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

 

[boker]

From the India court order:

https://www.jamesnames.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Agarwal-vs-GoDaddy-Oxley.pdf



@boker -- If you don't think GoDaddy India was served, would you agree that it's easier and/or more affordable for Mr. Agrawal to serve GoDaddy India in India than it would be for Mr. Agrawal to serve Mr. Oxley in Texas?

Show attachment 184534

Further, if the intended result was to cast maximum damage on Mr. Oxley, and hope to force him into submission, then what true benefit does Mr. Agarwal have to serve Mr. Oxley, so long as the domains remain locked as long as GoDaddy remains a party to the suit, which will remain pending, and Mr. Oxleys domains locked, until Mr. Oxley is served, and the case is able to process.

Also, let's say that godaddy was served and we know for sure that Brent was not. So, how it's possible for a judge to issue a court order, when at least one of the one's involved are not served, so they can't even defend themselves and how can a judge know all the facts if some of the one involved can't say anything. Based on this, I don't think that any judge, in any court in any country can issue a court order, without all the facts, I don't think that you can see something like this even in North Korea.

 

[AK85]

I am very sorry about that @create.com I hope you get back all your domains soon!

Reading more & more horrible & terrifying stories from GoDaddy on a daily basis made me take the decision to move out all my good domains out into other registrars who respect their customers more & do not treat them like that, I don't want to sleep with one eye opened.

I have already moved out few & I think in few weeks i will be a 'GoDaddy free' person!

All the best Brent,
Amr

 

[GTBAAA]

Waiting on confirmation before posting more...

 

[GTBAAA]

Have you emailed Aman yet today?

I'm telling you, if we all email everyday, he will fix this mess so that he isn't emailed anymore.

___________
Aman @ godaddy.com

and

Abhutani @ godaddy.com
___________

 

[bmugford]

Funny how he thinks he doesn't fall under US court jurisdiction but Brent falls under Indian court jurisdiction.

Yes, I find that rather amusing as well.

He is not subject to US law, but Brent is subject to Indian law when he does not live there and the .COM registry is not there. It doesn't make much sense.

Brad

 

[MapleDots]

A Canadian Registrar Canspace.ca just chimed in...

" There is absolutely no circumstance in which we would deny clients access to their domains without a direct order from a Canadian court. "

NOTICE THE PART ABOUT A CANADIAN COURT

Time to actually do it and move out of godaddy at next renewal.

 

[Start]

I mean who here has tanks or giraffes.. or even a ranch.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/us/exotic-hunting-texas-ranch.html

Wow, this is pretty terrible:
Oxley has a ranch where people can shoot endangered species.

Giraffes are going extinct, and yet Oxley has brought one to Texas. If there's more than 1, that's bad, and if it's just 1, the giraffe must be lonely and isn't able to contribute to its herd.

I see Oxley also allows people to kill African bongo antelopes (charges $35,000 for it), which are also going extinct... apparently only 28,000 left in the world, and Oxley has taken 30 of them to Texas. Yeah, gotta be a big tough guy to shoot an herbivore. He doesn't allow hunting of the giraffe at least, but it's still bad, and a lot of other endangered species are hunted:

"Himalayan tahrs, wild goats with a bushy lion-style mane, are far cheaper. The trophy fee, or kill fee, to shoot one is $7,500. An Arabian oryx is $9,500; a sitatunga antelope, $12,000; and a black wildebeest, $15,000."

It does make me lose any sympathy for Oxley.

Godaddy has obviously still acted incompetently though, and this is a concern for all domain owners.


Also a few points:

- There's a famous quote "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence".

That's obviously what's at play here, not some conspiracy against Oxley because of his (imo) odious views and activities. This is a classic type of stupidity that big bureaucracies sometimes end up doing if they become a place where people "just follow the rules" instead of using common sense. Kind of reminds me of the famous book "The Trial" by Franz Kafka.

- Anyone who thinks GoDaddy's CEO being of Indian background means he has some connection to the lowlife Agarwal, is simply an idiot. India has over 1 billion people.

- Basic logic and common sense shows there's no incentive for GoDaddy to lock his domains just to target him, because one would know that if others found out, it would scare away customers and damage GoDaddy's business (plus the endangered species hunting thing just reminds people that GoDaddy's founder did that as well).

It's obviously just a case of their legal department being incompetent, and I guess overly cautious, because Oxley and Agarwal did have some kind of business relationship, and he was renewing Agarwal's domains for him. Agarwal is obviously trying to pull a scam now though.



-------------

Adding:

Haha, here's a good quote from a comment on the article I linked above:

"I am a hunter and feed my family with wild game from the Mountains of Montana every year. Anyone who considers what happens on these ranches hunting is pathetic. Killing a fenced, feeder trained, animal with military equipment and vehicles is disgusting. If you participate in this you are truly a sad person. Don't consider yourself a hunter or think that you are ethical; consider getting psychological help. It is the same as buying prostitutes and calling yourself a great lover; you are neither great or doing anything that resembles love."

I guess Oxley and Agarwal have something in common in that sense.

 

[DN Playbook]

Tom, Paul Nicks addressed this earlier. Brent's domains have complete function, with the exception of being transferred. Paul indicates that this is for everyone's protection.

If that is the case, then Brent hasn't lost control of his domains. The domains are merely in transfer lock. That needs to be clarified as I think many are confused as to what the lock actually is. As the title of the thread reads, he lost access to the domains. A transfer lock is not losing access.

And the statement by Paul Nicks sounds like GD is paying for renewals, which sounds odd. But maybe I misread it.

 

[WGS_Thunder]

If that is the case, then Brent hasn't lost control of his domains. The domains are merely in transfer lock. That needs to be clarified as I think many are confused as to what the lock actually is. As the title of the thread reads, he lost access to the domains. A transfer lock is not losing access.

And the statement by Paul Nicks sounds like GD is paying for renewals, which sounds odd. But maybe I misread it.

From what I gather, he can't sell the domains. It's been going on for over a year ?

 

[sharfab]

This issue has now garnished an abundant amount of pages as it relates to this topic. Now the question arises about "WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT". Due to the traction this conversation have taken, the thought of a new thread will be inevitable to discuss how do we move forward as a domaining community by outlining future registrar prospects that meet our standards for protection of our domain assets. Let us as a community seek to now have more input by giving suggestions to these registrars on what works for us and hold them accountable if they are to recieve our business. We need to ONLY deal with registrars that will have the best interest of its customers so that this will never happen again! If you add all the domain portfolios just from this domain forum it tally a huge amount of equity for the RIGHT registrar. WE HAVE POWER! IMO

 

[GTBAAA]

This issue has now garnished an abundant amount of pages as it relates to this topic. Now the question arises about "WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT". Due to the traction this conversation have taken, the thought of a new thread will be inevitable to discuss how do we move forward as a domaining community by outlining future registrar prospects that meet our standards for protection of our domain assets. Let us as a community seek to now have more input by giving suggestions to these registrars on what works for us and hold them accountable if they are to recieve our business. We need to ONLY deal with registrars that will have the best interest of its customers so that this will never happen again! If you add all the domain portfolios just from this domain forum it tally a huge amount of equity for the RIGHT registrar. WE HAVE POWER! IMO

FILL UP AMAN'S EMAIL!!!! HE DOESN"T CARE ABOUT BRENT. He does, though, care about being bothered about this. He has his minions, Paul and Joe, deflecting the heat. Let's ALL directly EMAIL Aman - Joe and Paul are doing NOTHING.

 

[Sutruk]

If that is the case, then Brent hasn't lost control of his domains. The domains are merely in transfer lock. That needs to be clarified as I think many are confused as to what the lock actually is. As the title of the thread reads, he lost access to the domains. A transfer lock is not losing access.

If your business is buying and selling domains, then that's locking your business and freezing your assets. That's the only it takes to freeze and lock your business, to lock your domains. So yes, he has lost control of his domains.

 

[sharfab]

@GTBAA. How did you reach the conclusion of filling up Aman's email from my above post. You missed the mark and the jist of what I wrote. Please re-read it for a better understanding.

 

[WGS_Thunder]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/us/exotic-hunting-texas-ranch.html

Wow, this is pretty terrible:
Oxley has a ranch where people can shoot endangered species.

Giraffes are going extinct, and yet Oxley has brought one to Texas. If there's more than 1, that's bad, and if it's just 1, the giraffe must be lonely and isn't able to contribute to its herd.

I see Oxley also allows people to kill African bongo antelopes (charges $35,000 for it), which are also going extinct... apparently only 28,000 left in the world, and Oxley has taken 30 of them to Texas. Yeah, gotta be a big tough guy to shoot an herbivore. He doesn't allow hunting of the giraffe at least, but it's still bad, and a lot of other endangered species are hunted:

"Himalayan tahrs, wild goats with a bushy lion-style mane, are far cheaper. The trophy fee, or kill fee, to shoot one is $7,500. An Arabian oryx is $9,500; a sitatunga antelope, $12,000; and a black wildebeest, $15,000."

It does make me lose any sympathy for Oxley.

Godaddy has obviously still acted incompetently though, and this is a concern for all domain owners.


Also a few points:

- There's a famous quote "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence".

That's obviously what's at play here, not some conspiracy against Oxley because of his (imo) odious views and activities. This is a classic type of stupidity that big bureaucracies sometimes end up doing if they become a place where people "just follow the rules" instead of using common sense. Kind of reminds me of the famous book "The Trial" by Franz Kafka.

- Anyone who thinks GoDaddy's CEO being of Indian background means he has some connection to the lowlife Agarwal, is simply an idiot. India has over 1 billion people.

- Basic logic and common sense shows there's no incentive for GoDaddy to lock his domains just to target him, because one would know that if others found out, it would scare away customers and damage GoDaddy's business (plus the endangered species hunting thing just reminds people that GoDaddy's founder did that as well).

It's obviously just a case of their legal department being incompetent, and I guess overly cautious, because Oxley and Agarwal did have some kind of business relationship, and he was renewing Agarwal's domains for him. Agarwal is obviously trying to pull a scam now though.

So Godaddy shuts down AR15.com, tell numerous gun sellers to leave ( according to Rob Monster) , de-platforms gab.com but in this case, maybe it's "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence". ??
makes total sense

 

[Start]

So Godaddy shuts down AR15.com, tell numerous gun sellers to leave ( according to Rob Monster) , de-platforms gab.com but in this case, maybe it's "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence". ??
makes total sense

There is a HUGE difference.

AR15.com and Gab, and gun-selling sites are problematic for what content they have. That's a lot difference than simple domains like Create.com, etc.

Also, I myself have a domain locked by GoDaddy due to some legal issue, and I have noticed that GoDaddy keeps renewing it. I don't care though, because I was thinking of letting it expire anyway, and the legal issue is reasonable (it's a little too close to a domain that a certain organization uses, although I didn't know of the organization when I bought it).

And for context, I'm mostly left-ish and consider mainstream US Democrats somewhat right-wing.

So no, it's not a conspiracy against extreme right-wingers for doing terrible things. Other people also get domains locked for legal reasons (I consider it legitimate in my case, so I didn't care... the org had tried contacting me earlier, but I didn't get around to replying).

 

[branding]

This issue has now garnished an abundant amount of pages as it relates to this topic. Now the question arises about "WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT". Due to the traction this conversation have taken, the thought of a new thread will be inevitable to discuss how do we move forward as a domaining community by outlining future registrar prospects that meet our standards for protection of our domain assets. Let us as a community seek to now have more input by giving suggestions to these registrars on what works for us and hold them accountable if they are to recieve our business. We need to ONLY deal with registrars that will have the best interest of its customers so that this will never happen again! If you add all the domain portfolios just from this domain forum it tally a huge amount of equity for the RIGHT registrar. WE HAVE POWER! IMO

This looks like a good start to me:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/re...espond-how-would-you-have-handled-it.1230868/

 

[create.com]

All the evidence we have there was never and still isn't a court order to lock my domains, as Godaddy claims. I believe what happened is that Puneet sent the Hindu document over, and rather than read it, Godaddy assumed it was a court order.

If this does turn out to be the case, a scammer wouldn't even need to spend money to file! They could just as easily photoshop a document with a dispute and there's a good chance Godaddy will lock the domains down and require a court order to unlock them.

I just logged into my Godaddy account and am not seeing any of my names being renewed that I requested. Paul, once again, can you please renew my names with funds in my account?

There's been a few people on here asking if names at Uniregistry are safe from this scam. I can't answer this, but I can tell you that I bought viaje.com from the Uniregistry.com marketplace, and when I ask them why they didn't tell me about selling me a name that was disputed, they said this..


"On Feb 22, 2021, at 3:32 AM, Uniregistry.com <Uniregistry.com:



Message: Hi Brent,



Unfortunately due to the nature of these domains, there is no further information that we are able to provide. You will need to continue to work with [email protected] in order to finalize the process to restore the domains.



As a courtesy, please reply back to this message once you have emailed [email protected] and I will work with my contacts at Godaddy to request you get an update as soon as possible.



Regards,



Helki Weber

Transaction Assurance

Oskar-Messter-Straße 33

Ismaning, Bavaria, Germany

It appears Godaddy is calling the shots for Uniregistry.

 

[oldtimer]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/us/exotic-hunting-texas-ranch.html

Wow, this is pretty terrible:
Oxley has a ranch where people can shoot endangered species.

Giraffes are going extinct, and yet Oxley has brought one to Texas. If there's more than 1, that's bad, and if it's just 1, the giraffe must be lonely and isn't able to contribute to its herd.

I see Oxley also allows people to kill African bongo antelopes (charges $35,000 for it), which are also going extinct... apparently only 28,000 left in the world, and Oxley has taken 30 of them to Texas. Yeah, gotta be a big tough guy to shoot an herbivore. He doesn't allow hunting of the giraffe at least, but it's still bad, and a lot of other endangered species are hunted:

"Himalayan tahrs, wild goats with a bushy lion-style mane, are far cheaper. The trophy fee, or kill fee, to shoot one is $7,500. An Arabian oryx is $9,500; a sitatunga antelope, $12,000; and a black wildebeest, $15,000."

It does make me lose any sympathy for Oxley.

Godaddy has obviously still acted incompetently though, and this is a concern for all domain owners.


Also a few points:

- There's a famous quote "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence".

That's obviously what's at play here, not some conspiracy against Oxley because of his (imo) odious views and activities. This is a classic type of stupidity that big bureaucracies do. Kind of reminds me of the famous book "The Trial" by Franz Kafka.

- Anyone who thinks GoDaddy's CEO being of Indian background means he has some connection to the lowlife Agarwal, is simply an idiot. India has over 1 billion people.

- Basic logic and common sense shows there's no incentive for GoDaddy to lock his domains just to target him, because one would know that if others found out, it would scare away customers and damage GoDaddy's business. It's just a case of their legal department being incompetent, and I guess overly cautious, because Oxley and Agarwal did have some kind of business relationship, and he was renewing Agarwal's domains for him. Agarwal is obviously trying to pull a scam now though.

Killing the innocent and endangered animals is just terrible, why not just shoot at inanimate objects for target practice instead of killing a living and breathing animal for fun.

Things like this makes me to start to lose faith in Humanity, not to mention all the other terrible things that are going on in the World like starvation, disease, homelessness, addiction, killing of the unborn children, and all the abuse, inequality, and hatred that is going on right under our noses.

And as a Human Rights and Environmental intellectual and activist that raises a somewhat related question for me:

If we as Registrants don't agree with the ideologies, doctrines, and philosophies of those who operate the Registrars (and their employees) what guarantee do we have that the people at those Registrars are not going to use their control and influence over our domains to somehow punish us for having an opposing view to them by giving us less of a service and attention that they would give to those who agree with them.

IMO

 

[boker]

If that is the case, then Brent hasn't lost control of his domains. The domains are merely in transfer lock. That needs to be clarified as I think many are confused as to what the lock actually is. As the title of the thread reads, he lost access to the domains. A transfer lock is not losing access.

And the statement by Paul Nicks sounds like GD is paying for renewals, which sounds odd. But maybe I misread it.

He hasn't lost control of his domains but Paul also said that the plaintiff has asked to be deleted, so they most be locked until further notice. How it will be to pay 500k for a domain and the registrar to auction them off, without your consent, just to pay a commission to the broker, if he wins. Again, godaddy can't seize, delete, lock, auction or stop some sales, just because a broker could win or not his commission in 6 years time.

 

[Sutruk]

All the evidence we have there was never and still isn't a court order to lock my domains, as Godaddy claims.

Their abusive TOS say they don't need a court order to lock your domains.
They have locked your domains without a court order, but they do request a court order to unlock your domains. See the incoherence of Godaddy?
A claim against Godaddy India, without a final court order, has frozen your assets from Godaddy USA.

 

[Castello Brothers]

Most of our names like Cost.com, Sample.com, Nashville.com, etc are at Moniker. I asked them what they would do in a similar situation and this is what they emailed me:

Hi David,

Generally speaking, it is difficult to comment on an issue where we don’t have all of the information, as well as to give a catchall answer as we do assess each case on its merit. That said, I appreciate this is an important issue and that you want to understand our stance so I’ll do my best to give you a guide.

In most circumstances we will not act on court orders regarding domain ownership for gTLDs as that is what the UDRP process was developed for and we prefer this as a mechanism for resolving disputes. We also, generally speaking, do not act on court orders from courts which do not have jurisdiction over our legal entity, which is based in the US, unless of course there was obvious and damaging criminal use of a domain using our services (e.g. Child Pornography, financial fraud, etc.) . Again, it is hard to say in all circumstances, but it is very unlikely that we would place any restrictions on a domain based on a court order from an outside jurisdiction. Registrants are actually protected from restriction of movement of a domain by ICANN rules and we are in compliance with all of the requirements of the ICANN accreditation agreement.

Please be assured that we value our customers very much and understand that for many, domain investment is how they make a living, pay their bills, put their kids through college, etc. Our support teams understand this distinction and take the time to look into the individual circumstances of every customer and domain.

I hope this helps and I apologize that I can’t be more direct.

Sincerely,

Marc McCutcheon
Head of Retail

 

[Gube]

If we as Registrants don't agree with the ideologies, doctrines, and philosophies of those who operate the Registrars (and their employees) what guarantee do we have that the people at those Registrars are not going to use their control and influence over our domains to somehow punish us for having an opposing view to them by giving us less of a service and attention that they would give to those who agree with them.

Fortunately we have ICANN for that. The rules they set should help to prevent that from happening at any time.
Let's say you start a thriving web hosting company and keep your domain at GoDaddy. (Not a good idea from the start, yes)
They shouldn't be able to take your domain, or disable your domain resolution just because you are competing with them.
Now if you don't respect their ToS, it's different. But still, their ToS shouldn't go against ICANN policies.

 

[Sutruk]

In most circumstances we will not act on court orders regarding domain ownership for gTLDs as that is what the UDRP process was developed for and we prefer this as a mechanism for resolving disputes. We also, generally speaking, do not act on court orders from courts which do not have jurisdiction over our legal entity, which is based in the US, unless of course there was obvious and damaging criminal use of a domain using our services (e.g. Child Pornography, financial fraud, etc.) . Again, it is hard to say in all circumstances, but it is very unlikely that we would place any restrictions on a domain based on a court order from an outside jurisdiction.

Totally agree. Crystal clear.

 

[Embrand]

All the evidence we have there was never and still isn't a court order to lock my domains, as Godaddy claims. I believe what happened is that Puneet sent the Hindu document over, and rather than read it, Godaddy assumed it was a court order.

If this does turn out to be the case, a scammer wouldn't even need to spend money to file! They could just as easily photoshop a document with a dispute and there's a good chance Godaddy will lock the domains down and require a court order to unlock them.

I just logged into my Godaddy account and am not seeing any of my names being renewed that I requested. Paul, once again, can you please renew my names with funds in my account?

There's been a few people on here asking if names at Uniregistry are safe from this scam. I can't answer this, but I can tell you that I bought viaje.com from the Uniregistry.com marketplace, and when I ask them why they didn't tell me about selling me a name that was disputed, they said this..


"On Feb 22, 2021, at 3:32 AM, Uniregistry.com <Uniregistry.com:



Message: Hi Brent,



Unfortunately due to the nature of these domains, there is no further information that we are able to provide. You will need to continue to work with [email protected] in order to finalize the process to restore the domains.



As a courtesy, please reply back to this message once you have emailed [email protected] and I will work with my contacts at Godaddy to request you get an update as soon as possible.



Regards,



Helki Weber

Transaction Assurance

Oskar-Messter-Straße 33

Ismaning, Bavaria, Germany

It appears Godaddy is calling the shots for Uniregistry.

Now Uni/GoDaddy is being operated from Germany? It gets weirder and weirder. All my Uni support answers have come from the U.K.

 

[Samer]

@Crysis lol, you can disagree with every one of my posts. It makes zero difference to me. If you have an issue and have something to say, perhaps you should try articulating why you disagree.

@Crysis disagrees with the “Political” angle.

i too waiting for him to reply. i sense pattern, unlike @LoodeX, i dont think trolling, too am waiting him articulate why disagree all u posts in patten-like behavior.