Let's not piss our pants again over this language... Again. That language is what I like to call "cover my ass" language. By that I mean a lot of companies add in clauses that sound real bad but in reality they're just standard legal jargon that lets them cover their ass in the event that they're forced to. This isn't some totalitarian conspiracy and none of the companies using this language actually want to or have any interest in canceling your domains. This is a very insignificant thing. Let's stop getting our panties in a twist over every little clause in every company's TOS and get back to startups and the cool interesting stuff that used to get posted around here.
Forced to is a problematic term though. A company can be "forced to" because they don't want to stand up in court for the rights of their customers. They can be "forced to" because not doing so would subject them to bad press or just look bad.
The problem here is that the terms can be read in a very one-sided way (leaving aside the questions of adherence contract interpretation) and therefore all the power in the interaction is held by the registrar.
You're wrong. One-sided contracts are not insignificant. If you think they are you're in for a world of hurt.
But if you don't like reading about them, don't. I don't see how you're being forced into these threads. In fact, feel free to vote them down. But don't pollute them.
