IT.COM

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

NameSilo
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.
Right now I am seeking a long snow covered trek in the deep Himalayas from tomorrow.

Please stay safe, I don't want to lose you to the mountains along with all the entertainment you have been providing us for the years.
 
1
•••
Very well written ! Completely agree.
 
0
•••
You guys are delusional morons if you think this is some kind of conspiracy with GoDaddy's CEO who is paid $15 million per year and is a turban-wearing Sikh guy (seems kind of religious), in combination with the scam artist Agarwal, who apparently has very little money, and calls himself a devil-worshipper and uses prostitutes (stuff that is the opposite of what a religious Sikh would want a connection with... also not something a left-ish guy [seems like you complain about Bhutani being one] would associate with). It's like thinking some CEO in Vancouver has a connection to a hillbilly in Tennessee, just because they're both of German origin.

India has more people than North America and South America combined. Just because GoDaddy's CEO is of Indian origin doesn't mean he has anything to do with Agarwal.

And that NY Times article has lots of quotes directly from Oxley's staff, and lay outs their descriptions about how they operate the ranch and why... their reasons are stupid, but it is what they think and say, and consistent with what Oxley says on his blog. So what's the complaint about the article? That they publicized what the ranch does? The ranch and its staff seemed to enjoy talking about it anyway... if they didn't want to, they didn't have to be part of the article.

And then drawing the connection between GoDaddy's CEO being on the NY Times board is another level of crazy conspiracy thinking, like this:

Conspiracy-Theory-Wall-832x447.jpg


As I wrote above, it's an obvious case of incompetence by GoDaddy's legal department + them being overly cautious, since Oxley did have some business relationship with Agarwal.

And like I said, I myself have a domain locked by GoDaddy for a legal reason (and they keep renewing it).

1.) it’s unlikely you have a hunting ranch, domains worth millions, and continue to give the middle finger to anti gun fanatics. In short, you’re not a high profile target.

2.) You seem to be really hellbent on denying that there have been many folks (in varying industries) who have had their lives utterly destroyed merely over ideologies. You come off as if “it’s simply not a possibility” in this case. I have been stating that it may not be the case, but it could also very likely be apart of what’s occurring here. You say all of this, literally on a thread where the defendant is outwardly and repeatedly declaring his personal disgust for @create.com’s ..wait for it....ideological views. You also post straw mans as means to suggest that somehow the CEO of GoDaddy and the defendant would somehow HAVE to be “in on this thing together", in order for Brent’s domains to have been locked over personal reasons. What an utter load of crap. Do you know whether someone in the chain of command @ godaddy decided to simply seize this incoming opportunity as a means to “punish” Brent over their own disdain for him? No, you don’t know that, and neither do I. However, I at least am willing to accept it as a possibility. I’m certainly not going to act like an asshole and declare anyone suggesting that this could be the case, as a conspiracy nut.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Right now I am seeking a long snow covered trek in the deep Himalayas from tomorrow.
It appears you have lost all hope for resolving this matter privately as gentlemen. I believe there is still a way. Don't lose hope that this can be resolved as gentlemen. It can.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
It appears you have lost all hope for resolving this matter privately as gentlemen. I believe there is still a way. Don't lose hope that this can be resolved as gentlemen. It can.
I just want to say that I hope for the sake of hope.
Regarding taking leave , I just want to say that I am like this only. In every 15-20 days I go out either on driving, trekking in Himalayas , water rafting in Ganges , may be rock climbing or perhaps one month camp in leh/ ladakh.
Now only court will solve this. Brent sir has already done some not so good things so I believe let the court solve it now and truth will prevail in the end. Jai Shree Ram
 
1
•••
It appears you have lost all hope for resolving this matter privately as gentlemen. I believe there is still a way. Don't lose hope that this can be resolved as gentlemen. It can.
Privately as gentleman. Did I come and cry here. I did not even cry when my latest compensation was not even send even though on records he said that he has sent.
See for me I believe in parishram. If god want to give me money , he will give me and no one can stop it. If god does not want to give me money , no power in this world can.
I believe more in seeking moral justice rather than anything else. I will leave now. Thanks for your time Silentpnr.
 
1
•••
We need more info. It's time to get bot up and running.
 
4
•••
I guess you have not got the opportunity to see his real chat transcripts sent by me to court.
I was once offered an amount by your godfather to collude with him and to extort money from GoDaddy. Yes I mentioned GoDaddy.
He had a plan to which I denied.

Did you alert anybody at GoDaddy (or any other authority) after you denied the offer to help extort money from GoDaddy?

Or did this information only come out in retaliation when your demands were not met?
 
Last edited:
3
•••
Privately as gentleman. Did I come and cry here. I did not even cry when my latest compensation was not even send even though on records he said that he has sent.
See for me I believe in parishram. If god want to give me money , he will give me and no one can stop it. If god does not want to give me money , no power in this world can.
I believe more in seeking moral justice rather than anything else. I will leave now. Thanks for your time Silentpnr.

Well, maybe God did not want to give you money and that's why God had Brent block the 30K renewal transaction?
 
0
•••
Did you alert anybody at GoDaddy after you denied?

Or did this information only come out in retaliation when your demands were not met?
Why not ask GoDaddy about it. My answer you may or you may not believe. So it's better to ask them whether I alerted them or not.

And listen. You all have been asking me questions and I am replying to them. I am not running away and I will be here.
But can you do me a favor. Can you please ask Brent sir if his lawyer disguised as a GoDaddy lawyer or not and called me ( masquerading as a GoDaddy lawyer to know the secrets of case). Please get me this answer first and I will give you a second question to ask him afterwards. Thanks and bbye for now.
 
0
•••
@Paul Nicks Do you still see this as a strong case?
 
9
•••
10
•••
Yes, you reply but does not answer the questions
He's been playing everyone like a fiddle..

If anyone expected a rational response from him at any time, they're as delusional as @barybadrinath
 
0
•••
I spoke to Aman and @Paul Nicks multiple times for Brent over the last 12 months about this situation.

These locks interfered with over $900,000 in deals that VPN.com was working on for Brent. Significant delays and failed solutions were induced into our negotiations because of these locks. Outside of our deals, I am sure Brent's total damages from domains that he would have sold are now over $3 million USD due to these locks... which should pain every domainer.

While we have always been supportive of GoDaddy and its position in the domain industry over the years, this has become a situation that is not right.

As listed on this thread, Puneet made multiple threats against Brent's life, his family, and his business prior to submitting the claim to GoDaddy. He knew that this litigation would lock Brent's domains and use these threats to extort Brent through a publically traded U.S. company. It is against US law to threaten a business with threats or violence.

Puneet's conduct rises to criminal racketeering and conspiracy according to 18 U.S. Code § 1951 but because he is not inside the U.S. or a U.S. citizen, a ruling would be useless without extradition.

For American citizens, this is a felony punishable by 1-15 years in a U.S. prison, upon conviction. Additionally, without a signed contract between Puneet and Brent, which was never submitted in court, there is no claim against the ownership of these domains, just a frivolous lawsuit in Hindi that lists domain names. Even so, GoDaddy automatically locked the names.

As I told Justin Redman, GoDaddy's Assistant General Council, if you are going to lock domains under the guise of your company policy without reasonable evidence, you are forcing GoDaddy customers into a terrible legal position to protect their assets registered at GoDaddy.

The only remaining remedy Brent (and other customers) have is to litigate with GoDaddy, which would be an absolute nightmare for both parties and the entire domain industry. Everyone would prefer an amicable solution.


Here is the except from GoDaddy's Terms of Service that speaks to this issue:

You acknowledge and agree that GoDaddy and registry reserve the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on lock, hold or similar status, as either deems necessary, in the unlimited and sole discretion of either GoDaddy or the registry: (i) to comply with specifications adopted by any industry group generally recognized as authoritative with respect to the Internet (e.g., RFCs), (ii) to protect the integrity and stability of, and correct mistakes made by, any domain name registry or registrar, (iii) for the non-payment of fees to registry, (iv) to protect the integrity and stability of the registry, (v) to comply with any applicable court orders, laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any dispute resolution process, (vi) to comply with any applicable ICANN rules or regulations, including without limitation, the registry agreement, (vii) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of registry operator, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and employees, (viii) per the terms of this Agreement, (ix) following an occurrence of any of the prohibited activities described in Section 8 below, or (x) during the resolution of a dispute.

While GoDaddy's Terms of Service may allow them to lock these assets for a period to review a complaint, there is an extremely thin line between their Terms of Service and what becomes ongoing tortious interference to the resolution of this matter.

GoDaddy should not involve itself in business disputes that do not challenge the ownership of domain names. This opens GoDaddy up to a substantial amount of liability to interpret legal cases outside a courtroom. This interpretation can now be influenced by frivolous litigation, cancel culture, or outright bias against an account holder.

Brent Oxley runs one of the largest wildlife and hunting ranch in North America. He believes in the 2nd amendment. If you leave any business dispute that mentions a domain name up to GoDaddy to interpret, it can become very hard to tell how much politics is playing into his treatment by GoDaddy, given their unilateral authority.

Aman Bhutani and GoDaddy's culture are on opposite ends of the American political spectrum compared to Brent Oxley. This is especially true since Aman sits on the Board of the New York Times, which published this bleak article about Brent's ranch and wildlife preservation efforts. I sincerely hope this was not a matter of influence but the unfolding of this situation has led us to these thoughts of possibility.

As far as a solution, it is highly likely this is NOT the first time Puneet has utilized GoDaddy's policy to extort people who host at GoDaddy. If there are findings to this end, GoDaddy would be able to lift the locks through the term bolded in section (vii) above.

Given the lack of evidence or a signed contract submitted to the court, GoDaddy would be unlocking the names to avoid any liability or becoming an accessory after the fact, that would arise towards them from Brent's position. This seems to be the most logical next step and one that would allow confidence to be retained in GoDaddy by the entire domain industry.

GoDaddy has the unilateral authority to cancel a domain name from your account for any reason or no reason at all. As we have seen with Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, and Parler, this is a very heavy burden for any company to always get right.

There must be better protection domain owners can deploy against this risk, otherwise, scammers now have the entire playbook.

I hope we have a positive update from GoDaddy very soon regarding this situation.
Michael Gargiulo
CEO at VPN.com​
 
Last edited:
32
•••
2
•••
I spoke to Aman and Paul Nicks multiple times about this situation for Brent over the last 12 months about this situation.

These locks interfered with over $900,000 in deals that VPN.com was working on for Brent. Significant delays and failed solutions were induced into our negotiations because of these locks. Outside of our deals, I am sure Brent's total damages from domains that he would have sold are now over $3 million USD due to these locks... which should pain every domainer.

While we have always been supportive of GoDaddy and its position in the domain industry over the years, this has become a situation that is not right.

As listed on this thread, Puneet made multiple threats against Brent's life, his family, and his business prior to submitting the claim to GoDaddy. He knew that this litigation would lock Brent's domains and use these threats to extort Brent through a publically traded U.S. company. It is against US law to threaten a business with threats or violence.

Puneet's conduct rises to criminal racketeering and conspiracy according to 18 U.S. Code § 1951 but because he is not inside the U.S. or a U.S. citizen, a ruling would be useless without extradition.

For American citizens, this is a felony punishable by 1-15 years in a U.S. prison, upon conviction. Additionally, without a signed contract between Puneet and Brent, which was never submitted in court, there is no claim against the ownership of these domains, just a frivolous lawsuit in Hindi that lists domain names. Even so, GoDaddy automatically locked the names.

As I told Justin Redman, GoDaddy's Assistant General Council, if you are going to lock domains under the guise of your company policy without reasonable evidence, you are forcing GoDaddy customers into a terrible legal position to protect their assets registered at GoDaddy.

The only remaining remedy Brent (and other customers) have is to litigate with GoDaddy, which would be an absolute nightmare for both parties and the entire domain industry. Everyone would prefer an amicable solution.


Here is the except from GoDaddy's current Terms of Service.

From GoDaddy's Terms of Service: You acknowledge and agree that GoDaddy and registry reserve the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on lock, hold or similar status, as either deems necessary, in the unlimited and sole discretion of either GoDaddy or the registry: (i) to comply with specifications adopted by any industry group generally recognized as authoritative with respect to the Internet (e.g., RFCs), (ii) to protect the integrity and stability of, and correct mistakes made by, any domain name registry or registrar, (iii) for the non-payment of fees to registry, (iv) to protect the integrity and stability of the registry, (v) to comply with any applicable court orders, laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any dispute resolution process, (vi) to comply with any applicable ICANN rules or regulations, including without limitation, the registry agreement, (vii) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of registry operator, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and employees, (viii) per the terms of this Agreement, (ix) following an occurrence of any of the prohibited activities described in Section 8 below, or (x) during the resolution of a dispute.

While GoDaddy's Terms of Service may allow them to lock these assets for a period to review a complaint, there is an extremely thin line between their Terms of Service and what becomes ongoing tortious interference to the resolution of this matter.

GoDaddy should not involve itself in business disputes that do not challenge the ownership of domain names. This opens GoDaddy up to a substantial amount of liability to interpret legal cases outside a courtroom. This interpretation can now be influenced by frivolous litigation, cancel culture, or outright bias against an account holder.

Brent Oxley runs one of the largest wildlife and hunting ranch in North America. He believes in the 2nd amendment. If you leave any business dispute that mentions a domain name up to GoDaddy to interpret, it can become very hard to tell how much politics is playing into his treatment by GoDaddy, given their unilateral authority.

Aman Bhutani and GoDaddy's culture are on opposite ends of the American political spectrum compared to Brent Oxley. I would sincerely hope that this influence is not a factor but this ongoing situation and lost deals have led us to this thought of a possibility.

As far as a solution, it is highly likely this is NOT the first time Puneet has utilized GoDaddy's policy to extort people who host at GoDaddy. If there are findings to this end, GoDaddy would be able to lift the locks through the term bolded in section (vii) above.

Given the lack of evidence or a signed contract submitted to the court, GoDaddy would be unlocking the names to avoid any liability or becoming an accessory after the fact, that would arise towards them from Brent's position. This seems to be the most logical next step and one that would allow confidence to be retained in GoDaddy by the entire domain industry.

GoDaddy has the unilateral authority to cancel a domain name from your account for any reason or no reason at all. As we have seen with Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, and Parler, this is a very heavy burden for any company to always get right.

There must be better protection domain owners can deploy against this risk, otherwise, scammers now have the entire playbook.

I hope we have a positive update from GoDaddy very soon regarding this situation.
Michael Gargiulo
Screenshot_20210309-040040.png
Screenshot_20210309-040051.png
Screenshot_20210309-040002.png
Screenshot_20210309-040018.png
Screenshot_20210309-040034.png
CEO at VPN.com​
It seems it's the frustration of loosing commission from 900k.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210309-040045.png
    Screenshot_20210309-040045.png
    86.2 KB · Views: 338
  • Screenshot_20210309-040026.png
    Screenshot_20210309-040026.png
    88.4 KB · Views: 306
1
•••
4
•••
0
•••
This is insane on all levels!
 
7
•••
Everyone crying and taking sides,listen properly.
Its not just like that I have filed the case. I have been cheated by Brent sir that's why case has been filed. He has cheated me on other domain names as well which are not mentioned in lawsuit.
To all the sycophant brokers of Brent sir. GoDaddy has acted according to the laws and your new strategy of publicly pressuring GoDaddy won't gonna work.
GoDaddy is bounded by law.
@Paul Nicks I hope you know that case is subjudice and subjudice cases are not solved by public and biased opinions. Let the law take its course.

Let full investigation happen by court whether it's Brent sir who is a victim or its me who is the victim.
 
0
•••
He has cheated me on other domain names as well which are not mentioned in lawsuit.

... and the reason why you don't mention the other names and others involved now is?

Seriously man stop the cheap tactics, and extortion attempts. Just be open and honest.
 
Last edited:
8
•••
I spoke to Aman and Paul Nicks multiple times about this situation for Brent over the last 12 months about this situation.

These locks interfered with over $900,000 in deals that VPN.com was working on for Brent. Significant delays and failed solutions were induced into our negotiations because of these locks. Outside of our deals, I am sure Brent's total damages from domains that he would have sold are now over $3 million USD due to these locks... which should pain every domainer.

While we have always been supportive of GoDaddy and its position in the domain industry over the years, this has become a situation that is not right.

As listed on this thread, Puneet made multiple threats against Brent's life, his family, and his business prior to submitting the claim to GoDaddy. He knew that this litigation would lock Brent's domains and use these threats to extort Brent through a publically traded U.S. company. It is against US law to threaten a business with threats or violence.

Puneet's conduct rises to criminal racketeering and conspiracy according to 18 U.S. Code § 1951 but because he is not inside the U.S. or a U.S. citizen, a ruling would be useless without extradition.

For American citizens, this is a felony punishable by 1-15 years in a U.S. prison, upon conviction. Additionally, without a signed contract between Puneet and Brent, which was never submitted in court, there is no claim against the ownership of these domains, just a frivolous lawsuit in Hindi that lists domain names. Even so, GoDaddy automatically locked the names.

As I told Justin Redman, GoDaddy's Assistant General Council, if you are going to lock domains under the guise of your company policy without reasonable evidence, you are forcing GoDaddy customers into a terrible legal position to protect their assets registered at GoDaddy.

The only remaining remedy Brent (and other customers) have is to litigate with GoDaddy, which would be an absolute nightmare for both parties and the entire domain industry. Everyone would prefer an amicable solution.


Here is the except from GoDaddy's Terms of Service that speaks to this issue:

You acknowledge and agree that GoDaddy and registry reserve the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on lock, hold or similar status, as either deems necessary, in the unlimited and sole discretion of either GoDaddy or the registry: (i) to comply with specifications adopted by any industry group generally recognized as authoritative with respect to the Internet (e.g., RFCs), (ii) to protect the integrity and stability of, and correct mistakes made by, any domain name registry or registrar, (iii) for the non-payment of fees to registry, (iv) to protect the integrity and stability of the registry, (v) to comply with any applicable court orders, laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any dispute resolution process, (vi) to comply with any applicable ICANN rules or regulations, including without limitation, the registry agreement, (vii) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of registry operator, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and employees, (viii) per the terms of this Agreement, (ix) following an occurrence of any of the prohibited activities described in Section 8 below, or (x) during the resolution of a dispute.

While GoDaddy's Terms of Service may allow them to lock these assets for a period to review a complaint, there is an extremely thin line between their Terms of Service and what becomes ongoing tortious interference to the resolution of this matter.

GoDaddy should not involve itself in business disputes that do not challenge the ownership of domain names. This opens GoDaddy up to a substantial amount of liability to interpret legal cases outside a courtroom. This interpretation can now be influenced by frivolous litigation, cancel culture, or outright bias against an account holder.

Brent Oxley runs one of the largest wildlife and hunting ranch in North America. He believes in the 2nd amendment. If you leave any business dispute that mentions a domain name up to GoDaddy to interpret, it can become very hard to tell how much politics is playing into his treatment by GoDaddy, given their unilateral authority.

Aman Bhutani and GoDaddy's culture are on opposite ends of the American political spectrum compared to Brent Oxley. This is especially true since Aman sits on the Board of the New York Times, which published this bleak article about Brent's ranch and wildlife preservation efforts. I sincerely hope this was not a matter of influence but the unfolding of this situation has led us to these thoughts of possibility.

As far as a solution, it is highly likely this is NOT the first time Puneet has utilized GoDaddy's policy to extort people who host at GoDaddy. If there are findings to this end, GoDaddy would be able to lift the locks through the term bolded in section (vii) above.

Given the lack of evidence or a signed contract submitted to the court, GoDaddy would be unlocking the names to avoid any liability or becoming an accessory after the fact, that would arise towards them from Brent's position. This seems to be the most logical next step and one that would allow confidence to be retained in GoDaddy by the entire domain industry.

GoDaddy has the unilateral authority to cancel a domain name from your account for any reason or no reason at all. As we have seen with Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, and Parler, this is a very heavy burden for any company to always get right.

There must be better protection domain owners can deploy against this risk, otherwise, scammers now have the entire playbook.

I hope we have a positive update from GoDaddy very soon regarding this situation.
Michael Gargiulo
CEO at VPN.com​
Don't simply threaten me. Be a man and prove to everyone that you have the evidence and required documents to substantiate your claims of me being a criminal.
I won't be intimidated by your big legal vocabulary. I should have understood that time itself that you are a mole and now I understand why did you take sides with sharjil that day.
 
0
•••

Puneet, we amicably approached you about what was going on.

You treated him terribly. You made threats against him. You made threats against me. You made threats against our businesses.

I run VPN.com. VPNs are used by 500 million people to protect themselves from censorship all over the world. Our domain is banned in over 15 countries where I would be imprisoned and killed if I ever traveled there. Your threats pale in comparison to what I have received over the years.

You never scared me and you never scared Brent.

It does appear you are really good at attaching images. Can you please attach the contract you had with Brent for everyone to see?

Without that, it will now be clear you were extorting him through GoDaddy's policy.
 
Last edited:
11
•••
I spoke to Aman and Paul Nicks multiple times about this situation for Brent over the last 12 months about this situation.

These locks interfered with over $900,000 in deals that VPN.com was working on for Brent. Significant delays and failed solutions were induced into our negotiations because of these locks. Outside of our deals, I am sure Brent's total damages from domains that he would have sold are now over $3 million USD due to these locks... which should pain every domainer.

While we have always been supportive of GoDaddy and its position in the domain industry over the years, this has become a situation that is not right.

As listed on this thread, Puneet made multiple threats against Brent's life, his family, and his business prior to submitting the claim to GoDaddy. He knew that this litigation would lock Brent's domains and use these threats to extort Brent through a publically traded U.S. company. It is against US law to threaten a business with threats or violence.

Puneet's conduct rises to criminal racketeering and conspiracy according to 18 U.S. Code § 1951 but because he is not inside the U.S. or a U.S. citizen, a ruling would be useless without extradition.

For American citizens, this is a felony punishable by 1-15 years in a U.S. prison, upon conviction. Additionally, without a signed contract between Puneet and Brent, which was never submitted in court, there is no claim against the ownership of these domains, just a frivolous lawsuit in Hindi that lists domain names. Even so, GoDaddy automatically locked the names.

As I told Justin Redman, GoDaddy's Assistant General Council, if you are going to lock domains under the guise of your company policy without reasonable evidence, you are forcing GoDaddy customers into a terrible legal position to protect their assets registered at GoDaddy.

The only remaining remedy Brent (and other customers) have is to litigate with GoDaddy, which would be an absolute nightmare for both parties and the entire domain industry. Everyone would prefer an amicable solution.


Here is the except from GoDaddy's Terms of Service that speaks to this issue:

You acknowledge and agree that GoDaddy and registry reserve the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on lock, hold or similar status, as either deems necessary, in the unlimited and sole discretion of either GoDaddy or the registry: (i) to comply with specifications adopted by any industry group generally recognized as authoritative with respect to the Internet (e.g., RFCs), (ii) to protect the integrity and stability of, and correct mistakes made by, any domain name registry or registrar, (iii) for the non-payment of fees to registry, (iv) to protect the integrity and stability of the registry, (v) to comply with any applicable court orders, laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any dispute resolution process, (vi) to comply with any applicable ICANN rules or regulations, including without limitation, the registry agreement, (vii) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of registry operator, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and employees, (viii) per the terms of this Agreement, (ix) following an occurrence of any of the prohibited activities described in Section 8 below, or (x) during the resolution of a dispute.

While GoDaddy's Terms of Service may allow them to lock these assets for a period to review a complaint, there is an extremely thin line between their Terms of Service and what becomes ongoing tortious interference to the resolution of this matter.

GoDaddy should not involve itself in business disputes that do not challenge the ownership of domain names. This opens GoDaddy up to a substantial amount of liability to interpret legal cases outside a courtroom. This interpretation can now be influenced by frivolous litigation, cancel culture, or outright bias against an account holder.

Brent Oxley runs one of the largest wildlife and hunting ranch in North America. He believes in the 2nd amendment. If you leave any business dispute that mentions a domain name up to GoDaddy to interpret, it can become very hard to tell how much politics is playing into his treatment by GoDaddy, given their unilateral authority.

Aman Bhutani and GoDaddy's culture are on opposite ends of the American political spectrum compared to Brent Oxley. This is especially true since Aman sits on the Board of the New York Times, which published this bleak article about Brent's ranch and wildlife preservation efforts. I sincerely hope this was not a matter of influence but the unfolding of this situation has led us to these thoughts of possibility.

As far as a solution, it is highly likely this is NOT the first time Puneet has utilized GoDaddy's policy to extort people who host at GoDaddy. If there are findings to this end, GoDaddy would be able to lift the locks through the term bolded in section (vii) above.

Given the lack of evidence or a signed contract submitted to the court, GoDaddy would be unlocking the names to avoid any liability or becoming an accessory after the fact, that would arise towards them from Brent's position. This seems to be the most logical next step and one that would allow confidence to be retained in GoDaddy by the entire domain industry.

GoDaddy has the unilateral authority to cancel a domain name from your account for any reason or no reason at all. As we have seen with Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, and Parler, this is a very heavy burden for any company to always get right.

There must be better protection domain owners can deploy against this risk, otherwise, scammers now have the entire playbook.

I hope we have a positive update from GoDaddy very soon regarding this situation.
Michael Gargiulo
CEO at VPN.com​


Prove it -
As far as a solution, it is highly likely this is NOT the first time Puneet has utilized GoDaddy's policy to extort people who host at GoDaddy. If there are findings to this end, GoDaddy would be able to lift the locks through the term bolded in section (vii) above.


Brent sir these broker lawyers will do more harm to you. One thing you please understand that these guys are not at all worried about you . They are only and only concerned about their own commissions. Period.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Do you even have 1 email which shows that you have ever approached me regarding my case with Brent sir.
The images attached shows your hypocrisy and it shows how nice of you to contact " so called scammers" for your own business deals and when deals don't happen , label them as whatever you want.

Brent sir again you are using cheap tactics. Not good sir
 
0
•••
Back