also the site was hosted in a DUTCH server...

nothing with dutch servers, but, we all know some sites are hosted outside usa for a very good reason...

well, you just ignored my message above... you could quote and answer me.. but just ignored, i guess namecheap had a very good reason to do this.

how much money were you doing per month with this site SAM? 5K? 10K?

.

Because some people live outside the USA?

Since the Namecheap representative specifically states their belief that the content is CP, and that the girls are "obviously less than 18 old", why did Namecheap effectively 'conspire' with their customer to remove it? They should have quietly reported the potentially illegal material to the relevant law enforcement agencies for them to examine and investigate.

What are they going to show missingkids.com now? A domain name?

I can't understand why companies or individuals place themselves at legal liability, and potentially hinder criminal investigations, by trying to do the police's job for them.

Seems like this is your real objection to the guy, rather that the content of his site.

Moniker suspended a domain of mine without any notice.

I only discovered by accident because someone showed me the suspension email they received from godaddy, and to my surprise my domain was listed there.

Moniker only acknowledged suspending the domain after I opened a ticket asking what was going on.

Registrars playing net cop... bad, bad, bad.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=951304

moniker sucks,just transferred all my domains from there

Hey is namecheap part of aplus.net ?

I have some domains regged there and im sure the statement comes up as names cheap?

[QUOTE=helterskelter808;17496865]Because some people live outside the USA?

[QUOTE]

FAKE NICK, and ALTER EGO.

Show your face, coward.

.

Dutch bandwidth can be cheaper than us bandwidth, i keep servers in other countries for no specific reason other than pricing as long as the provider gives reasonable quality on their services

Hey guys,

I just want to clarify a few things here. First off, to those that suggest we proactively disable domains due to "moral" reasons it is completely untrue. We are one of the biggest advocates for neutrality when it comes to registrations. The one subject we do not mess around with though is child pornography. That is the ONLY subject where I have instructed our staff to take immediate action when it is obviously a child being depicted. I'm not talking about teen looking girls here that can be borderline. They have been told it MUST be obvious. Any other subject we try to stay neutral with and require proof before we take any action and even then, the client is warned first to remove or transfer the domain before anything would happen to their domain.

So pretty much if you're thinking about getting into the child pornography business, don't register your domains with us. Anything else that's adult and legal, goes and I can clearly state 100% you will not have any issues with EVER.

If you have any other questions or need further clarifications on our policies please let me know and I will be happy to answer them.


Best,

Richard K.

CEO
NameCheap.com

Hi Richard,

One question to you.
The OP of this thread showed you 2257 documents for each of the questionable galleries.

In other words they've looked below 18 yo, but at the end proof was given that they where +18

Still you suspended his domain.


I'm waiting for your answer.

Look Richard, I love your service and I have lots of domains registered at namecheap but I think your guys made a mistake.

Myself I would never do a site with "borderline" girls (girls who look below 18 y.o) cause for me it gives "the idea" that the site promotes cp ...

For moral reasons I'm not intrested in that "niche". Even when it is 100% legal.

BUT ...

If all 2257 documents are perfectly ok, then so be it.

In this case I think your guys overreacted and didn't look at any of the given documents (proof) at all. :disgust

Richard, do us a favor. Look into it again and make things right.

Best,

Actually, I'm looking at this now and I instructed our legal department handling this to study the documents and restore the domain if deemed legal.

Richard,

Admitting that you're wrong is not always an easy thing to do.

It show " A LOT" about you and your company mate.

My hat goes off to you.:thumbsup


Ofcourse I'm not saying his domain need to be restored when his documents do not show that all is 100% legal. But seems he was 100% sure about his case so ..

Best,

"your unprofessional actions going to cost your
company $370/year now... "

No pun intended, but... Really?

... after a week ....?!

Unfortunately, I just saw this thread today so I've been trying to catch up on the situation as I do not handle day to day support issues myself.

From reading the support ticket, documents where neither provided, offered or was it even stated that they existed. We also gave the person 24 hrs(warned twice) to remove the content before we even disbaled the domain. Maybe the OP might like to clarify these rather important facts they left out?


Either way the ticket was re-opened and proper documents requested by our legal team.

Yeah, as a Namecheap customer, that part, in addition to the 2257 docs seemingly being ignored, is pretty disturbing.

What country is their live support farmed out to?

Selena, please read my post just above yours. Nothing was ignored as nothing was provided.

Domain Broker, we have offices in both Europe and the US and none of our support is "farmed out". Every single person that works for us is a full time salaried NameCheap employee.

If you take a look around or Google us, we have one of if not the best reputations for providing quality customer support.

In fact, I'm posting here now because I/we care about your business and our reputation with you so I want to clarify our position in these matters.

You are correct, it was poor wording on my part. No docs were provided, 2257 links were, according to the OP.

From the support tickets, your rep said that the following links contained "obvious" cp.

http://www.liloo.tv/random/mix/Teen_Filipina
http://www.liloo.tv/random/mix/lovely-teen-porno
http://www.liloo.tv/random/mix/flexibecky
http://www.liloo.tv/random/mix/albina-poses-nude


The OP provided your rep with the corresponding sponsor 2257 links:

http://www.teenfilipina.com/2257.htm
http://www.exclusiveteenporn.com/verify.html
http://8teenies.com/2257.htm
http://my18teens.com/2257.html

While I did not see the galleries in question, I did go to the tour of each paysite. I didn't see anything on any of the tours that I would call questionable CP, let alone "obvious".

What is your process in determining what constitutes obvious CP? And is that up to the interpretation of a single individual who can shut a site down?

Sooooo.. Any updates to this drama?

should of just moved instead of arguing with them tbh

I've read that SEDO no longer lists adult domains with the word 'teen' in them.

What an asshole.

Getting the CEO in here addressing the issues puts a smile on my face. :thumbsup

Richard excellent message, man! Thanks for the clarification, your service is top notch!

Kudos to you. :thumbsup

.

ditto :thumbsup

Richard,

Having a few domains disabled by you that have nothing to do with Porn at all, I can definitely say you are full of shit, and that part about warning before you take them down? That's also horseshit.

Lie all you want, but your statement is false.

show some examples or you are the one that is full of the shit from horses....

why would your domains get taken down for nothing?

i am smelling the horse again my friend.....




.

Why bother explaining it further... They don't cost me money no more. I don't want to sound like horseshit, but at this point I only care enough to chime in and bitch, a little thank you if you will, for their 'good' service to me.

FYI, I didn't start this thread, HOWEVER its obvious there are numerous people that have problems with them.

The real problem with Namecheap isn't that they ban domains, thats their prerogative. the problem is that they ban domains w/o warning.

Seriously, anyone could call up namecheap say someone is spamming or hosting CP and your domain would get shut off. They don't get proof on their own, they get it from hearsay.

Yes, because we are in the business of disabling our clients domains right? Seriously, I'm not sure what your agenda is but as the previous poster said, prove it. There must be some reason why you don't want to post the domains.

Your entire argument is worthless. Even the original poster here had 24 hrs notice and a few warnings before we shut down his/her domain and that was for CP, which is what we consider the worst of the worst. Spammers are treated the same, with advanced warnings before any action is taken. And even after action is taken against a domain, every opportunity is given to restore a domain if it can be proven and we can be assured that it won't happen again, even then, we will still allow you to transfer an offending domain elsewhere at any time. Unlike other companies, we charge nothing for any of this so we have absolutely nothing to gain by shutting down a domain. We are in business for our clients that is all, PERIOD. We would have absolutely nothing to gain by randomly shutting down domains.

We also investigate all inquiries and it's laughable to say the least that you could simply report a false claim against a domain and we would shut it down. Why don't you prove that as well? Choose a domain registered with us and attempt to get it shut down by simply reporting it to our legal or support team. I'll put my money where my mouth is and give you $1000 if you can accomplish it with 100% legal content on it(that means no CP).

Can I ask why a domain registrar feels they have to police the net? That's like a car dealer repo'ing a vehicle because they saw their customer run a red light.

Richard,

Did you investigate the OP's case?
I mean what is the outcome?

Best,

We re-opened the ticket on sept. 19th and asked for documents and have yet to receive a response.

This issue was discussed at length at Namepros, but one tidbit many here may find interesting to know is that NameCheap, according to ICANN reports, as of May 2010, had only a total of 126 .COM domains registered. Not a typo, yes, really 126!

For all practical purposes, NameCheap is still basically an eNom reseller ... cut out the middle men (sound familiar :1orglaugh ) and deal directly with a registrar that has better registration terms...

NameCheap's terms are among the worst I've seen - heck, even makes GoDaddy, which isn't adult business friendly, look pretty damn good in comparison.

To recap the issue at hand, NameCheap should just stick with registering domains and leave the rest to the authorities to deal with - many other registrars do.

Ron

I find that figure hard to believe. Are some of the domains registered through NameCheap being listed as eNom on ICANN instead of NameCheap?

This was discussed at NamePros - the 126 number is real.

http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/monthly-reports/index.html

Scroll down to .COM, then over on the far right, click May.
(if viewing .csv file, total is located in the 3rd data field)

Yes, most of them are listed as eNom at the registry - NameCheap themselves, at NamePros, acknowledge this.

Ron

Oh I'm not doubting you. It's the figure that doesn't look right.

This is the thread that Ron claims was discussed "at length" at Namepros http://www.namepros.com/domain-name-...ain-words.html

As you can see, it has nothing to do with what is being discussed here.

Now anyone here can form an opinion of us, good or bad, but when someone tries to imply that we are somehow policing and disabling domain names(non child porn) without warning that is going to too far.

I can say without a doubt that this is not the case. I'll even up my offer to $10,000 to someone that can prove this. I am now personally on record here. If you are going to accuse us of this, now's the time to come collect your 10k. Otherwise, don't waste everyone else's time with your misinformation.

Ok. Sounds good! To be sure everyone is on the same page ... your company will only suspend specific domains as directed by court order / legal action? and not due to any "moral" reasons ... correct?

For example, would someone with a domain name merely registered (not hosted) with your company containing content, such as Lolicon art drawings ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon ), be suspended?

Ok, admittedly an extreme example, but if this is not an issue, then most adult sites, which feature age 18+ models with 2257s on-file, should have zero problems with your service.

A more applicable example to webmasters here, would a domain registrant with a domain name featuring age 18+ models appearing as young teen high school cheerleaders have their domain suspended?

Ron