4 ms·

You've posted this msg at least twice in the thread (at least one was deleted). Seems you're using the thread in a way that doesn't help HN as much as yourself

by jjblue 13y ago

You've posted this msg at least twice in the thread (at least one was deleted). Seems you're using the thread in a way that doesn't help HN as much as yourself. Can you post some examples of this policy being used unfairly? Surely some real-world, verifiable examples would help your case. (And what if the examples are nonexistent... what then?)

dangrossman 13y ago
Domain registration is a commodity service, where all but one company selling this commodity does so without any strange contract terms. Even if the chance that Gandi acts on their contractual rights is slim, there's no reason to give them that right in the first place. A company's brand, good will and years of backlinks are tied to their domain -- it's not something to put at risk lightly. I deleted the copy of my comment, not a moderator, as it didn't need to be said twice. This does not "help me" in any way; I'm not affiliated with any registrar. The reasons one would point out an unusual contract term are pretty obvious -- most people don't read them, and this one's quite material to the decision of who to register a domain with.
- jjblue 13y ago
  So no examples, then? Sounds like FUD to me.
  - freehunter 13y ago
    We call companies out on their ToS all the time, even if there's no provable harm that has happened in the past. If it's in the contract, they both intend to use it and have the legal right to use it. I'd rather not that that chance, personally.
  - gmjosack 13y ago
    I appreciate the strange terms being brought to my attention. I don't have time to worry about a company morally and subjectively policing the product I bought from them. The TOS is not a place to be clever and funny and this information has helped inform a decision for me. Just because you happen to not care doesn't mean other don't.
  - bladedtoys 13y ago
    Surely it would be unwise to agree to an outlandish contractual item purely on the grounds that one hasn't seen it invoked yet. And surely it is a good thing to bring it to the attention of people who aren't likely to read every word of a 20 page contract just to buy a domain name.
- mindslight 13y ago
  Don't pretend that Gandi is unique. Even if such specific language isn't in their legalese blob, Godaddy has arbitrarily yanked domains many times. And I'm betting that most low margin registrars would simply turn tail if threatened with expensive lawsuits.

by jjblue 13y ago

dangrossman 13y ago

Domain registration is a commodity service, where all but one company selling this commodity does so without any strange contract terms. Even if the chance that Gandi acts on their contractual rights is slim, there's no reason to give them that right in the first place. A company's brand, good will and years of backlinks are tied to their domain -- it's not something to put at risk lightly. I deleted the copy of my comment, not a moderator, as it didn't need to be said twice. This does not "help me" in any way; I'm not affiliated with any registrar. The reasons one would point out an unusual contract term are pretty obvious -- most people don't read them, and this one's quite material to the decision of who to register a domain with.

jjblue 13y ago
So no examples, then? Sounds like FUD to me.
- freehunter 13y ago
  We call companies out on their ToS all the time, even if there's no provable harm that has happened in the past. If it's in the contract, they both intend to use it and have the legal right to use it. I'd rather not that that chance, personally.
- gmjosack 13y ago
  I appreciate the strange terms being brought to my attention. I don't have time to worry about a company morally and subjectively policing the product I bought from them. The TOS is not a place to be clever and funny and this information has helped inform a decision for me. Just because you happen to not care doesn't mean other don't.
- bladedtoys 13y ago
  Surely it would be unwise to agree to an outlandish contractual item purely on the grounds that one hasn't seen it invoked yet. And surely it is a good thing to bring it to the attention of people who aren't likely to read every word of a 20 page contract just to buy a domain name.
mindslight 13y ago
Don't pretend that Gandi is unique. Even if such specific language isn't in their legalese blob, Godaddy has arbitrarily yanked domains many times. And I'm betting that most low margin registrars would simply turn tail if threatened with expensive lawsuits.