Dynadot

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

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch
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
 
60
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
After re-reading the wild @Sharjil thread HERE created by @barybadrinath in January 2020, here are a few points:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<---------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>

  • Mr. Agarwal (@barybadrinath) claimed to have worked hard obtaining 11million USD and 21million USD offers, but when those offers came, the owner (assuming Mr. Oxley) told them (assuming potential buyer) that Mr. Agarwal has no relation with him.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<---------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>

  • Mr. Agarwal claimed he recently bought a domain for him (assuming Mr. Oxley?) for $22,000 claiming a $2,000 commission. The domain that he allegedly purchased for him at $22,000 wasn't mentioned in the thread. Matching other $22,000 sales from around that time, if the sale was reported a guess could point to the sale possibly being Classify.com, though NameBio cites BQDN (@BoothDomains) as the venue, and July 2019 as the date. FWIW, Classify.com is registered at NameCheap, nor does it not appear to have the same domain locks as Create.com which is registered at GoDaddy. Additionally, Classify.com is not listed in the suit.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<---------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>

  • Mr. Agarwal claims his master (assuming he is referring to Mr. Oxley?) tried to mail and call his family members. Mr. Agarwal claims to have never said anything to him, but when @Sharjil came in the picture allegedly making threat to his family member, Mr. Agarwal felt the need to expose.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<---------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>

  • @Sharjil responded to Mr. Agarwal confirming the nature of their relationship.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<---------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>

  • Mr. Agarwal responds claiming that @Sharjil's client is also his client. And that he bought 18 domain fr him.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<---------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>

  • Mr. Agarwal claims to have many written emails from the client (assuming Mr. Oxley?) that clearly demonstrates he was cheated.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<---------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>

  • Mr. Agarwal claims this is not about money, or compensation, and that it's about justice. Further citing he was cheated in July.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<---------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>

  • Mr. Agarwal claimed (in January 2020) more than 20+ domains are involved (though the suit filed in November 2019 only contained 19 domains). And that Escrow was used, but he mentioned zero as his commission. Citing previous instances where the buyer had sent him his commission after the deal was completed.


👆 (imo) that could be a notable precedent.

👉 @create.com, if you wouldn't mind answering, have you ever paid Mr. Agarwal any amount of commission for brokerage services?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<---------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>

  • Lastly, there is an alleged matter of <<Mr. Oxley? or his broker @Sharjil? or his broker @BoothDomains? >> leveraging Mr. Agarwals months of negotiations to help bring a domain seller down from $210,000 asking price to a $135,000 domain purchase (possibly snake.com? registered at NameCheap, and not listed in the suit).

Two more points to note from the @Sharjil thread posted by @barybadrinath that may be of interest:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>
  • Mr. Argawal (@barybadrinath) exclaimed "instead of Blackmailing me by saying that all those drinks which I drank with master (when he met me personally in a south Asian country) will be known to my parents... ... Before you tell my family i will tell them myself..."
I know whatever i am writing here is getting read by lawyers of master. Some of them are top most lawyers in domaining. Master has accumulated team of 15 lawyers against me.
But i want to tell all of them , you can throw me out from domaining .no problem. I will drive auto and fill my stomach but i won't bow down against your wrong practice and money and muscle power.
Pls always remember truth will only triumph and nothing else. If instead of threatening my family,instead of giving me greed of lot of compensation ,instead of Blackmailing me by saying that all those drinks which I drank with master ( when he met me personally in a south asian country ) will be known to my parents that i smoke weed and drink wine ,you are all welcome to do that sir.but you must spend time for presenting yourself in court rather than doing all these bad things.
Before you tell my family i will tell them myself...

<<<<<<<<<<<<<------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>

Also master you lied on behalf of one of the leading banks of usa , i have their confirmation in writing that u hv lied , pls don't think master that i cannot do anything from india.
One day i will come to usa and file a case against you in your local court. Not only me that bank will also file a case against you. You did your biggest mistake master by asking your paid goons to threaten my family.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Two more points to note from the @Sharjil thread posted by @barybadrinath that may be of interest:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>
  • Mr. Argawal (@barybadrinath) claims to have been blackmailed by "... saying that all those drinks which I drank with master (when he met me personally in a south Asian country) will be known to my parents... ... Before you tell my family i will tell them myself..."


<<<<<<<<<<<<<------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why is @Rob Monster following this person - @barybadrinath ??

Moderator note: name calling removed in accordance with the rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2
•••
This decision by Godaddy is SO CRAZY that it has to be Aman's decision (perhaps due to his close ties to India). If it wasn't Aman's decision, it would have already been reversed by Aman.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Why is @Rob Monster following this douche - @barybadrinath ??

The guy (not Rob) is toxic scum.........

Maybe he doesn't share the same sentiment as you, or maybe he subscribes to one of many noble beliefs that everyone is capable of growth, forgiveness, and recovery. IDK. playing toasters advocate
 
Last edited:
5
•••
Maybe he doesn't share the same sentiment as you, or maybe he subscribes to a noble belief that everyone is capable of growth, forgiveness, and recovery. IDK.
No - again NO - justifying, tolerating, accepting, allowing people to preach, promote hate/shit/etc etc is no way to conduct yourself as person/CEO/........etc etc
 
Last edited:
7
•••
In the requests section on NamePros, you get people saying something on the lines of "i have a client with a budget of $500k to $1.5 million looking for single word com's".

Anyway in the past few months, I've messaged 2 of these people (even though i knew they was full of s**t and i was wasting my time) and both of them said something on the lines of "i've asked my client but they are not interested but I've gave your domain to other clients of mine" (ie acting as a broker on your behalf).

I shot that down straight away and made it clear 'YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTING THIS DOMAIN' and 'DON'T GIVE MY DOMAIN TO ANY MORE OF CLIENTS' because if i said "thank you" or "that's great" they've got you, you have basically gave them your blessing to do that and act as a reprehensive on your behalf and they want £$£$£$.

Bottom line, be careful what you say in messages, there's many 2 bit brokers around and it looks like that who Brent as dealt with here. If you go the broker route go with a respectable broker and make sure there's a contract.
Correct. Anyone can bring a potential buyer but you must stipulate that it is a referral and not as a commissioned broker or agent. Commissions are usually offered to parties with an agreement with seasoned brokers with a reputation in the business. The main issue is that you do not want just anyone to represent "you". Someone moving a potential buyer to you is a referral. The bigger issue it would appear with Oxley is that the claimant filed for damages from sales already completed. I sold Oxley Dust.com B2B. This guy was nowhere near the deal.
 
19
•••
No - again NO - justifying, tolerating, accepting, allowing people to preach, promote hate/shit/etc etc is no way to conduct yourself as person/CEO/........etc etc

Nonetheless, I think a large number of folks would cite and argue a bible verse in defense of free speech, acceptance, and kindness as a necessary gateway to forgiveness and evolution. to play toasters advocate
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Nonetheless, I think a large number of folks would cite and argue a bible verse in defense of free speech, acceptance, and kindness as a necessary gateway to forgiveness and evolution. to play toasters advocate

Bob Parsons made it happen...

https://www.wnd.com/2005/02/28837/

The man behind the most talked-about Super Bowl commercial, which features a buxom young woman whose flimsy top repeatedly comes undone while testifying before "broadcast censorship hearings," founded a software company that produced one of the most popular Bible-study programs on the market.

[...]

Part of that market was in selling Bible software to Christians, including QuickVerse, a popular Bible-study program that was actually written by Parsons' vice president, Craig Rairdin. The product includes a Bible verse search engine, Bible commentaries, theology books, study notes, a Bible atlas, word-study guides and other resources.​
 
3
•••
Correct. Anyone can bring a potential buyer but you must stipulate that it is a referral and not as a commissioned broker or agent. Commissions are usually offered to parties with an agreement with seasoned brokers with a reputation in the business. The main issue is that you do not want just anyone to represent "you". Someone moving a potential buyer to you is a referral. The bigger issue it would appear with Oxley is that the claimant filed for damages from sales already completed. I sold Oxley Dust.com B2B. This guy was nowhere near the deal.

Mr Oxley has to clarify whatever was his agreement or discussion with PA.
 
2
•••
No person shall be deprived of their property rights unless by authority of law. Godaddy TOS is not law. An unlawful property lock-out violates the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. And, as eminent domain does apply to intangible property, such as contracts, losses have been made compensable in some states.

Consider filing a class action against an unlawful lock on [your] contractual property rights.
Virtually every digital asset owner would join that action.
 
5
•••
5
•••
You could have made your point without mentioning Nigeria.

Totally. Because it's not like Nigeria is one of the top 3 countries in the world for originating scams, right?

Would you have been just as offended if he chose to use Romania in his example instead of Nigeria? Would you have bothered to reply then?

I'm guessing no.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
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

Agreed. Already moved half of my domains over to namecheap over this single issue.
 
4
•••
I’ll be watching. Praying for you!

I saw you sell Blunt.com here live!!

You’re a legend Brent!!

Edit: Booth is the one to sell Blunt : )
Mix legendary domainers’ priceless asset sales
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Totally. Because it's not like Nigeria is one of the top 3 countries in the world for originating scams, right?

Would you have been just as offended if he chose to use Romania in his example instead of Nigeria? Would you have bothered to reply then?

I'm guessing no.

And what does those two nationalities you mentioned have to do with the case in question? He could have perfectly made his point without any stereotypes
 
5
•••
Maybe he doesn't share the same sentiment as you, or maybe he subscribes to one of many noble beliefs that everyone is capable of growth, forgiveness, and recovery. IDK. playing toasters advocate

Amen. We are all on a journey. Puneet is a zealot. I figured that out real quick. He is also a sort of justice warrior, that seems to be prepared to die on his own sword in his pursuit of this justice. I have met a few folks like this along the way. I actually think Grilled would get him on some level. :)
 
Last edited:
4
•••
And what does those two nationalities you mentioned have to do with the case in question? He could have perfectly made his point without any stereotypes

They're stereotypes because the data reveals that Nigeria (and India) are massively corrupt countries and have a solid history of spawning scams. Does that mean that there isn't corruption issues in many other countries? No, of course not. Is there is a huge disproportionate number of scams that originate from both Nigeria and India? Absolutely. So, allow me to state the obvious. The person above who chose to use "Nigeria" in their hypothetical fraud case, did so I imagine because it's highly relevant. It's relevant, because the odds of an individual being scammed by someone from Nigeria (and india) are vastly higher than being scammed by someone from Canada or Denmark. Reasons for this are vast, ranging from socio-economic issues, to the ratio of the country's population vs. law enforcement resources.

So, in a nutshell, you shouldn't be "offended" that someone happened to have used Nigeria (a country that actually has an ongoing, extreme problem with spawning scams ) in order to prove a relevant point. What you should be offended at, is that Nigeria has such an extreme scamming problem to begin with.
 
Last edited:
5
•••
They're stereotypes because the data reveals that Nigeria (and India) are massively corrupt countries and have a solid history of spawning scams. Does that mean that there isn't corruption issues in many other countries? No, of course not. Is there is a huge disproportionate number of scams that originate from both Nigeria and India? Absolutely. So, allow me to state the obvious. The person above who chose to use "Nigeria" in their hypothetical fraud case, did so I imagine because it's highly relevant. It's relevant, because the odds of an individual being scammed by someone from Nigeria (and india) are vastly higher than being scammed from someone from Canada or Denmark. Reasons for this are vast, ranging from socio-economic issues, to the ratio of the country's population vs. law enforcement resources.

So, in a nutshell, you shouldn't be "offended" that someone happened to have used Nigeria (a country that actually has an ongoing, extreme problem with spawning scams ) in order to prove a relevant point. What you should be offended at, is that Nigeria has such an extreme scamming problem to begin with.


Thanks for making me see the light. I perfectly understand now.
 
0
•••
Thanks for making me see the light. I perfectly understand now.

Instead of a passive aggressive one-liner, perhaps you should elaborate on what it is specifically that is "incorrect" in my above statement regarding the disproportionate number of scams that originate from countries such as India and Nigeria, and why another namepro member choosing to use Nigeria in their hypothetical example, lacked relevance. If they happened to have used Denmark, Canada or even Russia in their hypothetical fraud scenario above, would you have even brought up nationality as the focus of discussion? I'm betting no. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
4
•••
0
•••
yeah, GD is becoming goevil or evildaddy now. No one can stop them to be evil now.

@Paul Nicks you should fire all legal employees now and recruit all again, they're sh*t now. Basically, you only want to protect yourself & your benefits, no one else protected on here, there or anywhere. That's all.

I had a dispute on domain violation about sharing my script illegally since May 2020, sent many emails to [email protected], [email protected] and other emails I could reach but still no response; even I already had 2 chat sessions on GD, the supporters just replied the tickets received. Certainly it's still silent now.

I contacted domain owner for this violation but they didn't want to support; so I claimed this up to GD & even ICANN but no one help me.

Especially, this domain is an Unicorn company (tokopedia), you believe it? Just a sh*t unicorn.

toko.jpg
toko1.jpg
toko2.jpg
 
0
•••
I have never seen a thread receive so many posts in such a short period of time. I have gotten to page six. And I plan to go through the rest of the pages and respond accordingly. Here are some responses up to that point.

I believe @Joe Styler @Paul Nicks or [another] C level member could contribute more to deflate the emotions and jumps to conclusions in the posts.

Guess that's part of the issue.

But GoDaddy India should be an entirely different legal entity right? It's not like if you have a presence in another country all of your global businesses obligations fall under local law.

IMHO, we all assume dot com domains are under US jurisdiction. That's where the original governmental agency that ultimately stores zone files is located, IANA. Now owned by ICANN. It would seem reasonable that the lawsuits for domains registered in the US, especially dot com, should be made in a US court. Maybe if it is registered at a registrar and resolves to DNS in a different country another argument could be made. But someone more experienced in this area may correct me.

I don't agree with GD locking the DNs.

The backstory seems to be between Oxley and the broker, of which full details are not yet in public domain.

So far it is only a lock. The registrant still maintains ownership of the domains.

This is a very high profile case. The domain portfolio in question, as a whole, has a multimillion dollar end-user value. The entire domaining community will be paying close attention as to how this unfolds.

Finally, there need to be more legal protections of ownership for domains to avoid frivolous legal challenges, if this might be one of these.
 
Last edited:
4
•••
Also, if this is a dispute between a broker and a client, why is a registrar involved? What am I missing?
 
10
•••
Also, if this is a dispute between a broker and a client, why is a registrar involved? What am I missing?

Exactly.

In the spirit of fairness, when GoDaddy is facing any type of lawsuit they should lock all their own domains as well.

It doesn't matter which court.
It doesn't matter if there is an order.
It doesn't matter if they were served.

Surely, in the same situation GoDaddy should lock all their own domains for an indefinite period of time, maybe even years. It would only be fair.

:)

Brad
 
Last edited:
12
•••
Epik.com should acquire GoDaddy
 
2
•••
Back