information Brent Oxley Loses Access to Create.com, Plus Millions of Dollars Worth of His Domains

[James Iles]

Brent Oxley, the founder of HostGator, has been accruing a portfolio of ultra-premium domain names since he sold his hosting company for close to $300 million in 2013.

With purchases such as Give.com for $500,000, Broker.com for $375,000, and Texas.com for $1,007,500, Oxley has spent millions of dollars over the past few years accumulating this collection. According to his website, the portfolio is worth more than $25 million.

Oxley has now, however, lost access to a proportion of his portfolio

Read the full report on my blog

 

[bmugford]

@Embrand + @bmugford and other ICA Members...

Perhaps this situation could be an opportunity for @Zak Muscovitch and the ICA to examine, and suggest best practices to protect domain registrants against domain brokers? And vice versa, protect domain brokers from domain registrants....

Or at least, outline what rights as domain registrants, we have to protect against registrars enforcing legal filings that may have been largely assumed out of jurisdiction.

I agree.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

This is from the original blog post. Look at the difference between GoDaddy and NameCheap in the same situation.

Standing aside, it also seems like no actual court order exists.

I understand that after Oxley moved his domains to Namecheap, Agarwal contacted Namecheap asking for Oxley’s names to be locked, a request that Namecheap declined. I contacted Namecheap for comment. I was told:

“Namecheap always puts our customers first, protecting their right, freedoms and valuable digital assets such as domain names. We have a proven track record of doing the right thing by our customers that includes fighting for their rights in court when deemed necessary. We do not lock or disable customer domains on a whim without the correct legal requirement.”

 

[bmugford]

GoDaddy has a lot of explaining to do...

Oxley, in an email to me, disputed the existence of any court order.

A quick look at India’s Ecourts filing (PDF) for Agarwal’s lawsuit shows a status of “Awaiting Services [sic] of notices/summons,” which seems to suggest Oxley hasn’t been served with a summons to appear.

An affidavit filed by Oxley’s Indian Advocate (PDF) also attests that Oxley has yet to be served, despite the case being open for more than a year.

 

[Peak.Domains]

Godaddy provides this paid service

Imagine the suckers paying $20 per year, per domain, for their ultimate protection ...

When they could get dozens of names locked in, for years, for a one-time fee of only $12.

 

[oldtimer]

Maybe they should rename the product Unbreakable Locking.

No matter what they call it, as I have already mentioned ICANN should come up with a set of Uniform Standards and Policies for the whole Industry that can protect Registrants' Rights the same no matter which Registrar you have your domains with specially when it comes to such things as locking domains, expiration, deletion and redemption periods and Policies and with regards to privacy.

I wonder what ICA is doing to bring some uniformity across the Industry.

IMO

 

[FolioTeam]

I dont have such an impressive portfolio like Brent but I can feel the pain and agony. Over the period of time I have acquired some great domains and kept them in Godaddy thinking they will be the protector of my assets (I paid them money for the names and paid a lot of it- Sometime all my savings for a great name)

I look into this issue from 3 angles..

1. As a Domain investor: As a domain investor this is clear sign that Godaddy is not the right registrar for your premium domains. Some crook from far country will get any document in their court and GoDaddy will just lock domains. Over period of time I have put all my savings and investments in digital real estate, and this case seems something similar to having money in American bank but my bank saying your money is frozen because someone in Nigeria says its their money because they sent me those ponzy emails that ‘I won a million dollar in inheritance’. and because they sent those email they have the rights on my bank account. Godaddy should realize that how much credibility they are losing and what value they will provide to their stakeholders by doing this. THEY NEED TO TAKE STAND. I have lost my trust and would be moving my portfolio from Godaddy to a trusted registrar.

2. As a NamePros community member: I have seen his past posts and he is no broker or a domainer.I have never seen him putting anything constructive for community and always ruffling feathers with others. We don’t need such toxic people in our community. They don’t do any good for anyone.

3. As an Indian: I am ashamed that my country has people like Puneet AKA Badri and I am not sure how many such names he has. We are good hard-working people who invest wisely and don’t cheat others. It’s not in our culture and values to swindle and extort money from others .When I see someone doing it I feel ashamed and I apologies to Brent and everyone that some scrupulous guy from India is doing it. Hope this gets resolved and I fully support you and request Godaddy to take consent on the matter.

You could have made your point without mentioning Nigeria.

 

[bmugford]

This is a quick summary, as far as I can tell.

The registrar is based in the US.
The registry is based in the US.
The registrant is based in the US.

The complainant filed a case in an Indian court related to a business dispute.

There is no court order. The defendant has not even been served yet.
Even if there was a court order, I fail to see how it would have any standing in this case.

GoDaddy for some reason not only locked the domains, without a court order, they also locked the domain Create.com which does not even appear to be named in the suit.

I am not really sure WTF GoDaddy is doing here. It makes any domain owner, from the largest investor to the smallest end user far less secure with their assets.

Brad

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Circling back to the primary topic at hand, you may have missed @VPN.com comment on JamesNames.com that Mr. Gargiulo has already spoken to GoDaddy CEO Mr. Bhutani regarding this

Did VPN actually speak to him or is it BS? - I suspect BS........

I have no reason to believe calling BS on @VPN.com's Michael Gargiulo is/was warranted. I'm inclined to believe the comment, and that Mr. Gargiulo did in fact speak with Mr. Bhutani regarding this. Though, I know no more than you, and am simply speculating based off of the comment.

As Mr. Gargiulo stated he explicitly did so about this case. Though, the method of communication was not mentioned, and without speculating too much I think it's worth noting that a vast amount of domain related communication occurs behind the scenes (to include private forums).

 

[oldtimer]

The registrar is based in the US.
The registry is based in the US.
The registrant is based in the US.

If ICANN sets a set of Uniform Standards and Policies for protecting the Registrants' Rights that all Registry and Registrars have to abide with specially when it comes to locking domains, does it matter where everyone is physically located at.

IMO

 

[trelgor]

Wow. Thanks for sharing.

 

[bmugford]

If ICANN sets a set of Uniform Standards and Policies for protecting the Registrants' Rights that all Registry and Registrars have to abide with specially when it comes to locking domains, does it matter where everyone is physically located at.

IMO

Yes, it does.

First of all this is not an ICANN issue. This is a business dispute issue.

The decision for GoDaddy to lock these domains is internal. With the same information, NameCheap has decided to not lock his domains.

ICANN themselves has "mutual jurisdiction" defined when it comes to UDRP to avoid this specific issue.

Mutual Jurisdiction means a court jurisdiction at the location of either (a) the principal office of the Registrar (provided the domain-name holder has submitted in its Registration Agreement to that jurisdiction for court adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from the use of the domain name) or (b) the domain-name holder's address as shown for the registration of the domain name in Registrar's Whois database at the time the complaint is submitted to the Provider.

That aside, again there appears to be no court order. The defendant has not even been served yet.

Brad

 

[oldtimer]

Yes, it does.

ICANN themselves has "mutual jurisdiction" defined when it comes to UDRP to avoid this specific issue.

Mutual Jurisdiction means a court jurisdiction at the location of either (a) the principal office of the Registrar (provided the domain-name holder has submitted in its Registration Agreement to that jurisdiction for court adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from the use of the domain name) or (b) the domain-name holder's address as shown for the registration of the domain name in Registrar's Whois database at the time the complaint is submitted to the Provider.

That aside, again there appears to be no court order. The defendant has not even been served yet.

Brad

That is already implied that if there is a court order or a request by the official law enforcement agencies that the domain can be locked, but other than that ICANN needs to get rid of all these different TOS's that make it possible for the Registrars to overreach and trample on the Registrants' Rights at will.

IMO

 

[bmugford]

Some business dispute, in some random court, in some random country should have no standing here.

https://harrisbricken.com/blog/recognition-foreign-judgments-us-courts/

Even if there was a court order, or judgement, it is not automatically accepted. At some point you would need a US court to sign off on it, if it was involving property and people based in the US.

If someone has an issue with a .COM domain itself, they can file an In Rem lawsuit where the .COM registry is located (Virginia).

If we are going down a path where someone can just file a business related lawsuit, never serve it, never mind getting an actual court order...then a registrar locks domains based on that, we are going to have an issue.

Brad

 

[alcy]

"Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world"

This is standard tactic for Godaddy, NetworkSolutions and other domain registrars.

They do not want to understand the problems and send you to the court.

Many people don't want to spend their time and money in the court, so they just give up.

As a result all this locked valuable domains going to Registrars auctions and bring them huge money.

You will be surprised how many domains in the world are in Legal Lock(Compliance Lock) status.

I can't find original Court Order from India in this topic (with blue stamps or holograms, and judge signature), only translated version which doesn't look like a legal document.

If there are real Court Order from India court than GoDaddy juridically has all rights to lock this domains.

GoDaddy will comply with any Court Order (filed in the US) or UDRP decision that orders it to reinstate ownership of these domains to owner control.

Until this happens, they will be playing for time, hoping to get these names for themselves and sell them at their GoDaddy auction.

Can anyone post a link to the original Indian Court Order(even in hindi language) about this case?

u mean this can and does happen across all registrars?

 

[trelgor]

”Here’s some sort of legal paper with legal stuff on it, let’s just freeze everything and we’ll have done nothing wrong. All for?”

 

[oldtimer]

If we are going down a path where someone can just file a business related lawsuit, never serve it, never mind getting an actual court order...then a registrar locks domains based on that, we are going to have an issue.

So basically what I am saying is that we need to sort out when a domain can be locked for legitimate reasons and when it is considered to be an overreach by the Registrars and make that in to a Uniform Standard and Policy for the whole Industry.

IMO

 

[DomainVP]

I transfer all of my domains OUT of GoDaddy to Epik, and have been doing so for years.

When renewal comes up, you transfer out to Epik.

No "Domain Discount" club needed.
No "GoDaddy Concierge" needed because Epik support is legendary.
No overselling products nobody wants.

Use Epik.

GoDaddy "Appraisals" are an absolute joke. Giving people the false indication that no-value domains have value.

Not to mention that GoDaddy gives "special customers" people API backdoors to snipe closeout auctions faster than even a bot can.

Then they up the closeout fee to $50 in order to encourage bidding, knowing very well that if you place a bid Huge Domains bot will bid you into oblivion.

Essentially... the aftermarket is rigged.

We're all damaged by GoDaddy.

 

[bmugford]

So basically what I am saying is that we need to sort out when a domain can be locked for legitimate reasons and when it is considered to be an overreach by the Registrars and make that in to a Uniform Standard and Policy for the whole Industry.

IMO

Well, there are set policies with ICANN. For instance when a UDRP is filed a domain is locked. That is ICANN policy. If you register a gTLD you are subject to that.

This lawsuit has nothing to do with ICANN policy.

In real court, the jurisdiction matters. As a US citizen, with property based in the US I am not subject to some random court in some random country. If someone wants an enforceable judgement, it needs to be in a court that has authority over me and/or my assets.

In this case not only are there jurisdiction issues, there is no court order, and the defendant was not even served.

The action GoDaddy has taken based on this seems highly inappropriate IMO.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

I want to thank @James Iles for bringing attention to this issue.

Brad

 

[equity78]

The more that comes out the worse this looks for GoDaddy.

This is creating an absurd precedent. It is creating a system that can be easily gamed and abused.

If this can happen to Brent, what chance does any other domain investor or even domain owner have in fighting this type of complete nonsense?

Brad

Brad will you move names out of GoDaddy because of this, I mentioned this thread to someone who doesn't spend much time here anymore, he just texted me back, "Thanks transferring all my names out now, this is an utter disgrace!!!!!!"

 

[Samer]

Brad will you move names out of GoDaddy because of this, I mentioned this thread to someone who doesn't spend much time here anymore, he just texted me back, "Thanks transferring all my names out now, this is an utter disgrace!!!!!!"

How could you NOT??!!

 

[bmugford]

Brad will you move names out of GoDaddy because of this, I mentioned this thread to someone who doesn't spend much time here anymore, he just texted me back, "Thanks transferring all my names out now, this is an utter disgrace!!!!!!"

I want to see what GoDaddy's response is to this.

I just don't see any defense for it. I am not sure if GoDaddy really understands how damaging this action can be for them.

It is clear that in the eyes of the community GoDaddy is in the wrong. From small time investors to the largest, that view seems universal. This action opens a Pandora's box of issues from jurisdiction to registrant rights.

I would like for GoDaddy to acknowledge they went too far, that this creates a terrible precedent, and fix it ASAP. GoDaddy also needs to add clarity to their policy going forward.

Brad

 

[boker]

I want to see what GoDaddy's response is to this.

I just don't see any defense for it. I am not sure if GoDaddy really understands how damaging this action can be for them.

It is clear that in the eyes of the community GoDaddy is in the wrong. From small time investors to the largest, that view seems universal. This action opens a Pandora's box of issues from jurisdiction to registrant rights.

I would like for GoDaddy to acknowledge they went too far, that this creates a terrible precedent, and fix it ASAP. GoDaddy also needs to add clarity to their policy.

Brad

The idea is that godaddy could release all Brent's domains, just to limit the damage, but without lot's of changes in their TOS and registrant rights, sooner or later it will happen again and it could happen to somebody who can't afford tens of thousands to defends their names. Godaddy needs to do a lot of changes, from registrant rights to customer service( how it's possible for a guy who owns domains worth millions to not receive a proper reply to multiple emails in a situation like this?) So, the the main question is ,are you waiting to see if godaddy will release Brent's domains and apologize or you expect them to make some hard core changes to stay?

PS: I can bet that no hardcore changes could make Brent decide to stay longer with them after this story and probably he is not the only one

 

[Reddstagg]

I know that I am fairly insignificant in terms of domaining, but I'm the little people. I am woke. After reading of yet another failing of this large entity I have today deleted my 976 domains from Afternic. In the past I have also let 133 domains expire too as I was not going to pay the exorbitant renewal fees requested. I will also transfer out my remaining 83 domains when they come up for renewal having already transferred out over 200 additional domain names.

If enough little people do the same then maybe, just maybe they might start to listen.

Regards,

Reddstagg

www. solidarity-together-4-always-dotcom .online

 

[bmugford]

The idea is that godaddy could release all Brent's domains, just to limit the damage, but without lot's of changes in their TOS and registrant rights, sooner or later it will happen again and it cold happen to somebody who can't afford tens of thousands to defends their names. Godaddy needs to do a lot of changes, from registrant rights to customer service( how it's possible for a guy who owns domains worth millions to not receive a proper reply to multiple emails in a situation like this?) So, the the main question is ,are you waiting to see if godaddy will release Brent's domains and apologize or you expect them to make some hard core changes to stay?

PS: I can bet that no hardcore changes could make Brent decide to stay longer with them after this story and probably he is not the only one

I just sent an email to my account manager about this. I am looking forward to having a serious discussion.

If some random lawsuit, in some random court, in some random country is going to lead to GoDaddy locking domains without a court order, or even being served, including a domain that was not even part of the lawsuit... Who is going to feel secure with assets there?

They need to clarify their policy. That part is not even really debatable.

Brad