Dynadot is a privately held ICANN accredited domain name registrar and web hosting company founded by software engineer Todd Han in 2002. Dynadot's headquarters is established in San Mateo, California, with offices in Zhengzhou and Beijing, China, as well as Toronto, Canada.

Type of site
Private Company
Predecessor(s)INamePro, LLC
Area servedWorldwide
Founder(s)Todd Han
Key peopleTodd Han
(Founder) & (President)
IndustryDomain Registrar
ProductsWeb Services
Alexa rank 8,911 (August 2015)[1]


Dynadot was founded in 2002, in San Mateo, California, by Todd Han, a software engineer. Originally called INamePro, LLC, the organization changed its name to Dynadot in 2003. Han was the sole operator of the company during the first three years of its launch, and he hired the company's first employee in 2005.[2] In 2011 the company opened its first Chinese office in Beijing, followed by a second in Zhengzhou in 2013.


Dynadot offers services related to web domain acquisition and website hosting. The company offers domain registrations, renewals, and transfers for over 500 top level and country code domains. Through its domain marketplace, customers can bid on domains due to expire or place a back-order for domains pending deletion. They can also bid on domains put up for auction by current owners or sell domains to potential buyers. Dynadot's services also include basic and advanced website hosting. Dynadot's advanced hosting also uses cPanel and integrates with WordPress. In 2014 Dynadot launched a website builder product.

Bank Julius Baer lawsuit

In February 2008, the wikileaks.org domain name was taken offline after the Swiss Bank Julius Baer sued WikiLeaks and Dynadot, the wikileaks.org domain registrar, in a court in California, United States, and obtained a permanent injunction ordering the shutdown.[3][4] WikiLeaks had hosted allegations of illegal activities at the bank's Cayman Islands branch.[3] WikiLeaks' U.S. Registrar, Dynadot, complied with the order by removing its DNS entries. However, the website remained accessible via its numeric IP address, and online activists immediately mirrored WikiLeaks at dozens of alternative websites worldwide.[5]

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a motion protesting the censorship of WikiLeaks. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press assembled a coalition of media and press that filed an amicus curiae brief on WikiLeaks' behalf. The coalition included major U.S. newspaper publishers and press organisations, such as the American Society of News Editors, the Associated Press, the Citizen Media Law Project, the E. W. Scripps Company, the Gannett Company, the Hearst Corporation, the Los Angeles Times, the National Newspaper Publishers Association, the Newspaper Association of America and the Society of Professional Journalists. The coalition requested to be heard as a friend of the court to call attention to relevant points of law that it believed the court had overlooked (on the grounds that WikiLeaks had not appeared in court to defend itself, and that no First Amendment issues had yet been raised before the court). Amongst other things, the coalition argued that:[6]

"WikiLeaks provides a forum for dissidents and whistleblowers across the globe to post documents, but the Dynadot injunction imposes a prior restraint that drastically curtails access to Wikileaks from the Internet based on a limited number of postings challenged by Plaintiffs. The Dynadot injunction therefore violates the bedrock principle that an injunction cannot enjoin all communication by a publisher or other speaker."[7]

The same judge, Judge Jeffrey White, who issued the injunction vacated it on 29 February 2008, citing First Amendment concerns and questions about legal jurisdiction.[8][9] WikiLeaks was thus able to bring its site online again. The bank dropped the case on 5 March 2008.[10] The judge also denied the bank's request for an order prohibiting the website's publication.[6]

The Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Lucy Dalglish, commented:

"It's not very often a federal judge does a 180 degree turn in a case and dissolves an order. But we're very pleased the judge recognized the constitutional implications in this prior restraint."[6]


  1. "dynadot.com Site Overview". Alexa Internet. Retrieved 2015-08-10.
  2. "About Dynadot". Retrieved 2011-08-25.
  3. "Wikileaks.org under injunction" (Press release). WikiLeaks. 18 February 2008. Archived from the original on 6 March 2008. Retrieved 28 February 2008.
  4. McCullagh, Declan (19 February 2008). "Wikileaks domain name yanked in spat over leaked documents". CNET. Retrieved 29 May 2018.
  5. "Free Speech Has A Number:". CBS News. 20 February 2008. Retrieved 29 May 2018.
  6. Orion, Egan (2 March 2008). "Judge reverses Wikileaks injunction". www.theinquirer.net. The Inquirer. Archived from the original on 8 September 2019. Retrieved 23 September 2009.
  7. Media coalition (26 February 2008). "Document 62" (PDF). Julius Baer v. WikiLeaks. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 November 2008. Retrieved 2 June 2019.
  8. Philipp Gollner (29 February 2008). "Judge reverses ruling in Julius Baer leak case". Reuters. Retrieved 1 March 2008.
  9. Glater, Jonathan D. (5 March 2008). "Bank Moves to Withdraw Its Suit Against Wikileaks Site". New York Times (Bits Blog). Retrieved 29 May 2018.
  10. Claburn, Thomas (6 March 2008). "Swiss Bank Abandons Lawsuit Against WikiLeaks: The wiki had posted financial documents it said proved tax evasion by Bank Julius Baer's clients". InformationWeek.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.