Gandi Bar - Internet - Comments

The United States Congress is Set to Enable Internet Censorship Tools - Stan

Stan — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:25:28 -0400

Does Gandi provide financial support to OccupyOakland?

The Evolution of Domain Names - Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:26:22 -0400

Good question. As with any new technology, there will be a period of adoption. Early adopters with high risk tolerances will go first, other more squeamish (or less well funded) types will follow. While it's new it will be novel, so that will get them some press.
If you want my opinion, it's not going to make much difference to existing domains/brands. There will be an effect, of course, but I think it will be more like the shiny new thing effect: good to draw attention to a domain name that represents something new, but not really more or less valuable than the old .com that all your customers remember and can type blindfolded. It's also true that the advent of search engines has changed the landscape to favor older domains (age of domain is a factor in SEO), and sites that are engineered to be easily found in a search. Bottom line is: Domain names matter if they are established and easy to remember. To me melbourne.com is as memorable as foo.melbourne...

The Evolution of Domain Names - Michael Searles

Michael Searles — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:01:22 -0400

Thanks for the article.

One question -- to what extent do you think the dollar value of a registered brand.com domain (eg. Melbourne.com) will be affected by the registration of the corresponding .brand domain (eg. .Melbourne)? Will domain name resellers have reason to feel nervous that the value of their portfolios stand to be reduced one domain at a time?

Update on the new gTLDs - Josh

Josh — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:55:49 -0400

Does any means exist for entities with interest in a particular name to explicitly prevent the registration of certain names as gTLDs, without actually having to register those gTLDs themselves?

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - Stephan

Stephan — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:28:50 +0200

John / Nikita : please read my comment on the last post, thanks (http://www.gandibar.net/post/2010/0...)

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - John Kramer

John Kramer — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:06:11 +0200

Joe, can you please stop being vague about your status as a CA and give us specifics? What do you mean by "technology platform?" To be specific:

1) Does Comodo have a copy of the private key that you use to sign certificates?
2) Does Comodo manage, run, or have access to the OCSP server that is used to revoke certificates?
3) Does Comodo manage, run, or have access to the CRL that is used to revoke certificates?

From what I can tell, Comodo has by far the worst security record of any CA in the business. Monopoly or not, if you're putting customer data in their hands, you're putting your customers at risk (as we've seen with this revocation).

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - Joe (Gandi)

Joe (Gandi) — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:09:06 +0200

@John - Comodo provides the technology platform but we are the CA for our standard and pro certificates. They provide additional validation for the Business SSL product. All this info is on our SSL page https://www.gandi.net/ssl We use Comodo because they are still an independent player and have good products. Most of the other SSL providers are owned by Verisign, and without additional players it would be a near monopoly market. Gandi tends to shy away from monopoly situations. And no register.com doesn't do our domain registration we've been an independent registrar for over 10 years.

@Nikita - the story does keep changing, and that's because the real facts are slowly being dug out. The support team responded to Moxie saying the cert was revoked because of 'whois, google trademarks and general fraud'. When the CEO asked why the cert was revoked, he was told the same thing and communicated it. Only as we've picked apart the details have we discovered that the 'google' bit was added by our support and not part of the reasons given by Comodo for revoking the cert. All of this did not happen simultaneously and as I've said before there have been several parties involved and many many people. So only now do we have the full story, which I will be writing up shortly. We have certainly contributed to making it more confusing and the 'google' storyline is part of that. Thanks for bearing with us.

Joe

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - Nikita

Nikita — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:39:51 +0200

@Joe your story keeps changing. The CEO of your company claiming that the certificate was revoked because of trademark violations is very different from the public statement you made that some over zealous support staff got confused. And both of these facts are light years away from what you're now telling us. If you keep lying to us, how can we believe what is going to be in the "report" you're going to issue from Comodo.

And wow, Comodo of all people?

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - John Kramer

John Kramer — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:10:12 +0200

Joe, are you saying that gandi.net does not even run the CA that it advertises? And that it is actually run by Comodo, the CA who easily has the worst reputation in the business? How is it possible for you to advertise "no bullshit" when you're just reselling everything to Comodo, the biggest bullshit player of all?

What else? Do you just have register.com handle all your registrar activity too?

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - Joe (Gandi)

Joe (Gandi) — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:51:29 +0200

@John, @Nikita - yes Stephan did say that it was related to google, because this was the information he had at the time, which turned out to be incorrect. The certificate was pulled by Comodo (who provide their technology to us as a partner), citing whois and fraud as the reason. The google confusion was introduced by our team and it was a mistake and speculative. We had and have not heard from google.

We're gradually unpicking this story which is complicated because it involves several parties (us, Comodo, Moxie) and Moxie is deliberately providing false information, which doesn't make it easy.

For those worried about their certificates, there is a big difference between incorrect information, and deliberately falsified information. The issue here was falsified information, e.g. fake company names, non-existent addresses, attempts to register using different company names at different times, none of which were real, etc.

The fraud accusation is based on attempting to secure a certificate based on falsified documentation.

If you're a normal customer who isn't playing games with the whois records or company records you have nothing to fear.

We have introduced our own inaccuracies during this period (e.g. the goolge bits), but we continue to stand by the decision to revoke a certificate that was based on deliberately falsified information. We also acknowledge we could have handled it better, and apologise for the confusion this has caused.

We are continuing to investigate with Comodo and will provide a full summary once we have the final facts and proofs. Thanks all,

Joe

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - James Woods

James Woods — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:18:07 +0200

What a load of crap this all is. The first thing anyone with a law degree that's worth a dime does when something like this arises is try to run like hell from it. A lawyer or legal team is not going to permit a company to make utterly stupid statements that could show the true colors of a company.

This situation clearly demonstrates that Gandi was contacted by Google.

The UDRP does not grant Google complete control of *G*O*O*G*L*E*, there is in fact alot of google-like domains out there that one would think google would have fought to get.

I was never aware of the whole no-bullshit thing but as an abuse desk administrator from my many whois requests i've ran I do recall Gandi being one of the top for trouble domains.

Maybe google can move google.com to gandi.

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - Nikita

Nikita — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 23:27:49 +0200

The CEO of gandi.net publicly stated on Twitter that they'd revoked the certificate because of trademark violations. So Joe, it looks like you're straight up lying to us. Again.

http://twitter.com/StephanGandi/sta...

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - Tom

Tom — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 21:47:46 +0200

I am shocked and amazed that you didn't use email as the *very first thing* you tried... given you are an *internet* company and all !

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - Frank Webberly

Frank Webberly — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 21:05:04 +0200

I smell even more bullshit here... If it is Gandi that revoked the certificate then they need to own up publicly to their cockup. If it was comodo which seems to have been suggested in various places then gandi isn't really a certificate authority as they claim on their website but rather just a measly reseller for the fascist CAs. Either way, it stinks of bullshit, and Gandi needs to come clean PUBLICLY!!!!

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - brian

brian — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 20:15:34 +0200

Obviously, Gandi have decided to dupe everyone with their "no bullshit" bollocks. With this and the SORBS and a couple other recent PR fiascos, this only goes to show that companies such as this may preach their "dedication" to ethical practices, but intentionally do exactly the opposite in practice.

GoDaddy is, quite frankly, more ethical than this group of french cowboys, even with the seedy limit-pornographic advertisements during the superbowl. Maybe Gandi could learn something about how to suceed at being incompetent without having to resort to lying about it at the same time.

Stay away from this band of pirates, folks!

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - John Kramer

John Kramer — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:54:32 +0200

Hey Joe, the register article says that when you revoked the certificate you didn't contact the owner for 24 hours, at which point you told him that it was revoked not only for the whois information but also for trademark infringement and fraudulent activity.

Now you're telling us that the reason it was revoked "was nothing to do with" the use of the word "google." Are you telling us that the author of the register story is lying? That you never claimed you'd revoked it because it included the word google? What about fraudulent activity? That was never an issue either?

In your statement you said that you regret not informing the owner when it was being revoked, but now you're saying that you would give advance notice. Which is it? If I change my phone number and forget to update my whois information, are you going to kill my certificate without warning, in conjunction with a notice, or are you going to give me a chance to update my phone number first?

All of these contradictory statements are not helping your image. It sounds a lot like you got caught doing something you shouldn't have done and are now trying to talk yourself out of it. I agree with F9, just admit that you seriously fucked up and people will forgive you.

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - Joe (Gandi)

Joe (Gandi) — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:32:34 +0200

Hi guys,

We've said that it was a mistake to not contact the customer prior to the certificate being revoked, and as Nicolas has said above that we have changed our process to make sure this doesn't happen again. And we apologise for not having handled this better.

The reason for the certificate being revoked was the falsified whois data. You cannot have a valid certificate without accurate whois data. This was not a mistake to revoke the certificate in this case, but the way we did it could have been better.

As for all the 'google' stuff, there was no contact from google, and you're quite right it's not our place to speculate about what google would or would not do to or about the domain. The 'google' issue was nothing to do with the certificate being revoked, and again we apologise if there was any confusion about this.

I hope that helps. Thanks,

Joe

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - F9

F9 — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:59:16 +0200

What a joke, it's bad enough that you guys messed this up, but what really makes me think that gandi.net has turned into just another mediocre registrar is that you can't even admit the mistake you made.

You fucked up. We'd forgive you if you acknowledged that, but we will never forgive you if you just respond with marketing drivel.

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - Nicolas (Gandi)

Nicolas (Gandi) — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:35:11 +0200

Nils: Our certification job consist in certifying that the real owner of the domain is the one in the whois / our database.

The whois data was incorrect, the certification contract has been broken without prior notice and in this case without any notice (this process have been improved on our side to prevent this kind of situation in the future)

In parallel, we have launched a procedure for incorrect whois on the domain and gave 15 days to moxy to provide real data. Once it will be corrected, he will have the possibility to regenerate a new certificate.

(sorry for my poor english today)

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - cg

cg — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:31:40 +0200

So if I understand the situation correctly, some marketing droid at Google contacted you to shut this guy down, and you obliged without stopping and thinking, investigating or contacting the guy. Then you attempt to justify your actions in retrospect, in the meantime ruining his business. Hope you have good lawyers.

This just makes you and Google look bad.

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - Nils Jochum

Nils Jochum — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:35:38 +0200

I don't expect you to always act perfectly, but I would feel a lot better if you would admit your mistakes when you make them. I have TLS certificates through Gandi, and would hope that if you discovered any inaccuracies in my account you would contact me so that I could change them, rather than just revoking my certificates without any contact at all. That would seriously damage my business. I think the spirit of this article is correct: a "no bullshit" company wouldn't do that.

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - Clement Bonnot

Clement Bonnot — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:10:34 +0200

"The customer in this case was trying to setup and promote a service to offer users a greater degree of privacy from the information that google collects. This is a noble cause and one that we would be happy to host, but only if it plays by the rules."

Calling this a "nobel cause" is quite an about-face from "fraudulent activity." If it wasn't fraudulent activity, and if the trademark holder doesn't agree that this is in violation of their trademark, then it seems like you made a mistake. I agree with the above comment that it sounds like you're trying to emphasize the stale WHOIS information just because that's all you can emphasize without coming off as completely incompetent.

It sounds like this guy was using a SSL certificate to legitimately provide authentication and encryption for a service that he legitimately ran. "No bullshit," to me, would mean recognizing that and working with him to get whatever outstanding policy requirements there were squared away. Or hey, how about before you issued the certificate? The last thing I would expect from you would be to revoke his certificate without warning, or even with a notice as it happened.

Also, yeah, way to daemonize hackers. Could you cut the marketing speak now?

TheRegister.co.uk comments on gandi's removal of SSL certificate for googlesharing.net - John Kramer

John Kramer — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:51:46 +0200

It sounds like you're saying that you would have killed the certificate even if the whois information had been up to date, so why are you harping on that so much? And why are you making judgments about trademark rules when the trademark owner is clearly aware of the service and doesn't claim infringement?

Your only apology here is to say that you would have sent an email at the moment the certificate was revoked? Not even advance notice? I always thought your "no bullshit" thing was for real, but I guess it was just PR all along. Just like this statement.

Accented .EU domain names - pre-reservations have started! - merwok

merwok — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:28:38 +0100

I first thought that this was a good thing for breaking away from the
US-centered view of computer usage, but then I read a blog post that said
IDN were a way to sell unprobable domain names by making people think they
made sense. Meh.

.PT domains available at Gandi - tjin

tjin — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:59:09 +0100

yes, very attractive cctls which is increasing but very restrictive registry for .pt. But now their process are easier (for example: transfer with auth code...) and TVA number is especially necessary for handle creation!!

Stay Tuned! .AM and .FM domains are now available - Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:05:28 +0100

Thanks!

A couple of suggestions:

.by (its natural use as an English word makes for some nice domain names)

.sh

.tt (looking at the registrar's page, this may prove somewhat difficult, and may require some careful negotiations with the registrar)

Stay Tuned! .AM and .FM domains are now available - Nicolas (Gandi)

Nicolas (Gandi) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:38:06 +0100

Yes of course. I will probably add a wishlist for that in a near future but don't hesitate to post here for example. We currently work on .PT (available soon), .FI and .NO (already accredited), .GR and .DK (accreditation in progress)

Stay Tuned! .AM and .FM domains are now available - Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:00:34 +0100

I noticed you've added a lot of new extensions recently. Do you take suggestions for which extensions to target next?

Around the world in 5 extensions - Passer-by

Passer-by — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:43:59 +0100

Try v-papaioannou.com

Around the world in 5 extensions - Nicolas

Nicolas — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:04:27 +0200

No of course, we are on it. The registry contract is in greek and we need a greek lawyer to validate it. Btw, if you know a good one or if we have a greek lawyer within our customers, feel free to contact us.

Around the world in 5 extensions - PinYin

PinYin — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:36:51 +0200

Is Greece too exotic for Gandi?

Around the world in 5 extensions - Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:19:05 +0200

How does your use of .hn interact with the current issues surrounding it? See http://www.gwolf.org/blog/honduras-... for details.

Around the world in 5 extensions - Nicolas (Gandi)

Nicolas (Gandi) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:53:57 +0200

Hmm, I don't really see your point. We are accredited .CAT.

Around the world in 5 extensions - catalan

catalan — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:53:03 +0200

It's ok but... you have your south neighbors with the .CAT extension, and Gandi is still without supporting this!

How the domain name industry works - polluting the name space - Kommer

Kommer — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:15:11 +0200

Dear Joe an Kieren,

Thanks for all these insights.

The seemingly obvious suggestion seems to me to vote a "domain must be put to usefull use within a reasonable time span" or other "anti-parking/anti-wholesale" rule system that applies to the future new extentions only.

That way there are no lost revenues for the actual "parkers" and it will avoid an explosion of new parked domains due to the new extentions.

It would also be a nice way to show our capacity to improve things over time and in this case even without harming the actual profit makers in any way. It would also help to promote the new extentions since they will then be "cleaner" than the actual ones.

"We are willing to give you a brand new planet, but you have to agree that you will keep it from becoming polluted."

Seems quite reasonable, no?

Best regards!,

Kommer.

How the domain name industry works - polluting the name space - Flying

Flying — Sat, 30 May 2009 13:45:05 +0200

Useful article! I feel safe in Gandi's hands.

How the domain name industry works - polluting the name space - Joe (Gandi)

Joe (Gandi) — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:43:27 +0200

Hi Kieren,

Thanks for your very detailed response, it's great to get some ICANN feedback on the site. I agree that the ICANN governance structure does allow different parties, including domain holders, to influence decisions.

I think the problem is one of general awareness and co-ordinated action. I don't feel that the average domain holder knows they can influence this body, nor is it easy to achieve co-ordination in large enough volumes to make this decision. Which is why we raise these issues to try to increase awareness and positive action.

In this respect, the registrars and registries which are individually large and have more consistent goals can achieve a greater degree of co-ordination and specific action.

I think ICANN does a good job given the complexity of the different registry governance structures. Clearly there is more influence over the gTLDs than the ccTLDs which can be more nationally regulated.

The issue of 'polluted' domain space and what constitutes 'legitimate use' is growing and this is something that ICANN can continue to take a lead on, though the difficult part will be for all commercial companies involved to swallow a potential reduction in sales if these parked domains were put back in the pool (or perhaps they'd just be bought by people/companies who wanted to put actual websites/services on them).

Will the increased domain space following liberalisation help this, or create more of the same? (Would a second planet Earth help solve our pollution problems if we didn't clean up the first one?)

I'm at the ICANN conference in Sydney and would be very pleased to discuss some of these issues with you, and once again thank you for engaging with us on the forum. After all, we share the objective of raising the public awareness of these issues so that together, all stakeholders, we can find a solution that works for everyone.

Many thanks,

Joe

How the domain name industry works - polluting the name space - steve

steve — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:34:19 +0200

This is bad for Rick Schwartz and Frank and the other big domainers.
They will have a huge fight on their hands if ICANN decides domains being parked are in violation of some future rule they haven't passed yet.

Steven-9th best marketer on the Internet
http://sellsheets.com/

How the domain name industry works - polluting the name space - Kieren McCarthy

Kieren McCarthy — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:33:07 +0200

You're missing several very important aspects of ICANN's model of decision-making here.

ICANN was specifically designed so that no one party can exert undue influence - whether that be registries, registrars, governments, the technical community or civil society.

So with respect to your specific point: where do I as a domain name holder go to influence policy within ICANN? Well, there are several answers.

First, there is the At Large part of ICANN - an official Advisory Committee to the ICANN Board. Anyone individual user can become a part of At Large and make their views known.

You may also join the non-commercial consistency of the GNSO (the main policy making body where the registries and registrars also reside). The GNSO is actually under reform at the moment, so you have an ideal oppportunity to create your own constituency if you can get enough people together.

You apply to the Board to form a constituency and then you may end up with a vote on the GNSO Council - which makes the decisions you are concerned about.

Here is an example of the a Notice of Intent to form a CyberSecurity Constituency: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvemen...

You apply to the Board, the Board puts your notice out for public comment and then votes on whether to approve it. If it gets approved, you are within the exact system that you fear the registries/registrars control.

Alternatively you can represent yourself as an individual and address the ICANN Board directly at an ICANN meeting. There is one coming up in Sydney at the end of June and on the Thursday of the meeting you can ask whatever you want at an open mic to the Board on stage.

If you don't want to join the ALAC, OR form a new constituency, OR attend an ICANN meeting, you have a final option - use the online question box to ask a question remotely. If it not as effective as getting personally involved but it does put the question to the Board and the staff and it will get you an answer.

For that, go here: http://www.icann.org/en/announcemen...

Or visit the ICANN blog to provide your views and opinions:
http://blog.icann.org/

If you have any more questions, please just ask.

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN

How the domain name industry works - polluting the name space - jackbravo

jackbravo — Thu, 28 May 2009 23:50:46 +0200

This really really sucks, and I fully support Gandi. You guys rock. I'd like to kick the guys who registered axai.com on the ass, but I guess there's no way a regular "user" can do this right now.

8 Things a Domain Thief Loves - Shiju Alex

Shiju Alex — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:57:05 +0100

Good job...

I have a few suggestions, mostly regarding contact info.

# It is a good idea to enable privacy protection
# Whether or not you have enabled privacy protection, be sure to have valid contact info.
# The contact email ids are very important. Never make a foolishness like have a contact mail id on an expired domain (and leave the domain unlocked)

[ping] 8 Things a Domain Thief Loves - Notes Fantasia

Notes Fantasia — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:37:15 +0100

8 Hal Yang Disukai Pencuri Domain

Kita semua melakukan segala upaya untuk mengamankan domain yang dimiliki. Merupakan sebuah energi besar untuk mendapatkan nama domain untuk blog Anda di dunia Internet yang penuh sesak, atau menunggu dengan sabar nama perusahaan Anda untuk di-release...

8 Things a Domain Thief Loves - ComputerBob

ComputerBob — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:28:05 +0100

Good job. I've been doing all of the things that you suggest since I registered my first domain in 1997. This is a case in which an ounce of paranoia can save several tons of frustration (and expense, as described by KK above!).

To thank you, I linked to this article in my Journa today:
http://www.computerbob.com/wp/8-thi...

--CB

8 Things a Domain Thief Loves - KK

KK — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:33:10 +0100

Wish I'd read this months ago - i paid $1200 0to retrieve a domain that was drop-caught!

8 Things a Domain Thief Loves - Zhang

Zhang — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:51:19 +0100

Thank you for this article...

I also have suggestion for you to increase your account security.

Since domain owner will not login to domain account every day, it would be great if there is some notification option to be send to account owner's email address for every successful or failed login. So in case the account compromised, the real owner will have the notification and can act immediately.

Also send notification for every important changes to the account, like email address.

Network Solutions Caught Red-Handed - John

John — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:16:23 +0100

This is why I love Gandi. True quality service... I bought my first domains with them and never tried elsewhere.

Network Solutions Caught Red-Handed - Joe

Joe — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:37:16 +0100

Hi,

You can believe it!

The trouble I had trying to get a domain name transfer to Gandi.net from Network Solutions. They (Network Solutions) nearly had me in a fit. Endless hours on the phone to United States talking and emailing DNS-admins who did not, and would not release the glue records. So... When I heard this news I could well believe it. Bunch of crooks.

Network Solutions Caught Red-Handed - TNT

TNT — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:42:09 +0100

Just try this one !

http://www.gandhi.net/

A+

Network Solutions Caught Red-Handed - terry

terry — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:09:47 +0100

Lets see what they do with THIS domain name search??? Could be a bit embarassing if they buy them for themselves!!!!

frontrunning
networksolutionsripoff
networksolutionsscruples
networksolutionsdomainscam
netsolscam
netsoldomainnamescam
fronttrunningripoff

Network Solutions Caught Red-Handed - SiteHatchery

SiteHatchery — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:07:35 +0100

Thanks for the great post! I've always trusted Gandi with domain name lookups and have steered away from NetSol and other companies that, because of their overload on advertisements and multiple upcharging opportunities, appear greedy for my money. After reading this, I'm glad I have followed my intuition.