Changes

GoDaddy has been named “Best Registrar” by [[DomainNameWire.com]], a domain name industry news source, for five consecutive years (2005-2010). For six consecutive years, GoDaddy has also ranked as one of the top employers in the Phoenix-metro area by The Phoenix Business Journal’s “Best Places to Work in the Valley” employee survey. GoDaddy was honored as the AZCentral.com's “Best Perks” Employer in 2009 and 2010. GoDaddy received several 2007 Arizona Corporate Excellence (ACE) Awards, including the prestigious distinction as the state's "Most Innovative Company". GoDaddy also ranked #2 on the ACE "25 Fastest-Growing" companies list and #20 on the ACE "Top 50" companies list. It was ranked #8 on the 2004 Inc. 500 list of the nation's fastest-growing privately held companies; #20 on the 2005 Deloitte Technology Fast 500 (growing 8,274 percent); and won the [[CNET]] Editor's Choice award in 2001, the Name Intelligence Largest Net Gain Award in 2002, 2003 and 2005; and the Name Intelligence Users' Choice Award in 2005.<ref>[http://icannwiki.org/GoDaddy ICANNWiki.org]</ref>

GoDaddy has been named “Best Registrar” by [[DomainNameWire.com]], a domain name industry news source, for five consecutive years (2005-2010). For six consecutive years, GoDaddy has also ranked as one of the top employers in the Phoenix-metro area by The Phoenix Business Journal’s “Best Places to Work in the Valley” employee survey. GoDaddy was honored as the AZCentral.com's “Best Perks” Employer in 2009 and 2010. GoDaddy received several 2007 Arizona Corporate Excellence (ACE) Awards, including the prestigious distinction as the state's "Most Innovative Company". GoDaddy also ranked #2 on the ACE "25 Fastest-Growing" companies list and #20 on the ACE "Top 50" companies list. It was ranked #8 on the 2004 Inc. 500 list of the nation's fastest-growing privately held companies; #20 on the 2005 Deloitte Technology Fast 500 (growing 8,274 percent); and won the [[CNET]] Editor's Choice award in 2001, the Name Intelligence Largest Net Gain Award in 2002, 2003 and 2005; and the Name Intelligence Users' Choice Award in 2005.<ref>[http://icannwiki.org/GoDaddy ICANNWiki.org]</ref>

==Refusal to Register Domain Names in China==

===Refusal to Register Domain Names in China===

In February, 2010, the Chinese Government imposed new rules for website operators. The new guidlines stipulated requirements such as the need to submit photographs and other information, and meet the service provider in person.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10458420-245.html CNet News]</ref>

In February, 2010, the Chinese Government imposed new rules for website operators. The new guidlines stipulated requirements such as the need to submit photographs and other information, and meet the service provider in person.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10458420-245.html CNet News]</ref>

However, their effort has been criticized as a publicity stunt, given that GoDaddy so quickly followed Google's approach. The company responded in an announcement, saying their refusal to do business in China is not a PR act and that they are genuinely concerned about the situation facing the Chinese web industry.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/03/go-daddy-china-stunt/ Wired.com]</ref>.

However, their effort has been criticized as a publicity stunt, given that GoDaddy so quickly followed Google's approach. The company responded in an announcement, saying their refusal to do business in China is not a PR act and that they are genuinely concerned about the situation facing the Chinese web industry.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/03/go-daddy-china-stunt/ Wired.com]</ref>.

==Potential Sale Issue==

===Potential Sale Issue===

Duirng early September, 2010, rumours began to circulate that GoDaddy was up for sale.<ref>[http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/09/13/godaddy-for-sale/ BARRON'S]</ref> The rumour was later confirmed by the Wall Street Journal when they published a report verifying exactly that. The report also mentioned the company could fetch more than $1 billion, and that the company had hired the financial firm [[Qatalyst Partners]] to find potential buyers.<ref>[http://nexus404.com/Blog/2010/09/11/rumor-godaddy-for-sale-new-report-has-the-worlds-largest-registrar-selling-itself-for-big-money/ TFTS]</ref>

Duirng early September, 2010, rumours began to circulate that GoDaddy was up for sale.<ref>[http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/09/13/godaddy-for-sale/ BARRON'S]</ref> The rumour was later confirmed by the Wall Street Journal when they published a report verifying exactly that. The report also mentioned the company could fetch more than $1 billion, and that the company had hired the financial firm [[Qatalyst Partners]] to find potential buyers.<ref>[http://nexus404.com/Blog/2010/09/11/rumor-godaddy-for-sale-new-report-has-the-worlds-largest-registrar-selling-itself-for-big-money/ TFTS]</ref>

At first, a GoDaddy spokesman said that the company “does not comment on rumours”. But later, another report by the Wall Street Journal published in late October, 2010, noted that the company pulled itself off the market and was no longer for sale.<ref>[http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/10/26/20101026arizona-go-daddy-pulls-out-potential-sale-report-says.html AZCentral]</ref>

At first, a GoDaddy spokesman said that the company “does not comment on rumours”. But later, another report by the Wall Street Journal published in late October, 2010, noted that the company pulled itself off the market and was no longer for sale.<ref>[http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/10/26/20101026arizona-go-daddy-pulls-out-potential-sale-report-says.html AZCentral]</ref>

==SOPA==

===SOPA===

Unlike many major Internet companies,<ref>[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/godaddy-faces-december-29-boycott-over-sopa-support.ars GoDaddy Faces boycott over SOPA support, http://arstechnica.com/]</ref> GoDaddy came out in support of [[SOPA]] in late October, 2011. The reasons cited for their support were interests in protecting American businesses from being robbed and American consumers from being harmed by counterfeit products. The company stated that it was trying hard to help SOPA become an acceptable form of legislature for all those involved.<ref>[http://support.godaddy.com/godaddy/go-daddys-position-on-sopa/ Go Daddy’s Position on SOPA]</ref> This move came as a surprise, as GoDaddy, just like any other domain name [[registrar]], could potentially have a major liability under the bill, as the responsibility for [[cybersquatting]] could be shifted from the registrant to the registrar.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/12/22/red-hot-on-reddit-com-move-your-domain-away-from-godaddy-day-based-off-of-support-of-sopa/ Red Hot on Reddit.com: “Move Your Domain Away From Godaddy Day” Based Off Of Support Of SOPA, thedomains.com]</ref>

Unlike many major Internet companies,<ref>[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/godaddy-faces-december-29-boycott-over-sopa-support.ars GoDaddy Faces boycott over SOPA support, http://arstechnica.com/]</ref> GoDaddy came out in support of [[SOPA]] in late October, 2011. The reasons cited for their support were interests in protecting American businesses from being robbed and American consumers from being harmed by counterfeit products. The company stated that it was trying hard to help SOPA become an acceptable form of legislature for all those involved.<ref>[http://support.godaddy.com/godaddy/go-daddys-position-on-sopa/ Go Daddy’s Position on SOPA]</ref> This move came as a surprise, as GoDaddy, just like any other domain name [[registrar]], could potentially have a major liability under the bill, as the responsibility for [[cybersquatting]] could be shifted from the registrant to the registrar.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/12/22/red-hot-on-reddit-com-move-your-domain-away-from-godaddy-day-based-off-of-support-of-sopa/ Red Hot on Reddit.com: “Move Your Domain Away From Godaddy Day” Based Off Of Support Of SOPA, thedomains.com]</ref>

By the end of December, significant media and Internet user attention was being paid to GoDaddy's SOPA support; users of the webforum Reddit.com began a protest against GoDaddy, urging those hosting their domain names with the company to transfer their domains to another service. The original poster suggested that December 29th be made "Move Your Domain Day," and in response many of GoDaddy's competitors began offering discounted rates to those wanting to transfer.<ref>[http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supports_sopa_im_transferring_51_domains/ GoDaddy supports SOPA, I'm transferring 51 domains & suggesting a move your domain day, reddit.com]</ref> Reddit users began contacting larger corporations hosting with GoDaddy, such as the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], urging them to transfer their domains from GoDaddy as well.<ref>[http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/nnuwt/til_wikipediaorg_is_registered_at_sopa_supporter/ TIL Wikipedia.org is registered at SOPA supporter GoDaddy, reddit.com]</ref> On December 23, GoDaddy released a press release stating that it no longer supported SOPA, stating that it will support it in the future when and if the Internet community supports it.<ref>[http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378&isc=smtwsup Go Daddy No Longer Supports SOPA, godaddy.com]</ref> In the first week of protesting, GoDaddy lost approximately 72,300 domains due to their support of SOPA.<ref>[http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/12/24/go-daddy-lost-21054-domains-yesterday-in-wake-of-sopa-pr-disaster/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=share%2Bbutton&utm_campaign=social%2Bmedia GoDaddy lost 21,054 domains yesterday due to their support of SOPA, thenextweb.com]</ref> After two weeks, when more solid figures were available, it was noted via the pay-site RegistrarStats.com that GoDaddy had seen 100,000 domains transferred away from its system; however, in that same time frame 117,000 domains were transferred to GoDaddy; therefore, the boycott did not see the registrar take a net loss to its hosting numbers.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2012/01/06/2-weeks-of-sopa-the-actual-godaddy-numbers-100k-domains-transferred-out-117k-domains-transferred-in/ 2 Weeks of SOPA The Actual GoDaddy Numbers 100k Domains Transferred out 117k Transferred in, TheDomains.com]</ref>

By the end of December, significant media and Internet user attention was being paid to GoDaddy's SOPA support; users of the webforum Reddit.com began a protest against GoDaddy, urging those hosting their domain names with the company to transfer their domains to another service. The original poster suggested that December 29th be made "Move Your Domain Day," and in response many of GoDaddy's competitors began offering discounted rates to those wanting to transfer.<ref>[http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supports_sopa_im_transferring_51_domains/ GoDaddy supports SOPA, I'm transferring 51 domains & suggesting a move your domain day, reddit.com]</ref> Reddit users began contacting larger corporations hosting with GoDaddy, such as the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], urging them to transfer their domains from GoDaddy as well.<ref>[http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/nnuwt/til_wikipediaorg_is_registered_at_sopa_supporter/ TIL Wikipedia.org is registered at SOPA supporter GoDaddy, reddit.com]</ref> On December 23, GoDaddy released a press release stating that it no longer supported SOPA, stating that it will support it in the future when and if the Internet community supports it.<ref>[http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378&isc=smtwsup Go Daddy No Longer Supports SOPA, godaddy.com]</ref> In the first week of protesting, GoDaddy lost approximately 72,300 domains due to their support of SOPA.<ref>[http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/12/24/go-daddy-lost-21054-domains-yesterday-in-wake-of-sopa-pr-disaster/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=share%2Bbutton&utm_campaign=social%2Bmedia GoDaddy lost 21,054 domains yesterday due to their support of SOPA, thenextweb.com]</ref> After two weeks, when more solid figures were available, it was noted via the pay-site RegistrarStats.com that GoDaddy had seen 100,000 domains transferred away from its system; however, in that same time frame 117,000 domains were transferred to GoDaddy; therefore, the boycott did not see the registrar take a net loss to its hosting numbers.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2012/01/06/2-weeks-of-sopa-the-actual-godaddy-numbers-100k-domains-transferred-out-117k-domains-transferred-in/ 2 Weeks of SOPA The Actual GoDaddy Numbers 100k Domains Transferred out 117k Transferred in, TheDomains.com]</ref>

==Legal Case Against Petronas==

===Legal Case Against Petronas===

GoDaddy faced a legal battle against Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas), a government-owned oil company in Malaysia and owner of the Petronas twin towers. Petronas accused GoDaddy of First Amendment Complaint alleging that the company violated the [[ACPA|Anti-Cybersquatting and Protection Act]] (ACPA) for [[Cybersquatting|cybersquatting]], contributory to cybersquatting and unfair competition under the California Business & Professions Code § 17200 and California common law on Septemeber 9, 2010.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2012/01/07/federal-court-holds-in-favor-of-godaddy-in-suit-for-cybersquatting-contributory-cybersquatting/]</ref>

GoDaddy faced a legal battle against Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas), a government-owned oil company in Malaysia and owner of the Petronas twin towers. Petronas accused GoDaddy of First Amendment Complaint alleging that the company violated the [[ACPA|Anti-Cybersquatting and Protection Act]] (ACPA) for [[Cybersquatting|cybersquatting]], contributory to cybersquatting and unfair competition under the California Business & Professions Code § 17200 and California common law on Septemeber 9, 2010.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2012/01/07/federal-court-holds-in-favor-of-godaddy-in-suit-for-cybersquatting-contributory-cybersquatting/]</ref>

===Case Background===

====Case Background====

The case involved two disputed domain names, petronastowers.net and petronastower.net, which were registered with GoDaddy by a third party, named Heiko Schoenekess, who used the registrar's online“dashboard” to automatically redirect the Internet traffic for the disputed domain names to pornographic sites. Petronas learned that its trademark was violated by the registrant On November 26, 2009. The company asked GoDaddy to "cease its contributory infringement of the petronastower domain names." In response, GoDaddy argued that domain name ownership disputes should be sent to the registrant or to an arbitration forum such as the [[WIPO]]. The company also said it will not tolerate illegal content of customer's websites and it will cooperate with law enforcement agency for the websites to be taken down. Instead of resolving the case through arbitration procedures, Petronas filed a trademark claim with GoDaddy on December 16, 2009 using the company's "Trademark and/or Copyright Infringement Policy," which excludes domain name disputes. GoDaddy replied that it can only take action against websites related to trademark infringement if the hosting was provided by the company, however the disputed domain names were hosted by a different company. GoDaddy reiterated its position that the proper venue to resolve the problem was through a [[UDRP]]. Futhermore, under ICANN's policy and the UDRP, registrars are prohibited to get involved with domain ownership disputes.<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/77067353/Berhad-v-GoDaddy Berhad vs. GoDaddy]</ref> Petronas insited GoDaddy take down the domain name and the website, but GoDaddy did not. The registrant of the disputed domain names was also unreachable when Petronas tried to contact him or her. On December 19, 2008, Petronas filed an in rem action against petronastower.net. On May 13, 2010, the court ordered the transfer of the domain name to Petronas. The same situation happened to the second domain name petronastowers.net, which was also transfered to the company on August 27, 2010.<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/77067353/Berhad-v-GoDaddy Berhad vs. GoDaddy]</ref>

The case involved two disputed domain names, petronastowers.net and petronastower.net, which were registered with GoDaddy by a third party, named Heiko Schoenekess, who used the registrar's online“dashboard” to automatically redirect the Internet traffic for the disputed domain names to pornographic sites. Petronas learned that its trademark was violated by the registrant On November 26, 2009. The company asked GoDaddy to "cease its contributory infringement of the petronastower domain names." In response, GoDaddy argued that domain name ownership disputes should be sent to the registrant or to an arbitration forum such as the [[WIPO]]. The company also said it will not tolerate illegal content of customer's websites and it will cooperate with law enforcement agency for the websites to be taken down. Instead of resolving the case through arbitration procedures, Petronas filed a trademark claim with GoDaddy on December 16, 2009 using the company's "Trademark and/or Copyright Infringement Policy," which excludes domain name disputes. GoDaddy replied that it can only take action against websites related to trademark infringement if the hosting was provided by the company, however the disputed domain names were hosted by a different company. GoDaddy reiterated its position that the proper venue to resolve the problem was through a [[UDRP]]. Futhermore, under ICANN's policy and the UDRP, registrars are prohibited to get involved with domain ownership disputes.<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/77067353/Berhad-v-GoDaddy Berhad vs. GoDaddy]</ref> Petronas insited GoDaddy take down the domain name and the website, but GoDaddy did not. The registrant of the disputed domain names was also unreachable when Petronas tried to contact him or her. On December 19, 2008, Petronas filed an in rem action against petronastower.net. On May 13, 2010, the court ordered the transfer of the domain name to Petronas. The same situation happened to the second domain name petronastowers.net, which was also transfered to the company on August 27, 2010.<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/77067353/Berhad-v-GoDaddy Berhad vs. GoDaddy]</ref>

GoDaddy filed a motion to dismiss the case due to failure on the side of Petronas to state its claim. On May 5, 2011, the court denied the motion citing that some issues needed to be clarified including the terms forwarding and routing and if they were part of domain names registration services. Following, the court's ruling, GoDaddy filed a motion for summary judgement on the three allegations against the company. Go Daddy argued that it is not the registrant of the disputed domain names and based on ACPA, cybersquatting is the bad faith registration of domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark. In addition, the company asserted that its only role was it provided the registrant with an automatic infrastructure service to route the disputed domain names to his chosen websites. Petronas has no evidence to prove that GoDaddy acted in bad faith with the intention to gain profit from the Petronas trademark. GoDaddy effectively defended its position. On Janury 12, 2012, the court granted its motion for summary judgment.<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/77067353/Berhad-v-GoDaddy Berhad vs. GoDaddy]</ref>

GoDaddy filed a motion to dismiss the case due to failure on the side of Petronas to state its claim. On May 5, 2011, the court denied the motion citing that some issues needed to be clarified including the terms forwarding and routing and if they were part of domain names registration services. Following, the court's ruling, GoDaddy filed a motion for summary judgement on the three allegations against the company. Go Daddy argued that it is not the registrant of the disputed domain names and based on ACPA, cybersquatting is the bad faith registration of domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark. In addition, the company asserted that its only role was it provided the registrant with an automatic infrastructure service to route the disputed domain names to his chosen websites. Petronas has no evidence to prove that GoDaddy acted in bad faith with the intention to gain profit from the Petronas trademark. GoDaddy effectively defended its position. On Janury 12, 2012, the court granted its motion for summary judgment.<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/77067353/Berhad-v-GoDaddy Berhad vs. GoDaddy]</ref>

==GoDaddy Sued for Downtime==

===GoDaddy Sued for Downtime===

In September, 2012, a plaintiff sought a class action lawsuit against GoDaddy for its downtime on September, 10. GoDaddy makes a "99.99% uptime guarantee" for hosting, which would apparently equate to 43.2 minutes in a month. GoDaddy already has an established policy for downtime exceeding this .01% guarantee, “you may contact Go Daddy and request a credit of 5% of your monthly hosting fee from Go Daddy for that month. The credit may be used only for the purchase of further products and services from Go Daddy, and is exclusive of any applicable taxes.” The plaintiff alleges that he was not even given this word.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/09/20/class-action-lawsuit-filed-over-go-daddy-downtime/ Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Go Daddy Downtime, DomainNameWire.com]</ref>

In September, 2012, a plaintiff sought a class action lawsuit against GoDaddy for its downtime on September, 10. GoDaddy makes a "99.99% uptime guarantee" for hosting, which would apparently equate to 43.2 minutes in a month. GoDaddy already has an established policy for downtime exceeding this .01% guarantee, “you may contact Go Daddy and request a credit of 5% of your monthly hosting fee from Go Daddy for that month. The credit may be used only for the purchase of further products and services from Go Daddy, and is exclusive of any applicable taxes.” The plaintiff alleges that he was not even given this word.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/09/20/class-action-lawsuit-filed-over-go-daddy-downtime/ Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Go Daddy Downtime, DomainNameWire.com]</ref>