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

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Because he's likely mentally ill. The real question (and focus) should be why GoDaddy used this an opportunity to lock down Brent's domains without a court order. The more Puneet posts, the more he distracts from GoDaddy's liability. Grilling Puneet isn't worth it. We need to grill GoDaddy.

What would it look like to turn off the grill and stop the FireAman.com calls altogether?

Potential suggestion (unsure if all parties would be able to agree):
<Mr. Agarwal drops the lawsuit immediately, and promises not to launch any future related lawsuits against Mr. Oxley or GoDaddy.

In exchange:

Mr. Oxley promises not to sue GoDaddy or Mr. Agarwal. <<this might be the toughest ask given (everything that's been allowed to transpire under GoDaddys CEO Mr. Aman Bhutani's watch to include the communication/attention to detail and/or lack there of from GoDaddy Dispute Department) and (the offensive nature of Mr. Agarwal's comments towards Mr. Oxley) especially considering the serious/lengthy nature of the issue at hand>>

GoDaddy agrees not to sue Mr. Agarwal or Mr. Oxley. and GoDaddy pays all legal expenses incurred by Mr. Oxley.

GoDaddy reviews this case, and takes special notes to their dispute process, registrant rights, and to the mental health concerns within the domain investing community, and the devastating impact domain addiction can have to domain addicts and their families. GoDaddy covers the cost of health treatment, be spiritual health, and/or mental health ((or whatever is necessary within means for healing)) for Mr. Agarwal and any affected family members as needed to heal and find peace.>

After reading some of what @create.com had uploaded earlier in this thread, specifically the email from a family member who expressed concerned for @barybadrinath's health, I think I can relate on some levels as to what Mr. Agarwal may be experiencing. Mr. Agarwal may not have mental health issues as signs might indicate, or as others have alleged, but I do. And I don't think it's necessarily always a bad thing, nor is it something that should be ostracized. Though at times, and a very tricky thing to do at that, I think it is necessary to call out the obvious, to either protect/alert others, or to protect/alert the individual exuding psychotic symptoms him/herself to prevent further harm/damage and to help begin the healing/recovery process.

Domaining can be a very stressful business. Especially when renewals come, and you don't have the funds in your account to cover renewals. Couple that with thinking you were going into business with somebody who previously had a reported 9figure tech exit, and you had access to his credit card, as it was still saved to your GoDaddy account. Rather than taking the advice to drop the domains, and focus on more fruitful areas, the hook of domaining, and the fear of losing domains that Mr. Agarwal burnt many barrels of midnight oil to find, were all going to go up in flames, as his assets had quickly turned into renewal liabilities. Unfortunately, it appears that Mr. Agarwal knew and understood he didn't have a contract, or authorization to use the card for further charges. Ultimately, leading to events and a fallout that unravelled and eventually ignited into the dumpster fire we see being extorted here today.

@Rob Monster may recall a phone call last year when I was in the midst of a psychotic breakdown, I had suggested the need for some type of Domainers Anonymous support program, as domaining in itself can at times sound psychotic to those who don't understand the business of domaining. And sometimes, when you can't afford to renew or the stress that comes with spending your last funds on renewals opposed to daily living, the best advice is simply to drop your domains, and opt to use your remaining funds on daily living and forget about renewing or buying any more new domains until you can afford to buy or renew, opposed to entertaining fraudulent ideas such as renewing them with somebody else's credit card. If the domains are worth holding, I think epik innovated a domain loan collateral program and a name liquidating exchange to help support domainers in need. Because unfortunately GoDaddy Domain Valuations just aren't tangible enough to put food on a domainers table when/if push comes to shove. Additionally, to add insult to renewals or when not able to afford renewals and daily living, domain registrants have grown accustomed to accepting their nonliquid position only to witness a short time after GoDaddy subsequently sell their expired domain, and profit hand over fist, without GoDaddy ever passing on any percentage of the high profit margin profits/proceeds to the registrant him/herself. The domainer is typically left with few options being readily available, and in some cases, many are left watch to either (1) let domain expire, and see GoDaddy sell in their lucrative expired domains market, or (2) to overstretch themselves and renew hoping to sell it for what GoDaddy expired auctions would have sold it at. If only one could simply let their domain expire, not worry about overstretching themselves to chase a profit and be able to recoup their time/investment by receiving a percentage of the expired auction proceeds. Or at times most important of all, to take time to put the screen down, and spend what might have been neglected quality time with your friends and family.

I had considered posting screenshots of what @create.com had posted, and what other internet sleuths had shared, consistent to how I have interacted in other namePros threads, and although it may help paint a fuller picture of the alleged events and further the discussion, I have to reconsider what @The Rover had pointed out, that to what end will grilling @barybadrinath have in the grand scheme of things?

While GoDaddy has the most work ahead of them, I think it is important that somebody offers Mr. Agarwal a therapeutic hand out of the mess this has created. As someday, GoDaddy may clean up their act, and registrant rights will end up all the stronger, and we'll indirectly have Puneet to thank for that. The man clearly knows how to leave his mark, and make an entrance. (imo) If properly channeled and in good health, Mr. Agarwal could grow to be an asset to the community. So rather than condemning Mr. Agarwal for what appears to be exploiting a loophole and making a global mockery of registrant rights, is there any chance of getting this man the help it appears he desperately needs?

Lastly, there's just too much popcorn poppin in here for me to hang around any longer. I've eaten more than my fair share, and like anything in over moderation, it can begin to effect one's health. When you find your pupils starting to dilate after eating too much internet popcorn, that could be a sign to put the popcorn down, as the dilated eyes could be a physical warning sign / indicator that surges of adrenaline are being released during a euphoric and/or dysphoric state of mania.

This will be my last post in this thread. @barybadrinath or any other member, if you need to talk, feel free to send me a DM.

Good luck to all.

 

[Rob Monster]

What would it look like to turn off the grill all together?

<Mr. Agarwal drops the lawsuit immediately, and promises not to launch any future related lawsuits against Brent or GoDaddy.

In exchange:

Brent promises not to sue GoDaddy or Puneet.

GoDaddy agrees not to sue Puneet or Brent

...

. @Rob Monster may recall a phone call last year when I was in the midst of a psychotic breakdown, I had suggested the need for some type of Domainers Anonymous support program, as domaining in itself can at times sound psychotic to those who don't understand the business of domaining. And sometimes the best advice is to drop your domains, rather than renewing them with somebody else's credit card.

....

Good luck to all.

You have to love a few things about @Grilled.

1. His mind is remarkable.

2. His authenticity is undeniable.

As for the tripartite release scenario, I support the concept.

My one addition to this truce scenario is that since I do believe Puneet did work, I had suggested to Puneet to propose a nominal cash settlement or pick a single mid-market domain name from Brent's portfolio.

The gating item will likely be Puneet deciding that he does not need to scorch the earth to get justice. Three wrongs won't make a right. That much is certain.

If the settlement needs an escrow agent or mediator, happy to assist there.

 

[carob]

I really hope this gets resolved soon and Brent gets back control of his domains. Hostgator was an excellent company dedicated to good customer service and Brent deserves to succeed.

Unlocking Brent's domains will still leave us with unresolved issues about GoDaddy ToS and decision making. Paul Nicks has admitted that Godaddy's claim that there was a court order was wrong, and conceded that notifying a registrant of a lock like this could be done better.

But a simple hypothetical question bothers me about Godaddy ToS and thinking, which seems different from other registrars.

What if, at the start of a dispute and in the absence of a court order, Godaddy simply did not exercise their discretionary contractual right to lock the domain(s)?

Funnily enough I'd wager if the domains are promptly transferred out it becomes somebody else's problem. What does GoDaddy gain by exercising discretion to retain the names and the dispute? And what are the risks?

 

[GoWebnames.com]

I think it's crucial to note that I told Puneet on several occasions that he wasn't an employee and that he was never paid a salary or any set payments.

There were no contracts or any type of exclusive whatsoever.

Brent, your answer doesn't lend any clarity to the situation. You may have directly acquired the second batch of domains mentioned in the complaint and that's okay. For that you owe Puneet nothing.

But for the very first batch of domains, highlighted in the complaint copy below, you told Puneet to carry on discussions, to engage in price negotiations on your behalf and to ultimately get you those deals through Escrow.com. Now, Puneet was not your friend to get you something for free, it's implicitly understood that there is going to be a commission owed to the middleman especially when he is doing all the running around and carrying out negotiations for you. If Puneet was not negotiating and the sellers would have known that they were selling to the $300mm hostgator guy, the price would have gone up manyfold. So, please make it clear as to how much percentage commission was paid by you to Puneet on this first batch of domains!! I am sure it's not like you got the domains at much reduced prices and kicked Puneet's ass as well when he asked for commission?

I am not Puneet's friend in any which way and just have a general interest in knowing things as they truly are. If you would read all his emotional rant in the chat screenshots you attached, it seems he is pretty much hurt at a deep emotional level and thus calling you a big cheater and a big fraud. Such kind of behaviour ("I myself will haunt you when I die") reflect a kind of trauma. So, there's got to be some kind of injustice to him in your dealings with him!? And that maybe the reason for his using your creditcard details at GoDaddy? As a sort of revenge towards unpaid commissions?

So, if anything is owed at all, you should be a man and do the right thing. Good wishes. I am not talking about the contractual obligation but the moral one.

 

[monotheist]

You have to love a few things about @Grilled.

1. His mind is remarkable.

2. His authenticity is undeniable.

As for the tripartite release scenario, I support the concept.

My one addition to this truce scenario is that since I do believe Puneet did work, I had suggested to Puneet to propose a nominal cash settlement or pick a single mid-market domain name from Brent's portfolio.

The gating item will likely be Puneet deciding that he does not need to scorch the earth to get justice. Three wrongs won't make a right. That much is certain.

If the settlement needs an escrow agent or mediator, happy to assist there.

What kind of justice is this? Mason doesn’t become owner of the house just because I hire a mason to build my home.

 

[create.com]

Rob it’s bad enough you email me trying to profit from off all this. Now you’re taking the side of scammers as domainers lose the rights to their own property without cause.

Pick a side instead of trying to double dip from everyone.

What the hell happened to this industry while I was gone! No wonder godaddy is getting away with the bs they do.

 

[create.com]

Puneet just emailed this to me at 12:54 pm tonight. “Baby Brent, some good story for you.
Down here in Kharkov, once upon a time we had a judge that was collecting memorabilia. He accumulated so much from bribes until somone cut his head off and his sons head off. I kid you not it has been documented in the news if you want to get a visual.”

Go broker a deal with him, have fun,

 

[Samer]

Wow

 

[equity78]

@Paul Nicks

This is at the heart of the matter, whether with or without merit?

So I can file a lawsuit against NameFind.com in say Bulgaria, and get NameFind.com locked? With or without merit is what the TOS says.

Now I am sure you would determine in that case since it affects you that you would not do such a thing but to a customer you would.

This is what your legal team needs to figure out on how to change that.

 

[Rob Monster]

What kind of justice is this? Mason doesn’t become owner of the house just because I hire a mason to build my home.

No, but to use your analogy, the mason is paid wages.

In this case, it appears those wages were not defined. That type of open-ended model works pretty well in a place like Jamaica where there is an implied social contract.

This looks like a case of misaligned expectations between individuals who may or may not have been exhibiting their highest selves throughout the relationship.

As for my offer to be a mediator in the matter, in case it was not obvious that is pro bono.

Some sage advice that a wise man once taught me: If you treat someone like a criminal, they will act like a criminal, but if you appeal to their higher selves, even a criminal will manifest their higher self!

 

[equity78]

I would say it was very good that GoDaddy sold NamesCon, I believe the boycott would have been significant.

 

[Samer]

I would say it was very good that GoDaddy sold NamesCon, I believe the boycott would have been significant.

and CloudFest? (GD sold them too)

 

[alcy]

well I still dont get it how @Paul Nicks could have said what he just did and make it sound like the procedure they follow is not only legal but also best and optimal for all..and then how at same time basically all or most other registrars are making statements that they'd he handling things any different.

what???

 

[tonyk2000]

And by the way, I view many members of this forum as "industry experts". Not sure which "industry experts" were being referred to.

It is one of the most reasonable posts in this thread Wanted to post the same, but without going offtopic. Being in the right place in the right time, or being a registrant of a dictionary domain, or running a blog (with affiliate links, nothing wrong with it) does NOT by itself make one an "expert", leader or "dot something god". Experience and knowledge is what matters here, and, in most cases, it remains in-house - without going public!

More on topic - since in this particular case the registrant received zero notifications from GoDaddy, anybody with GD-regged domains might want to check their portfolio. Just trying to bulk unlock everything. And see if it works! You can lock the domains back if no transferaway is needed at this time.

 

[koolishman]

What kind of justice is this? Mason doesn’t become owner of the house just because I hire a mason to build my home.

As I said in the beginning, there are 2 issues.

1. GD action of locking the domains. Unacceptable. This community is united in that.

2. Mr Oxley's deal with Puneet. That has to be settled amicably or legally in a court as it happens elsewhere. He brought this upon himself. @Rob Monster is right, mediation may be better. Or he has to resort to legal remedies.

 

[GoWebnames.com]

No, but to use your analogy, the mason is paid wages.

In this case, it appears those wages were not defined. That type of open-ended model works pretty well in a place like Jamaica where there is an implied social contract.

This looks like a case of misaligned expectations between individuals who may or may not have been exhibiting their highest selves throughout the relationship.

As for my offer to be a mediator in the matter, in case it was not obvious that is pro bono.

Some sage advice that a wise man once taught me: If you treat someone like a criminal, they will act like a criminal, but if you appeal to their higher selves, even a criminal will manifest their higher self!

@Rob Monster, may I take this opportunity for you to clarify on EPIK's Terms of Service as well!?

Is Epik any different from GoDaddy in locking down domains just because someone filed a case in the court? I have a few "GO" domains (GoGames.com, GoCars.com etc.) locked down by you just because Mr. Scott Petretta filed a lawsuit. There is a big thread here at NP about that already which has been dormant for a while. As far I as know, there hasn't been any court order to lock down the domains. The same story as far as registrar action is concerned. If there is no court order for say another year, you are going to keep them locked forever? Please clarify so we know EPIK's stance viz-a-viz GoDaddy.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/35997120/Petretta_v_GOCARSCOM_et_al

 

[bmugford]

@Rob Monster, may I take this opportunity to clarify on EPIK's Terms of Service as well!?

Is Epik any different from GoDaddy in locking down domains just because someone filed a case in the court? I have a few "GO" domains (GoGames.com, GoCars.com etc.) locked down by you just because Mr. Scott Petretta filed a lawsuit. There is a big thread here at NP about that already which has been dormant for a while. As far I as know, there hasn't been any court order to lock down the domains. The same story as far as registrar action is concerned. If there is no court order for say another year, you are going to keep them locked forever? Please clarify so we know EPIK's stance viz-a-viz GoDaddy.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/35997120/Petretta_v_GOCARSCOM_et_al

Interesting...

 

[The Rover]

Previous message was too long. Here's a shorter version.

1.) @Paul Nicks, so essentially, there's still no reasonable explanation as to why GoDaddy feels they're totally justified in locking down a domain portfolio without a court order. Not shocking.

2.) If GoDaddy is truly concerned about protecting freedom of speech, liberty, and domain registrants, then perhaps GoDaddy's legal team should work on making their policies a bit more clear. Perhaps you should not continue to shut down websites that don't happen to align with GD's corporate ideology and then give a bogus claim that it was due to "inciting violence". The bottom line is that as long as your terms of service remain intentionally broad and ambiguous, and as long as your policies are overtly driven by social justice fueled ideology, you will continue to have many people who will suspect foul play within your company. To then patronize and label paying customers as absurd "conspiracy theorists" is dismissive, unbecoming, and ineffective.

3.) As the largest domain registrar, you should be honest and consistent with your positions, instead of pretending that particular ideologies don't influence your internal policies since they actually do. That's all we ask as customers, so that we can accurately discern where to invest our money and our time. Personally, I've already moved the majority of my domains out of GoDaddy due to your company's unnecessary political and social justice agenda. I'd rather not be virtue signaled to when I'm simply trying to register a domain name. Gee, what a novel idea for a business.

4.) Continuing to talk about Puneet is a distraction. Arguing with other namepros members is also a distraction. @create.com your comment regarding @Rob Monster was odd as hell. He's a good person. You seriously think he's needing commission on a single domain? I think you need to recalibrate a bit, as I'm sure this dumpster fire has gotten to you.

5.) Personally, I'm tired of hearing about the personal life of Puneet. If people would spend that kind of energy grilling and investigating Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and yes, even Aman Bhutani (just to keep things relevant), then perhaps we could actually move the damn needle for once.

 

[The Rover]

@Rob Monster, may I take this opportunity for you to clarify on EPIK's Terms of Service as well!?

Is Epik any different from GoDaddy in locking down domains just because someone filed a case in the court? I have a few "GO" domains (GoGames.com, GoCars.com etc.) locked down by you just because Mr. Scott Petretta filed a lawsuit. There is a big thread here at NP about that already which has been dormant for a while. As far I as know, there hasn't been any court order to lock down the domains. The same story as far as registrar action is concerned. If there is no court order for say another year, you are going to keep them locked forever? Please clarify so we know EPIK's stance viz-a-viz GoDaddy.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/35997120/Petretta_v_GOCARSCOM_et_al

What was the specific date that they were locked down?

 

[eyedomainous]

Brent sir ... I recommend you to prepare proper documents to be presented in court. I feel you will go to jail.

Generally speaking... one has to have "standing" in the U.S. to bring and/or win a case in court. So unless you are a registered broker with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) I would be very careful in bringing a case to the U.S. courts, at the federal or state level.

NOTE:
1) "Private securities can be any type of investment, including publicly traded stocks, bonds or funds to non-public investments offered by private parties. The rep commits a private securities transaction if she has any role promoting the contact between one of her clients and the outside investment opportunity. This means that just introducing a client to the seller of an unapproved investment would be classified as a private securities transaction."

2) "Foreign brokers that engage in securities transactions with U.S. investors based in the United States must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)". "The idea is to protect U.S. investors from potentially unscrupulous foreign brokers."

3) "Just like U.S. securities dealers, non-U.S. dealers doing business in the United States are subject to regulation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") as well as the securities regulatory agencies in the states in which they do business."

4) "The U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") requires the registration of any broker-dealer effecting securities transactions by means of interstate commerce. Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful for a "broker" or "dealer" to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce "to effect any transaction in, or to induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of, any security" unless the broker-dealer is registered with the SEC."

5) "interstate commerce" is defined broadly under Section 3(a)17 of the Exchange Act to include commerce by whatever means between any foreign country and any state or territory of the United States."

EXEMPTIONS:

Rule 15a-6 under the Exchange Act provides a limited exemption from registration for non-U.S. broker-dealers that have limited contacts with investors in the United States. Rule 15a-6, as supplemented by SEC no-action letters, can be used at the federal level to permit the following activities:

• Transactions with U.S. registered broker-dealers acting as a principal or as an agent for their customers;

• Unsolicited transactions. (However, "solicitation" is a very broad concept that includes any effort to induce transaction business, including the transmission of sales literature or research reports and soft-dollar arrangements).

https://ccbjournal.com/articles/regulation-non-us-broker-dealers-doing-business-us-part-i
https://www.mccarter.com/insights/foreign-brokers-doing-business-in-the-united-states/

 

[UmerK]

Puneet just emailed this to me at 12:54 pm tonight. “Baby Brent, some good story for you.
Down here in Kharkov, once upon a time we had a judge that was collecting memorabilia. He accumulated so much from bribes until somone cut his head off and his sons head off. I kid you not it has been documented in the news if you want to get a visual.”

Go broker a deal with him, have fun,

What are your Indian lawyers doing about this?

They could at least manage a court order so that you don't get harassed by this guy.

 

[GoWebnames.com]

What was the specific date that they were locked down?

EPIK locked them down when Mr. Petretta's lawyer sent them a mail requesting so. Just so simple. When I told them it's not a court order but a mere court filing, they unlocked the domains briefly. But then locked them back saying that we lock domains on court filings also. First telling me it's a court order, then accepting it's a mere court filing. You are so much at the whim of registrars.

They been locked about 6 months (August 2020) now since the court case was filed. There never was and, to date, there hasn't been ANY ORDER from the court regarding placing locks on these domains or maintaining status-quo. EPIK's bravado is on its own. Who knows how many years this may take?

The whole point is that once there is a court order, the domain can be recovered from almost any registrar. Domain locking shouldn't depend on the whim of registrars. NameCheap.com is much better if they don't do that.

 

[alcy]

EPIK locked them down when Mr. Petretta's lawyer sent them a mail requesting so. Just so simple. When I told them it's not a court order but a mere court filing, they unlocked the domains briefly. But then locked them back saying that we lock domains on court filings also. First telling me it's a court order, then accepting it's a mere court filing. You are so much at the whim of registrars.

They been locked about 6 months (August 2020) now since the court case was filed. There never was and, to date, there hasn't been ANY ORDER from the court regarding placing locks on these domains or maintaining status-quo. EPIK's bravado is on its own. Who knows how many years this may take?

The whole point is that once there is a court order, the domain can be recovered from almost any registrar. Domain locking shouldn't depend on the whim of registrars. NameCheap.com is much better if they don't do that.

Show attachment 184788
Show attachment 184789

I'm starting to think there are no registrars that dont do it.

they just dont want to get into trouble...by precaution..of course if they do it there is trouble too..like now..but maybe they just tell themselves they are picking lesser evil

 

[GoWebnames.com]

I'm starting to think there are no registrars that dont do it.

they just dont want to get into trouble...by precaution..of course if they do it there is trouble too..like now..but maybe they just tell themselves they are picking lesser evil

The right way to handle this is to LOCK domains only on a court ORDER. Otherwise anyone can just send an email and boom your domain is locked.

If the plaintiff wants them LOCKED, he should get an INTERIM ORDER from court that directs the domain registrar to lock them down. But it shouldn't depend on the whims of a registrar.

 

[alcy]

The right way to handle this is to LOCK domains only on a court ORDER. Otherwise anyone can just send an email and boom your domain is locked.

If the plaintiff wants them LOCKED, he should get an INTERIM ORDER from court that directs the domain registrar to lock them down. But it shouldn't depend on the whims of a registrar.

agreed. but what I'm saying is that I am starting to disbelieve there are registrars out there who do it in this right way.