Domain Registration Agreements

[1234h]

.

I'd like to follow up on something I touched upon in an earlier thread, but let me first state that I tried the search engine here and found no match for this line of discussion. If this is a duplicate of another thread, my apology to the Mod Squad and Admin.

This is a subject that has bugged me for a number of years. Not just domain registration agreements, but all manner of unbelievable agreements that indicate all manner of rights to the party that wishes to have you give them money, or in some way benefit them, even if that is only by your presence on their site.

Obviously, though, this thread focuses on domain registration agreements.

How many of you actually read them word-for-word?

Let's just pick one jewel from the chest.

This one:

You agree to waive any right to trial by jury in any proceeding relating to or arising out of this Agreement.

I thought that a jury trial was some sort of right of some citizens of some countries and this agreement is at a company that is in one of those countries, the United States.

So I checked for some information and here's what I found that seems suitable for this post.

The site "THE AMERICAN JURY BULWARK OF DEMOCRACY"

Here:

http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/introduction.html

On the page titled "An Introduction to Trial by Jury" we find the following:

The jury trial finds expression in the American legal system in three places: the grand jury, the criminal petit jury, and civil petit jury. Each is guaranteed in the federal courts by the U.S. Constitution, and every state uses them.

Note that point that "every state uses them" so the state in which that domian registration company is headquartered shouldn't be an exception, or that CRFC website about law is offering the public false information.

Now we go the a United States government website:

http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/JuryService.aspx

And we read this under the section titled, "Petit (Trial) Jury".

A civil petit jury is typically made up of 6 to 12 persons. In a civil case, the role of the jury is to listen to the evidence presented at a trial, to decide whether the defendant injured the plaintiff or otherwise failed to fulfill a legal duty to the plaintiff, and to determine what the compensation or penalty should be.

So it would appear that a company has the right, for we have to assume their lawyers checked this before it went into their agreement, to ask you to waive a basic right before you even have any particulars as to why you may want to use that right.

How does that make sense?

Just what were the lawmakers thinking when they enacted a law that allows this?

Or might it be that the law simply doesn't cover this and nobody ever felt a need to protect a citizen's basic rights?

What basically must happen, it seems, is that if you wish to own a website, you just have to choose the agreement that has the fewest bombshells.

The system (agreements we must sign to have a little corner of the Net) seems to be rigged against us little people. The peons of the Net.

You think us peons could get something started to gain a few Net rights of our own?

In closing, I wonder about that company that has that clause in their agreement that I highlighted above. I wonder where they have their domain registered? Did they waive their right to a jury trial also?

.

 

[webfreak08]

You might want to consult a lawyer to see whether these clauses would be enforceable in court under your particular circumstances. Other than that, I'd just let it go. I'd imagine that disputes of this level between a registrant and a registrar are rare.

 

[1234h]

.

Thank you for your response, webfreak08.

You might want to consult a lawyer to see whether these clauses would be enforceable in court under your particular circumstances. Other than that, I'd just let it go. I'd imagine that disputes of this level between a registrant and a registrar are rare.

But I have not entered into any agreement with the company whose agreement is noted above. That's not the point of the thread.

My aim is to expose these matters and ask for opinions.

In this case, that company has been recommended by a number of members of this community, and I admit that on the surface this company doesn't look so bad. But that line just jumps right out at you when you read their agreement, or I think it should.

Now, you being on the Mod Squad here, this question might be uncomfortable, and I'd understand if you didn't want to answer, but what do you personally feel about that bit about waiving your right to a jury trial, under all circumstances?

For that matter, the question is for any member of this community to answer.

Am I just a hothead looking for trouble for no good reason? Am I justified in feeling that something is wrong with that, no matter what the law does, or does not allow? Sometimes laws are just plain wrong. Sometimes citizens have to stand up for their rights. I think.

.

 

[webfreak08]

I don't think it's a big deal, personally.

 

[cableguy]

That clause is from name.com

I use it. Did I know about that clause? No. Does it bother me? A little. Am I going to continue to use name.com? You bet.

What did you think about internet.bs? I havn't used them yet but I'm planning to.

 

[Nancy]

well, well, well, it teaches us to read the fine print better,, u never know what hidden skeletons may be lurking in form of clauses in such agreements.

 

[IceBlueHost]

well, well, well, it teaches us to read the fine print better,, u never know what hidden skeletons may be lurking in form of clauses in such agreements.

That's very true indeed. Unfortunately hardly anyone ever reads the TOS when signing up. Now, that may not be an issue in most cases, but from time to time people will run into problems because of it.

 

[1234h]

.

Something kind of cute happened yesterday. I was studying one and found a very basic grammar mistake. I figured it was polite to let them know, so now I suppose somebody, if they are member of this community, will put two and two together and know who I am.

Of course, that doesn't tell them what I am. Although some of you are probably beginning to get an idea -- a real pain in the you-know-what.

A grammar mistake in a legal document! Somebody needs a new law clerk. Or lawyer.

What did that fella say in that movie? -- "I'll be back."

.

 

[1234h]

.

Here's another jewel I found while researching a company that many in this community have recommended.

*Company Name* may also cancel the registration of a domain name, after thirty (30) days, if that name is being used, as determined by *Company Name* in its sole discretion, in association with spam or morally objectionable activities (as well as any activities set forth in Section 4 above). Morally objectionable activities will include, but not be limited to 1) activities designed to defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties; 2) activities prohibited by the laws of the United States and/or foreign territories in which you conduct business; ...

What jumped out of that and bit me in that alert, alert, alert part of my simple brain was the word "embarrass".

Those folks that own that ICAAN listed registrar are stating that they can be the judge of whether your site embarrassed someone to the point that you deserve to have your site thrown off the Net. That's a tall order, being able to make that kind of judgement.

How many websites do y'all suppose are on the Net that have at one time or another embarrassed someone? I sure wish I had the money to hire staff to check a thousand websites whose domains are registered at that registry to see if any of those websites have at any time embarrassed someone.

Then you have that "not limited to" in that sentence. Well, excuse me, but what are the limits? Isn't that what a legal document is for, to define limits?

I mean really! Gimme a break!!

.