IT.COM

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.
Terrible and insane..!! Really shocked seeing Brent's statement about this badluck..how smart and new ways bad guys are hurting others..hmm

Really sorry to read this,but never ever pay any money to that criminal..you can easily won this by paying very less lawyers fee in India (comparing USD) if necessary.

I am sure this locking happened to you only because Godaddy has office in India..Nameheap has no office in india (many other big registars also no office in india) and do not have to think about any court matters in india..

I have another thinking also as some others are there and playing behind this bad guy as why he targetted you domains only?..

Anyway hoping to get it solved soon..😗
 
0
•••
Last year I had a domain locked by GoDaddy at the request of Namecheap. A previous owner claimed the domain was stolen and only supplied a copy of a supposed police report from Spain. At the time I asked GoDaddy and Namecheap what would stop anyone from doing the same thing. Never got a straight answer.

I don't believe Namecheap ever found evidence of the domains being stolen or the person's account being hacked, as the domain was eventually unlocked. It was a cheap domain, so it wasn't worth hiring a lawyer.
 
9
•••
@create.com Godaddy is your big competition...

If i have such powerful domains I would create my own registrar for as asset protection or move them to Markmonitor. Even Facebook has own registrar..

Did you set autorenewal on Godaddy? If not then your Create.com can went to expired Godaddy auctions....

Every web company will trying to get your create.com on expired auction. Because it is the superbest. com nobody wants running business on BestWebsiteServices.com
 
0
•••
@create.com Godaddy is your big competition...

If i have such powerful domains I would create my own registrar for as asset protection or move them to Markmonitor. Even Facebook has own registrar..

Did you set autorenewal on Godaddy? If not then your Create.com can went to expired Godaddy auctions....

Every web company will trying to get your create.com on expired auction. Because it is the superbest. com nobody wants running business on BestWebsiteServices.com


Create.com won't expire, will be auto renewed by Godaddy as per my knowledge
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Isn't there a Godaddy rep in Namepros? Can't someone get Godaddy to respond to this?
 
0
•••
👋 @create.com --- welcome back to namePros!

In case you are not already aware, @barybadrinath had started a thread in January 2020 titled @Sharjil that looks to contain comments related to this ongoing case.

Show attachment 184226

...

Show attachment 184227

tagging @Sharjil & @BoothDomains
Interesting. So the indian plaintiff that caused the lock of @create.com domains is that person? I remember he was a bit of an angry type. Could get very aggressive. I remember another story he was involved in.
 
2
•••
Isn't there a Godaddy rep in Namepros? Can't someone get Godaddy to respond to this?
Usually, they reply only when is something soft or easy solvable...when it's something like this, the usual choice is to ignore or say something like' it's not up to us, but we will forward the issue to other department'. The big thing is that if this was a small, no name registrar, most of us will rush to transfer the domains to other registrars, but because it's godaddy, we are trying to find excuses to keep the domains there( because of the aftermarket, expired auctions and closeouts.....for sure not for reasons like security, customer service, prices or innovations).
 
Last edited:
3
•••
@create.com The below statement you quoted was written so vague and open ended that it don't leave you any wiggle room for a release of your domain names until a court releases them. And of course it was written by design. Your story is a eye opener and a learning experience for all of us in the domaining community.

"Per Section 14 of GoDaddy’s Universal Terms of Service (“UTOS”), we reserve the right to lock domain names to defend any legal action or threatened legal action without consideration for whether such legal action or threatened legal action is eventually determined to be with or without merit".
 
Last edited:
3
•••
Avoid companies with offices in India, and leave woke-infiltrated registrars or else our domains or products would be taken away from us.

If one couldn't afford to hire a lawyer, or else it would be like giving away your domains for free.
 
1
•••
I highly doubt anyone would file a lawsuit without being defrauded. It seems to me like a legitimate dispute.


Also, let it be publicly known that the days of American prosperity are coming to an end. Dollar is in the verge of becoming wothless.
 
0
•••
Also account for the time, money and risk this individual undertook to bring the lawsuit. I forecast Brent will be out of business sooner than you forget Frank.
 
0
•••
Avoid companies with offices in India, and leave woke-infiltrated registrars or else our domains or products would be taken away from us.

If one couldn't afford to hire a lawyer, or else it would be like giving away your domains for free.


And why avoid India?
 
1
•••
And why avoid India?

Godaddy, a US company, but has an office company in India has to follow a court order in that country. and there happens to be many scammers in India that concoct scams like this..
 
Last edited:
5
•••
And what makes you think this is a scam?
 
0
•••
This is probably the most insane thing I've ever heard of in my short time domaining.

I have to ask how we're only finding out about this now if this happened a year ago?
 
8
•••
That might be a way to bring a quick end to the dispute, if the Plaintiff is unable to provide such security to the court.


That might bring the end to the lawsuit but not to lawsuit reporting.
 
0
•••
I highly doubt anyone would file a lawsuit without being defrauded. It seems to me like a legitimate dispute.

What the hell would you know about anything about the law when your website says something as stupid as this-

As we previously mentioned, we dream, breathe and live domains. Law is complex and we are not legal experts. We forgive mistakes and expect our mistakes to be forgiven. By using our services, you promise not to sue us for any reason, and we promise not to sue you for any reason.

Lmao did you study bird law?
 
14
•••
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


After reading everything here and in the article, I wanted to address some of the questions swirling around about this.

There were many factors in deciding if we locked domains or kept domains locked in the India case between Mr. Oxley and Mr. Agarwal.

For instance, a U.S. federal court denied Mr. Oxley’s request for an order requiring GoDaddy to unlock the domains. If Mr. Oxley had been able to obtain a court order requiring us to unlock the domains, we would have gladly done it. The fact he was unable to do so suggests how much more complicated this issue is than is mentioned in the article. It’s not just monetary issues, but demands for the cancellation of the domain registrations at issue.

We understand how important your domain names are to you. We don’t make the decision to lock or unlock any domain name lightly. GoDaddy, along with other registrars, like NameCheap, Web.com, MarkMonitor and even VeriSign, reserve the right to lock domains in response to notification of a legal dispute.

In fact, it is the industry standard to ensure that registration rights for domain names are protected and maintained during the pendency of a legal dispute. Locking domains protects all parties until the legal dispute is resolved.

We also want to assure everyone that when a domain is locked, the goal is to keep the registration information at status quo. If the registrant would like to make changes to their DNS, they can contact our team to make them. They are able to renew the domain names. The domain and any associated web/mail services continue to function normally.

We understand Mr. Oxley’s frustration. No one wants to be in this situation, but the systems that we and the industry have in place are there for your protection.
 
16
•••
What the hell would you know about anything about the law when your website says something as stupid as this-

As we previously mentioned, we dream, breathe and live domains. Law is complex and we are not legal experts. We forgive mistakes and expect our mistakes to be forgiven. By using our services, you promise not to sue us for any reason, and we promise not to sue you for any reason.

Lmao did you study bird law?

Did you hear a saying : "The only people benefiting from legal disputes are lawyers"? I choose to believe it. After my experience, no more lawyers in my life!
 
0
•••
Also, I want to advice Brent - if you want to feed a lawyer - there are a countless hungry lawyers on upwork.com and feverr.com ready to be fed at $50 an hour.
 
0
•••
After reading everything here and in the article, I wanted to address some of the questions swirling around about this.

There were many factors in deciding if we locked domains or kept domains locked in the India case between Mr. Oxley and Mr. Agarwal.

For instance, a U.S. federal court denied Mr. Oxley’s request for an order requiring GoDaddy to unlock the domains. If Mr. Oxley had been able to obtain a court order requiring us to unlock the domains, we would have gladly done it. The fact he was unable to do so suggests how much more complicated this issue is than is mentioned in the article. It’s not just monetary issues, but demands for the cancellation of the domain registrations at issue.

We understand how important your domain names are to you. We don’t make the decision to lock or unlock any domain name lightly. GoDaddy, along with other registrars, like NameCheap, Web.com, MarkMonitor and even VeriSign, reserve the right to lock domains in response to notification of a legal dispute.

In fact, it is the industry standard to ensure that registration rights for domain names are protected and maintained during the pendency of a legal dispute. Locking domains protects all parties until the legal dispute is resolved.

We also want to assure everyone that when a domain is locked, the goal is to keep the registration information at status quo. If the registrant would like to make changes to their DNS, they can contact our team to make them. They are able to renew the domain names. The domain and any associated web/mail services continue to function normally.

We understand Mr. Oxley’s frustration. No one wants to be in this situation, but the systems that we and the industry have in place are there for your protection.
I want to make sure that I understand right. You don't have and don't need a court order from the indian guy to lock the domains, but you need a court order from Brent to unlock them? That sounds like the godaddy way of doing things. So, if I open a dispute saying that all domains owned by @Joe Styler are mine, you will lock all his domains or you will need a court order in this case? Rhetorical question.

Edit: so now godaddy acts like a law court, deciding what domains to lock, without any court order or anything to prove that you could be right or wrong and who you should punish and forgive. You should be very proud of your legal department.
 
Last edited:
23
•••
After reading everything here and in the article, I wanted to address some of the questions swirling around about this.

There were many factors in deciding if we locked domains or kept domains locked in the India case between Mr. Oxley and Mr. Agarwal.

For instance, a U.S. federal court denied Mr. Oxley’s request for an order requiring GoDaddy to unlock the domains. If Mr. Oxley had been able to obtain a court order requiring us to unlock the domains, we would have gladly done it. The fact he was unable to do so suggests how much more complicated this issue is than is mentioned in the article. It’s not just monetary issues, but demands for the cancellation of the domain registrations at issue.

We understand how important your domain names are to you. We don’t make the decision to lock or unlock any domain name lightly. GoDaddy, along with other registrars, like NameCheap, Web.com, MarkMonitor and even VeriSign, reserve the right to lock domains in response to notification of a legal dispute.

In fact, it is the industry standard to ensure that registration rights for domain names are protected and maintained during the pendency of a legal dispute. Locking domains protects all parties until the legal dispute is resolved.

We also want to assure everyone that when a domain is locked, the goal is to keep the registration information at status quo. If the registrant would like to make changes to their DNS, they can contact our team to make them. They are able to renew the domain names. The domain and any associated web/mail services continue to function normally.

We understand Mr. Oxley’s frustration. No one wants to be in this situation, but the systems that we and the industry have in place are there for your protection.


I have zero respect for your firm.
 
2
•••
After reading everything here and in the article, I wanted to address some of the questions swirling around about this.

There were many factors in deciding if we locked domains or kept domains locked in the India case between Mr. Oxley and Mr. Agarwal.

For instance, a U.S. federal court denied Mr. Oxley’s request for an order requiring GoDaddy to unlock the domains. If Mr. Oxley had been able to obtain a court order requiring us to unlock the domains, we would have gladly done it. The fact he was unable to do so suggests how much more complicated this issue is than is mentioned in the article. It’s not just monetary issues, but demands for the cancellation of the domain registrations at issue.

We understand how important your domain names are to you. We don’t make the decision to lock or unlock any domain name lightly. GoDaddy, along with other registrars, like NameCheap, Web.com, MarkMonitor and even VeriSign, reserve the right to lock domains in response to notification of a legal dispute.

In fact, it is the industry standard to ensure that registration rights for domain names are protected and maintained during the pendency of a legal dispute. Locking domains protects all parties until the legal dispute is resolved.

We also want to assure everyone that when a domain is locked, the goal is to keep the registration information at status quo. If the registrant would like to make changes to their DNS, they can contact our team to make them. They are able to renew the domain names. The domain and any associated web/mail services continue to function normally.

We understand Mr. Oxley’s frustration. No one wants to be in this situation, but the systems that we and the industry have in place are there for your protection.

It's understandable that you have to lock a domain if you receive a court order or a request by a law enforcement agency,

But how do you protect your customers (domain registrants) from frivolous claims and lawsuits that are only meant to put their domains in limbo for several years.

Disclaimer: this is a general question about domain security and assurance and has nothing to do with the case being discussed here in this thread.

IMO
 
Last edited:
8
•••
Samer, are you Frank Schilling?
 
0
•••
As some of you may know, Brent likes guns. Big guns. Like this one:

tank.jpg


Yup, that's Brent's rig - courtesy of Andrew Allemann.

On January 11, Godaddy dumped AR15.com, which is believed to be the largest gun site in the USA.

https://domainnamewire.com/2021/01/17/godaddy-explains-ar15-com-boot/

AR15.com landed at Epik. The people who run the site are law-abiding and highly competent folks. I am dumbfounded that they were terminated by Godaddy.

I am told that on the same day, many other gun-related sites were also told to leave Godaddy. I won't quote the number I heard, but the number surprised me.

While Godaddy founder Bob Parsons liked guns, apparently the current leadership, or their handlers, don't like guns, and perhaps don't care for people who support the 2nd amendment (2A).

Specific to the case between Puneet and Brent, ultimately, it is for the courts to decide whether there was some breach of contract, or economic injury.

Unless there was a specific court order mandating Godaddy to seize Brent's names, I don't see how it can be justified. It is the antithesis of the registrar's job, which is to protect the registrant within the law.

If Godaddy has a problem with Brent, and does not have a court order mandating seizure of Brent's assets, they should just let Brent move on.

As for Puneet, I have interacted with him, including over this issue. Like all of us, he is on a journey. My hope is that the parties resolve their private dispute amicably and reasonably.

Good luck to Brent and Puneet in burying the hatchet.

In the meantime, Godaddy needs to release Brent's domains. An open refusal to do so sets a terrible precedent when it comes to sovereignty of personal property.

If Godaddy refuses to stand down, I believe Brent should pursue a legal path which serves to discover all communications at Godaddy related to policy and practices related to impairing 2A enthusiasts.
 
Last edited:
33
•••
Back