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

 

[WGS_Thunder]

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

I'm a little people too. Have been using Godaddy for over 15 years. I've seen them decline ( IMO ), pushes have become difficult among other things. Checking Epik's pricing on .us and that won't work for me. I'm definitely moving away from Godaddy. This is too much !

 

[oldtimer]

Transferring to another Registrar is only a temporary fix, this problem has to be fixed across the whole Industry by having some clarity as to how the Registrants' Rights can be protected the same regardless of which Registrar they are using.

IMO

 

[Reddstagg]

Transferring to another Registrar is only a temporary fix, this problem has to be fixed across the whole Industry by having some clarity as to how the Registrants' Rights can be protected the same regardless of which Registrar they are using.

IMO

I'm happy for a temporary fix. I will work out what is best for me once the dust settles. I need to feel the love. Show me the honey.

 

[boker]

Transferring to another Registrar is only a temporary fix, this problem has to be fixed across the whole Industry by having some clarity as to how the Registrants' Rights can be protected the same regardless of which Registrar they are using.

IMO

Depending of the TOS of the new registrar, some have clear rules regarding the registrant rights, for example namecheap in Brent's case.

 

[oldtimer]

I'm happy for a temporary fix. I will work out what is best for me once the dust settles. I need to feel the love. Show me the honey.

All Registrars show you the honey while they are small and are trying to attract more customers, the problem arises later on when they feel that they don't have to care about you as a customer anymore.

We need to come up with a solution for the whole Industry so that no matter where our domains are that our rights are respected as the Registrants.

IMO

 

[Reddstagg]

Depending of the TOS of the new registrar, some have clear rules regarding the registrant rights, for example namecheap in Brent's case.

Let's be honest for a moment. Most people would have to sit and pass a law degree before reading and then signing a contract whether that be for a car, a house or a mobile phone. However, only one of those situations actually requires a Lawyer. We may start to read the 39 pages of very small writing and go into a legalese induced coma after 4 pages but we never actually fully understand what we are signing up for or fully understand how it may affect us in the future. Therefore, we place faith, whether that be blind faith or otherwise in the Company that we are doing business with and just assume that we can trust them and they will put our interests at the top of their agenda. It seems, that the only thing that some companies are interested in is making money and they are not too fussed how they get it they just keep counting the zeros.

Falling Empire. Remember this day. Put a note in your diary.

Regards,

Reddstagg

 

[boker]

Let's be honest for a moment. Most people would have to sit and pass a law degree before reading and then signing a contract whether that be for a car, a house or a mobile phone. However, only one of those situations actually requires a Lawyer. We may start to read the 39 pages of very small writing and go into a legalese induced coma after 4 pages but we never actually fully understand what we are signing up for or fully understand how it may affect us in the future. Therefore, we place faith, whether that be blind faith or otherwise in the Company that we are doing business with and just assume that we can trust them and they will put our interests at the top of their agenda. It seems, that the only thing that some companies are interested in is making money and they are not too fussed how they get it they just keep counting the zeros.

Falling Empire. Remember this day. Put a note in your diary.

Regards,

Reddstagg

Nobody reads properly all the tens of pages of an TOS, but you can check the history of each registrar regarding similar issues, there are registrars and registrars.

 

[bmugford]

I had a discussion with Zak Muscovitch of the ICA about looking into this.

This does create a laundry list of potential issues. It will likely take some time to review in detail.

Brad

 

[GTBAAA]

The thing that will work best is if everyone emails Aman the link to this page. Aman doesn't want to fix problems (clearly, as godaddy is a total mess, from rules and regs to their backend).

He does NOT WANT TO BE BOTHERED, though. SO, BOTHER HIM TO GET THIS FIXED.

BELIEVE ME, if everyone emails Aman today and every day going forward, this will be fixed quickly.

___________
Aman @ godaddy.com

and

Abhutani @ godaddy.com
___________

 

[Samer]

I had a discussion with Zak Muscovitch of the ICA about looking into this.

This does create a laundry list of potential issues. It will likely take some time to review in detail.

Brad

Better now than never, thanks for prioritizing it; and putting it on the agenda.

Samer

 

[cdboard]

welcome back, Brent. You and HostGator were big, back when WHT was big.


(did not read whole thread) this problem makes me think having nameservers with a separate domain, at a different registrar might be a good precaution for a serious business. that way if the domain is blocked from transfer, perhaps the nameservers can continue to be updated at the other registrar.

 

[Samer]

welcome back, Brent. You and HostGator were big, back when WHT was big.


(did not read whole thread) this problem makes me think having nameservers with a separate domain, at different a registrar might be a good precaution for a serious business. that way if the domain is blocked from transfer, perhaps the nameservers can continue to be updated at the other registrar.

Read the thread.

it’s damning.

 

[GTBAAA]

Godaddy should be investigated by the feds

 

[cdboard]

(off topic)

 

[KWNG]

Haven’t browsed np for weeks but this definitely stood out. Thankfully my domains are at epik.

 

[oldtimer]

I had a discussion with Zak Muscovitch of the ICA about looking into this.

This does create a laundry list of potential issues. It will likely take some time to review in detail.

Brad

Thanks Brad,

Registrants' Rights should be Universal,

Registrants should not be at the mercy of what each individual Registrar wants to put in their TOS to limit their rights based on what is in their own interest and agenda.

IMO

 

[Samer]

Haven’t browsed np for weeks but this definitely stood out. Thankfully my domains are at epik.

epik never lost one domain. love epik too. Their CEO posts here, for crying out loud! That’s passion.

i have ~50 or so left at Godaddy...

Samer

 

[GeorgeK]

I recall Microsoft filed an ex parte motion to have various domain names suspended a couple of years ago, see:

https://noticeofpleadings.com/phosphorus/files/TRO.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case; 1;19-cv-00716

One of the important parts of the proposed order (page 49 of the above PDF) was that:

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Microsoft shall post bond in the amount of $50,000 to be paid into the Court registry."

That's an important element, to ensure that there's no frivolous litigation. As Brent noted above, for $12 the Plaintiff has caused distress to Brent's portfolio, and apparently hasn't even been served the complaint yet. Without that security bond (or security for costs, as I mentioned in a prior post in this thread), this situation has turned into a farce.

Without an actual court order from the Indian court, GoDaddy (or other registrars in similar situations in the future) at a minimum should require something more from the plaintiff, like a substantial security bond deposited with the court, in my opinion.

 

[branding]

epik never lost one domain. love epik too.

Their CEO posts here, for crying out loud!
That’s passion. i have ~50 or so left Godaddy. This doesnt instill confidence, continue stay...
thankfully, i started leaving a while back...

Samer

Truth be told. This ridiculous stuff wouldn't have occurred at Epik. I call them out where I think there's need to but can't deny the fact that @Rob Monster will have your back under circumstances like this.

But let's not derail and compare the two. It's apples to oranges.

 

[Lox]

If GD received a summons / subpoena to be a witness in a case ...

https://www.godaddy.com/legal/agreements/civil-subpoena-policy

"Upon the receipt of a valid civil subpoena, GoDaddy will promptly notify the customer whose information is sought via e-mail or U.S. mail. If the circumstances do not amount to an emergency, GoDaddy will not immediately produce the customer information sought by the subpoena and will provide the customer an opportunity to move to quash the subpoena in court."

Regards

 

[branding]

If GD received a summons / subpoena to be a witness in a case ...

https://www.godaddy.com/legal/agreements/civil-subpoena-policy

"Upon the receipt of a valid civil subpoena, GoDaddy will promptly notify the customer whose information is sought via e-mail or U.S. mail. If the circumstances do not amount to an emergency, GoDaddy will not immediately produce the customer information sought by the subpoena and will provide the customer an opportunity to move to quash the subpoena in court."

Regards

 

[trelgor]

If $12 can significantly sabotage a competitor for years, justified claims or not, it will happen again and again. Competing businesses will shower eachother with frivolous claims made through secretly hired proxies.

 

[GeorgeK]

Here's an idea for Brent. ICANN does have the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Procedure) at:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tdrp-2012-02-25-en

According to paragraph 2.3:

"2.3 Statute of Limitations

A dispute must be filed no later than six (6) months after the alleged violation of the Transfer Policy. "

So, he might have to reinitiate a new set of domain name transfers to NameCheap, to start the clock anew.

Then GoDaddy (the losing registrar) would have to show that one of the following applies, to deny the transfer (from 3.1.4(ii)(d)):

"d. Evidence of one of the following if a transfer was denied:

• fraud;
• UDRP action;
• court order;
• Registrant or administrative contact identity dispute in accordance with Section 4 [Registrar of Record Requirements]
• applicable payment dispute along with evidence that the registration was put on HOLD status;
• express written objection from the Registered Name Holder or Administrative Contact;
• LOCK status along with proof of a reasonable means for the registrant to remove LOCK status as per Section __of Exhibit __ to this Agreement;
• domain name within 60 days of initial registration; or
• domain name within 60 days of a prior transfer." [emphasis added]

You'll note I underlined and made red the "court order" part. It doesn't say "court action" or "court proceedings", or "legal dispute", it says "court order."

It doesn't appear to me that any of the other potential reasons apply here. So, if there is no actual court order, then NameCheap should be able to be victorious in a TDRP (note that the TDRP has to be brought by the gaining registrar, not the registrant).

The situation might be complicated by the fact that Brent has already filed a separate court action in the US courts, so one should carefully review the full text of the TDRP. But, I note this for potential future situations, where a registrar denies a transfer.

 

[cdboard]

interesting angle, GeorgeK

 

[Lox]

Here's an idea for Brent. ICANN does have the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Procedure) at:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tdrp-2012-02-25-en

According to paragraph 2.3:

"2.3 Statute of Limitations

A dispute must be filed no later than six (6) months after the alleged violation of the Transfer Policy. "

So, he might have to reinitiate a new set of domain name transfers to NameCheap, to start the clock anew.

Then GoDaddy (the losing registrar) would have to show that one of the following applies, to deny the transfer (from 3.1.4(ii)(d)):

"d. Evidence of one of the following if a transfer was denied:

• fraud;
• UDRP action;
• court order;
• Registrant or administrative contact identity dispute in accordance with Section 4 [Registrar of Record Requirements]
• applicable payment dispute along with evidence that the registration was put on HOLD status;
• express written objection from the Registered Name Holder or Administrative Contact;
• LOCK status along with proof of a reasonable means for the registrant to remove LOCK status as per Section __of Exhibit __ to this Agreement;
• domain name within 60 days of initial registration; or
• domain name within 60 days of a prior transfer." [emphasis added]

You'll note I underlined and made red the "court order" part. It doesn't say "court action" or "court proceedings", or "legal dispute", it says "court order."

It doesn't appear to me that any of the other potential reasons apply here. So, if there is no actual court order, then NameCheap should be able to be victorious in a TDRP (note that the TDRP has to be brought by the gaining registrar, not the registrant).

The situation might be complicated by the fact that Brent has already filed a separate court action in the US courts, so one should carefully review the full text of the TDRP. But, I note this for potential future situations, where a registrar denies a transfer.

What if P.A. has already filled one + case (the 3rd), cornering w subpoena other registrars to be a witness?