GoDaddy.com shuts down entire data center?

Tue Jan 17 17:55:13 UTC 2006

--On January 17, 2006 7:27:20 AM -0500 "Robert E.Seastrom" 
<rs at seastrom.com> wrote:

> Now that Go Daddy has ensured that I'll never do business with them
> (which is a shame; I liked certain lawsuits that they brought in the
> past, but if being their customer means subscribing to their thought
> police, count me out), I think it's time to carefully go over the
> registration agreements with the registrars I use...  never know when
> someone will slip in something truly odious, and the argument that
> none of them would be so crazy as to try it appears to be incorrect.

This thread gets less and less operational....however...I'm trying to keep 
this in scope...I think this relates operationally because we all have and 
enforce AUPs and ToS on our customer bases, both internal, and external. 
We also have AUPs and ToS enforced on us, by business relationships and 
peerings, etc.

Most ToS and AUP out there at the consumer level state basically the 
service is worthless, that we can and will d/c you at will, without cause, 
at our whim.  Overzealous lawyering has made this a necessity.  How much 
any of these might or might not stand up in court, I have no clue.  As you 
get into the business world some ToS and AUP become more weighty, but far 
more structured.  Giving both sides clearer and well defined policies and 
practices for responding to issues.  Requiring notification, escalation, 
etc.

I think what matters is the way that the AUPs are applied.  This case...the 
facts...don't match up.  webhosting.info (not an authoritative source mind 
you, but a datapoint) only sees ~150 hosts by this ISP.  From what I 
understand this number is from whois data with nameservers pointing to 
theirs.  Contrast this with mydyndns.org, google.com, ebay.com, 
prioritycolo.com, wellsfargo.com (ok so this ones not that much more, at 
~800), even sun.com has more domains listed.  Those last two aren't even 
'in the business' and they have more.

While they may have a large datacenter, I'm not even remotely sure that 
this incident darkened the whole thing.  It might've taken rDNS offline, 
but that's far from darkening a whole datacenter.  It sounds like another 
WHTer puffing themselves up to being bigger than they are.  They *must* be 
small to let a *CUSTOMER* advocate for them to a third party!  Nectartech 
clearly knew about this and sanctioned it, and the person recording the 
phone calls has pointed this out more than once.

There are no facts in this case either way, because it is really Go Daddy 
against Nectartech.  And Nectartech has a lot more reason to lie to make 
itself look better in front of its customers.  If their whole datacenter 
went dark then it's some unrelated thing, or some really bad practice (such 
as somehow establishing iBGP based on domain names maybe?  hell I dunno).

I've seen so much utter BS spouted by a lot of the self proclaimed web 
hosts on WHT that I'm not inclined to believe his side of the story any 
more (or any less) because of it.  Go Daddy has to my knowledge never been 
draconian in applying their AUP (I think atleast some of us here would know 
about it if so).