Trade Registry - under number 423 093 459. Intracommunal VAT number FR81423093459 Headquarters: 63-65 boulevard Massena, Paris (75013), France Telephone: +33.(1)70.37.76.61 Fax: +33.(1)43.73.18.51 US office: Gandi US Inc. 124 Lakefront Drive Hunt Valley, MD 21030 Fax: +1.410-449-4499
    - hub_ 15y ago
      The US office is a subsidiary. I don't know the legal requirements, but I believe that in the worst case scenario both US law and French law would apply. It is my understanding that the registrar is still the French company, therefor subject to French law. IANAL.
      - einhverfr 15y ago
        So I cant register a domain there and sell memorabilia from Nazi Germany, right?
- hub_ 15y ago
  French penal code.
  - rawrly 15y ago
    This is an important concern for any US citizen who may migrate their domains to a Gandi. French law differs dramatically from US laws when it comes to matters of libel, slander and privacy. Why does this matter? If your a US site, and you piss off someone in France then the pissed off individual has a target local to them (Gandi) who they can send legal threats to based on French laws. Or really a mixture of US and French laws. If you would like to look up more on the subject when dealing with international law conflicts, consider reviewing US-EU safe harbor.

ohashi 15y ago

One thing to note, Godaddy has acted on those in the past. I've not once seen NameCheap do it. In fact, I've seen them take the legal hit multiple times and had lawsuits filed against them because they didn't move. http://domainnamewire.com/2011/05/09/namecheap-sued-over-whoisguard/ http://domainnamewire.com/2011/05/09/namecheap-sued-over-who... http://www.domainnamenews.com/up-to-the-minute/solidhostnl-sues-namecheap-and-enom/2070 http://www.domainnamenews.com/up-to-the-minute/solidhostnl-s... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/can-a-mere-domain-name-be-defamation-glenn-beck-says-yes.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/can-a-mere-d... These are a few instances of that, NameCheap doesn't budge on their customers rights despite it being in the agreement. Disclaimer: I know the owner and think he's one of the most respectable people in the domain industry based on my interactions with him over almost a decade now.

TomGullen 15y ago

I honestly don't see a problem with this, it's just a 30 days "we can get out if we want" and/or covering their asses clause from the business providing the service. I don't see anything sinister about it.

nachteilig 15y ago
My reading of this is not the same. The clause says "after thirty (30) days", which to me means they can cancel it any time after an initial 30 days.
- eli 15y ago
  No, that comma before "after" is important. They're giving you a 30 days notice.

sunchild 15y ago

I wish more people would push back on these kinds of open-ended vague clauses in consumer agreements. When I represent big clients in arms-length negotiations, I usually take the position that my client will comply with laws – no more, no less. That leaves the definition of what is "objectionable" up to the (in theory, objective) standards of the law.

CGamesPlay 15y ago
Which laws? In Internet-related cases, this is often ambiguous.
- sunchild 15y ago
  There isn't anything special about the Internet in this context. Lots of laws are ambiguous. That's why, in the common law system, we have courts and precedent. You missed my point: either the standard is the law, or it's "we'll let you know when we have a problem with what you're doing".
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    I think he may have meant, "whose laws"? If you and your client are both in the United States, and your client only has customers in the United States, that's clear. But that's also rare.
    - sunchild 15y ago
      Again, it doesn't really matter. Most countries have laws and respect the rule of law. Same principle applies, except places where the rule of law doesn't hold.

nachteilig 15y ago

It seems that Tucows doesn't have a clause like that, unless I'm reading this incorrectly. http://www.opensrs.com/docs/contracts/exhibita.htm http://www.opensrs.com/docs/contracts/exhibita.htm

paxswill 15y ago
That's the the impression I get as well from looking over the ToS for Hover as well.
- freejack 15y ago
  Yup, that's correct. We can terminate your contract with us and force a transfer out. We can also suspend DNS and email service if you use us and we can be required by the registries or law enforcement to take specific action based on our contract with them and you or national law, but we don't make special carve outs to extend our rights beyond that already provided under law. (FYI: I'm the GM for Hover...)

alanh 15y ago

Avoid BlueHost for this reason.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
Avoid every company on the web for this reason...
- seanp2k2 15y ago
  DNS is broken. Let's fix it: http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page We could also establish a viable alternative DNS root zone and nameservers that people could use if their country censors the internet. See also: Jon Postel rolling in grave.

hechtic 15y ago

Registrars have rules set by Registries (For example, Verisign is the registry for .com, .net). I would assume these rules go back to the original issuers of the domains. Regardless, I think that any registrar would have to have some "we reserve the right to shut down your domains" clause given the number of botnets and other uncool stuff on the net which use lots of domains (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker#Payload_propagation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker#Payload_propagation for example)

billpatrianakos 15y ago
Yes, thank you for your reasonable comment. I don't get why everyone gets all apocalyptic any time there's something even remotely "bad" sounding in any Internet company TOS. If we read the TOS of every site we ever visited we'd have an HN with nothing but submissions about how every website on the entire web is impinging on user rights. Let's focus less on all this minutia and get back to startups and code, please.
freejack 15y ago
Yeah - mostly, sorta... :) Registries and ICANN do require registrars to include certain clauses in their contracts with end-users/registrants, but I'm not aware of any that include vague morality clauses. This document - http://www.opensrs.com/docs/contracts/exhibita.htm http://www.opensrs.com/docs/contracts/exhibita.htm - is an enumeration of the terms and conditions that ICANN and the registries require us (Hover/Tucows) to include in our contract with our customers/registrants. These requirements aren't specific to us. I was in the room in the late '90s when most of these clauses were negotiated and then again in the early '00's when the new registries came online (Afilias, Neulevel, etc.) and most of the new registries just simply absorbed the existing T&C's in order to smooth out the approval process associated with them launching their new TLDs. They've grown and evolved in the last ten years and aren't as uniform as they once were, but generally, you can still see the pattern in there. Generally, most of the power a registrar requires to prevent the bad guys from doing bad things comes from national laws and not all these extra clauses. We (Hover/Tucows) find that all these extra conditions just make it harder for our customers to do business with us and so we've left out as much as we can and rely mostly on national laws to get what we need done.

tnuc 15y ago

Avoid .cx for this reason as well. We all saw what happened to goatse.

CGamesPlay 15y ago

Just as a thought exercise, I wonder what kind of ramifications we would see if a registrar shut down a major domain name like google.com or facebook.com (beyond the obvious lawsuit; what would come of that suit?). Lost revenue for either company would very quickly exceed the value of the registrar.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

Let's not piss our pants again over this language... Again. That language is what I like to call "cover my ass" language. By that I mean a lot of companies add in clauses that sound real bad but in reality they're just standard legal jargon that lets them cover their ass in the event that they're forced to. This isn't some totalitarian conspiracy and none of the companies using this language actually want to or have any interest in canceling your domains. This is a very insignificant thing. Let's stop getting our panties in a twist over every little clause in every company's TOS and get back to startups and the cool interesting stuff that used to get posted around here.

einhverfr 15y ago
Forced to is a problematic term though. A company can be "forced to" because they don't want to stand up in court for the rights of their customers. They can be "forced to" because not doing so would subject them to bad press or just look bad. The problem here is that the terms can be read in a very one-sided way (leaving aside the questions of adherence contract interpretation) and therefore all the power in the interaction is held by the registrar.
wnight 15y ago
You're wrong. One-sided contracts are not insignificant. If you think they are you're in for a world of hurt. But if you don't like reading about them, don't. I don't see how you're being forced into these threads. In fact, feel free to vote them down. But don't pollute them.

nirvana 15y ago

Unfortunately, every registrar in the USA has, essentially, a "morality" clause imposed upon it by the US government. I'm not just talking about ICE seizures of .com domains, but also state judges ordering that domains be seized without regard for ICANN rules, and the federal governments widely healed belief that they can demand people be shut down. I'd love to find a "no bullshit" registrar that was outside the USA. In a jurisdiction where censorship is actually forbidden. Iceland could be a good candidate. [1] I'm much more worried about a domain being stolen by the US government than I am by hackers. And that's not because I'm doing anything the US government shouldn't like... just that, with all these massive seizures, they're going to get domains by mistake. Then try and get your domain back... ugh. [1] http://www.slaw.ca/2010/06/17/iceland-passes-law-to-protect-press-freedom/ http://www.slaw.ca/2010/06/17/iceland-passes-law-to-protect-...

ohashi 15y ago
The worry circulating around the domain industry is that they will use VeriSign and Virginia jurisdiction at the registry level. I can't remember if this has happened or not yet though.
- freejack 15y ago
  The ICE seizures relied on this. Also of worry is the nexus created by the Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, etc.) which manage the address space and associated policy. ARIN manages the IP address space for US, Canada, many Caribbean and North Atlantic islands and could easily be hobbled by over-reaching legislation from any of those national interests - with possibly a much deeper and broader impact than anything that could be inflicted by similar legislation affecting the domain name system.
  - ohashi 15y ago
    Ah that makes sense. I thought it was used before but I couldn't remember a specific case; so I didn't want to just spout misinformation :)

LeafStorm 15y ago

This is especially hypocritical from GoDaddy considering their advertising practices.

Joakal 15y ago
They believe it's good. If the consumer doesn't, they can walk.

mutagen 15y ago

NearlyFreeSpeech.net appears not to have any such clause. https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/policies/ https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/policies/ As with any registrar / host operating in the US, they will be subject to court orders.

8ig8 15y ago
A little more detail on the topic: http://faq.nearlyfreespeech.net/section/domainregistration/difftos#difftos http://faq.nearlyfreespeech.net/section/domainregistration/d...

nvk 15y ago

I've been using Hover for quite some time now, they are great.