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]

Since my last post was deleted because @barybadrinath complained that it included his wifes name

I reported your post.

Do you have proof that @barybadrinath reported your post as well?

And regardless of who reported what, kindly explain why you felt it necessary to create a new account titled <HowMuchAreHookers> then immediately proceed to harass @barybadrinath in a public forum where his wifes name had no relevance to this thread?

Edit: Everyone please remember, this is namePros. This is not Gab nor 4Chan; rules and professionalism matter here.

 

[Jeremiah S]

gofundme created to pay for a billboard in Arizona asking GoDaddy to fire Aman.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/billboard-cost-to-fire-godaddy-grinch-aman-bhutani

GoDaddy's CEO Aman Bhutani is not your average ordinary everyday Grinch.

He emailed his GoDaddy employees a fake holiday bonus phishing email stating they would get $650.00 . Talk about low of lows, especially this last holiday season when everyone was dealing with covid-19 and families losing loved ones.

There was no holiday bonus, just a grinchy dick move by a power hungry CEO.

Articles for context:

BusinessInsider

Forbes

Well now Grinch Aman is at it again, stealing millions of dollars in domain names of successful entrepreneur Brent Oxley's and Create.com all without a court order at the request of a mad lunatic..

Articles for reference:

namePros

JamesNames

I'm raising money to pay for a billboard in downtown Phoenix Arizona to get attention of the GoDaddy board of directors to fire Aman Bhutani because of his evil, darkness, and ignorance.

Who's with me? Donate today!

 

[create.com]

Was this paid to him on these highlighted domains from the complaint copy?

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. Puneet would have collected on the $1mm offer I made to show proof if this existed. He's reached out to Namecheap to lock down my entire portfolio and was told to get a court order.

Goddady, on the other hand, locked down my create.com name and hosting business without a court order. What could he possibly be owed on a name that I'm using for a personal business and was purchased years prior of ever hearing the name Puneet?

Godaddy doesn't seem to care about the facts at all when they require a court order to unlock.

Here are the dates, give or take a few days depending on transfer and my recording:

Show attachment 184702[/QUOTE]
advise.com 1/28/19
message.com 6/6/19
distribute.com 6/5/18
detect.com 2/3/19
jewel.com 9/27/19
dust.com 7/11/19
bonjour.com 7/2/19
viaje.com 4/12/19

I don't believe one can ever part ways with Puneet. He sends me dozens of emails and messages a week, harasses my office staff, puts in fake offers on my domains, messages my wife, friends, family, lawyers, etc. If you block him, he creates new accounts to reach you with. I've bought the above names from many different brokers, many of which have already said Puneet wasn't part of the deal.

I believe in Puneet's mind he thinks he's owed a commission simply spamming a name whether I read the email or not. It may even be why even after all this time, he continues to spam me lists of names without pricing or contact info that I choose to ignore. I'm surprised he hasn't sent me a list with every dictionary word in existence in it with .com appended to it.

When I ask him what's owed, he's rambled 100's of times about snort.com. If Puneet genuinely believed more was owed, I'd imagine he wouldn't be so focused on just this one name. In the attachments, you can see an email from him saying snort commission was included in the price and then not. I'm still confused to this day on that one if anything is owed or not. If it is, he can deduct the $3k from the stolen funds he still owed me. I'll even agree to send him this money if he releases all my names, but I will reserve the right to pursue him criminally for his extortion and theft.

I hope this all helps. I'd love to sit here all day answering questions but unfortunately, I get pretty busy, and so far, I'm the only one here responding to questions.

Aman where are you with answers?
Godaddy where are you with answers?
Puneet, where is your proof on anything?

 

[The Rover]

gofundme created to pay for a billboard in Arizona asking GoDaddy to fire Aman.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/billboard-cost-to-fire-godaddy-grinch-aman-bhutani

GoDaddy's CEO Aman Bhutani is not your average ordinary everyday Grinch.

He emailed his GoDaddy employees a fake holiday bonus phishing email stating they would get $650.00 . Talk about low of lows, especially this last holiday season when everyone was dealing with covid-19 and families losing loved ones.

There was no holiday bonus, just a grinchy dick move by a power hungry CEO.

Articles for context:

BusinessInsider

Forbes

Well now Grinch Aman is at it again, stealing millions of dollars in domain names of successful entrepreneur Brent Oxley's and Create.com all without a court order at the request of a mad lunatic..

Articles for reference:

namePros

JamesNames

I'm raising money to pay for a billboard in downtown Phoenix Arizona to get attention of the GoDaddy board of directors to fire Aman Bhutani because of his evil, darkness, and ignorance.

Who's with me? Donate today!

And now for more context, since many here may not be aware of how counterintelligence works in the corporate world.

If you @HowMuchAreHookers were truly concerned about resolving the current "crisis" right now with GoDaddy, this is damn sure how you wouldn't go about it. I doubt you're genuinely concerned about resolving this issue (although you could be) as I have a difficult time believing you're that naive. Your recent posts (you just created an upgraded account yesterday) are intentionally excessive.

The reason your posts look suspicious, is because often times when a corporation or individual is suspected of foul play or wrong doing, they'll hire/use counterintelligence tactics as a means to distract, and as a means to "bundle" anyone who may actually have valid concerns about that corporation or individual, as conspiracy nutcases. Your account is a brand new, upgraded account and you're spending a lot of time attempting to "smear" GoDaddy and the CEO, but effectively what you'll end up doing is making it appear as if many domainers and any critics of GoDaddy are blood thirsty, racist nutjobs. Then suddenly, like magic, that becomes the topic of discussion, rather the actual wrongdoings of the corporation/individual. So, I'm not 100% sure if this is your intentions, but it's curious nonetheless.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Aman where are you with answers?
Godaddy where are you with answers?

For anybody in the media following along that may need a URL shortener to this thread.

FireAman.com redirects back to this thread, and I imagine it will continue to do so until this is resolved.

 

[GTBAAA]

I wish Rick would open his HUGE wallet...

https://www.gofundme.com/f/billboard-cost-to-fire-godaddy-grinch-aman-bhutani

@Rick Schwartz

 

[bmugford]

It sure would be nice to get some type of update from GoDaddy.

You know like we made a mistake, there is no court order, and we are going to release the domains. We should not have been involved in a business dispute.

or

Here is the court order, and here is why we believe it has jurisdiction.

or

We are still looking into the situation, and should have a resolution soon.

Something. There is not just the legal side, there is the PR and credibility side also. GoDaddy is suffering as far as that goes, especially with the domain investment community.

This issue is not going away. The more GoDaddy kicks the can down the road, the worse it is going to get for them.

Brad

 

[create.com]

I'd love to donate but better check with a lawyer before I do. I'm in for $10,000 assuming I get their blessing. I think Aman would look incredible on multiple billboards!

 

[The Rover]

It sure would be nice to get some type of update from GoDaddy...

Brad

Honestly, at this point, I can't help but think they're intentionally stalling. If they can get a bunch of racist and over-the-top public comments on multiple outlets, by seemingly nut job domainers and critics, the better it is for them. It's a classic corporate public relations move. It gives them tons of material to deflect when they do finally speak out, while they wiggle out of their own wrongdoings.

 

[create.com]

Does anyone think I need to worry about a backdated court date or court order from India? There's very powerful people from India involved at this point that have a lot to gain.

 

[Sutruk]

Does anyone think I need to worry about a backdated court date or court order from India? There's very powerful people from India involved at this point that have a lot to gain.

If that happens, I see 1,000 domains per minute flying out from Godaddy.
Godaddy can operate in 53 markets as they say, but their main office is in the US, and at least if a court order of this magnitude comes from India, it should be also backed up by another one from the US.
In my opinion.

 

[The Rover]

Who are the current GoDaddy reps that normally speak here on NP these days? Are there multiple reps? Can anyone list them all here in one post?

 

[bmugford]

If that happens, I see 1,000 domains per minute flying out from Godaddy.
Godaddy can operate in 53 markets as they say, but their main office is in the US, and at least if a court order of this magnitude comes from India, it should be also backed up by another one from the US.
In my opinion.

If you are a US citizen with US based assets, even if there is a judgement in a foreign country a US court basically needs to sign off on it.

https://harrisbricken.com/blog/recognition-foreign-judgments-us-courts/

This is true with most countries. Just getting some judgement in a court that has no authority over you is pretty meaningless on its own.

In this case it doesn't seem like there is service of process, never mind a court order, never mind a judgement.

Brad

 

[Reddstagg]

Does anyone think I need to worry about a backdated court date or court order from India? There's very powerful people from India involved at this point that have a lot to gain.

Good evening Brent. Just two points. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks or presumes, it is what they can prove. In a court of law if necessary. Secondly..."Fiat justitia et perat mundus" means let justice prevail though the world may perish. If you have faith in justice then the right outcome will prevail. Personally, I'd keep your head down and leave the strategies to the people you will be paying to represent you. Scoring points or any hint of mis-direction on a public forum may ultimately go against you. Get your ducks in a row and try to keep them there.

Try to fully analyze the GD TOS as sometimes laws are passed by governments that are guidelines only and they are often open to interpretation by companies or lawyers or indeed employers. Guidelines are not always dead cert 100% legal decisions. I found this out through an unfair dismissal case with a former employer.

I have read nearly all of the provided documents and mails etc and I'd say it is a little confusing at times so maybe you need to concentrate on that part of your argument and apply it to the situation with GD rather than to the situation with other said third party.

Regards,

Reddstagg

 

[Sutruk]

If you are a US citizen with US based assets, even if there is a judgement in a foreign country a US court basically needs to sign off on it.

https://harrisbricken.com/blog/recognition-foreign-judgments-us-courts/

This is true with most countries. Just getting some judgement in a court that has no authority over you is pretty meaningless on its own.

In this case it doesn't seem like there is service of process, never mind a court order, never mind a judgement.

Brad

If this is the case, as I see (and totally agree) what the heck is doing Godaddy freezing and locking Brent's assets, even more without any court order.
Even knowing that the asset, a .com, is managed by a US company (verisign) so it is a US located asset.

 

[Sutruk]

And in case that the asset in question, a .com, is not established to be a US asset (that it is), what the heck makes Godaddy think that in a dispute between 2 citizens, one from India and one from US, the India court will prevail over the US court?
Anyway, ultimately a .com must be taken as a US asset, as it is ultimately managed by Verising, a US company.

 

[Reddstagg]

Good evening Brent. Just two points. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks or presumes, it is what they can prove. In a court of law if necessary. Secondly..."Fiat justitia et perat mundus" means let justice prevail though the world may perish. If you have faith in justice then the right outcome will prevail. Personally, I'd keep your head down and leave the strategies to the people you will be paying to represent you. Scoring points or any hint of mis-direction on a public forum may ultimately go against you. Get your ducks in a row and try to keep them there.

Try to fully analyze the GD TOS as sometimes laws are passed by governments that are guidelines only and they are often open to interpretation by companies or lawyers or indeed employers. Guidelines are not always dead cert 100% legal decisions. I found this out through an unfair dismissal case with a former employer.

I have read nearly all of the provided documents and mails etc and I'd say it is a little confusing at times so maybe you need to concentrate on that part of your argument and apply it to the situation with GD rather than to the situation with other said third party.

Regards,

Reddstagg

For example:

"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."

(If you say that you reserve the right to do something, you mean that you will do it if you feel that it is necessary.) taken from Collins Dictionary

The TOS does not state that they '"will" do it merely that they will do it if they feel that it is necessary. At what point and on what basis did they think that it was necessary. If, they treat each case on its own individual merits, then they must also take into consideration any previous other such cases and apply the principle of necessity in the same way. If they had just stated that "they will" rather than they reserve the right then that would be the precedent set for all cases from the very beginning and there could not be any deviation from that precedent.

Please note I am not a lawyer just a domainer...some would argue not a good one lol but I reserve the right to ignore their opinions and I will if I feel that it is necessary to do so.

Regards,

Reddstagg

 

[Sutruk]

For example:

"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."

(If you say that you reserve the right to do something, you mean that you will do it if you feel that it is necessary.) taken from Collins Dictionary

The TOS does not state that they '"will" do it merely that they will do it if they feel that it is necessary. At what point and on what basis did they think that it was necessary. If, they treat each case on its own individual merits, then they must also take into consideration any previous other such cases and apply the principle of necessity in the same way. If they had just stated that "they will" rather than they reserve the right then that would be the precedent set for all cases from the very beginning and there could not be any deviation from that precedent.

Please note I am not a lawyer just a domainer...some would argue not a good one lol but I reserve the right to ignore their opinions and I will if I feel that it is necessary to do so.

Regards,

Reddstagg

Section 14 of their TOS is plainly abusibe. And even you can establish your own TOS, they must be coherent and reasonable. Abusive TOS where they basically say they can do whatever they want with their clients and lock their assets without any reason or merit just because they have just said it in their TOS, is clearly abusive and unreasonable.

 

[Samer]

Shourt out to @Acroplex for reporting on this.

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/...sed-a-ton-of-emails-about-his-locked-domains/

 

[Lox]

ICANN
Guidance for Preparing Domain Name Orders, Seizures & Takedowns

This “thought paper” offers guidance for anyone who prepares an order that seeks to seize or take down domain names. Its purpose is to help preparers of legal or regulatory actions understand what information top level domain name (TLD) registration providers such as registries and registrars will need to respond promptly and effectively to a legal or regulatory order or action. The paper explains how information about a domain name is managed and by whom. In particular, it explains that a seizure typically affects three operational elements of the Internet name system – domain name registration services, the domain name system (DNS) and WHOIS services – and encourages preparers of legal or regulatory actions to consider each when they prepare documentation for a court action.

PDF Attached

 

[Sutruk]

ICANN
Guidance for Preparing Domain Name Orders, Seizures & Takedowns

This “thought paper” offers guidance for anyone who prepares an order that seeks to seize or take down domain names. Its purpose is to help preparers of legal or regulatory actions understand what information top level domain name (TLD) registration providers such as registries and registrars will need to respond promptly and effectively to a legal or regulatory order or action. The paper explains how information about a domain name is managed and by whom. In particular, it explains that a seizure typically affects three operational elements of the Internet name system – domain name registration services, the domain name system (DNS) and WHOIS services – and encourages preparers of legal or regulatory actions to consider each when they prepare documentation for a court action.

PDF Attached

Thanks for the Guidance, although that one seems to be made for crimial activities, that surpasses civil cases jurisdictions.
On a criminal case, a Registrar will be required to take action even from an international court not based on the Registrar country, as I understand.
"These activities have been taken to mitigate criminal activities and will likely continue to be elements of future anticrime efforts".
But as you can see, is the ICANN who will receive the claim, again, a US company, not a India one.

ICANN headquarters:
HEADQUARTERS
Los Angeles, California, USA
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536, USA

 

[Lox]

.

Thanks for the Guidance, although that one seems to be made for crimial activities, that surpasses civil cases jurisdictions.
On a criminal case, a Registrar will be required to take action even from an international court not based on the Registrar country, as I understand.
"These activities have been taken to mitigate criminal activities and will likely continue to be elements of future anticrime efforts".
But as you can see, is the ICANN who will receive the claim, again, a US company, not a India one.

ICANN headquarters:
HEADQUARTERS
Los Angeles, California, USA
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536, USA

That's the point! P.A. took advantage of the ICANN/GD ToS & I guess there's somewhere written "in mean time the lawyer/court will need to gather evidence".

( I'm from yesterday but my lawyers are not )

 

[Sutruk]

.


That's the point! P.A. took advantage of the ICANN/GD ToS & I guess there's somewhere written "in mean time the lawyer/court will need to gather evidence".

Godaddy TOS say they can lock your domain while they gather evidence, just for a claim, wheter it has merits or not, on its own and sole discretion.
Well, that's just clearly abusive. Legally they should lock your domains (freeze your assets) only with a court order, and if they have offices in 53 markets, India between them, then they should attend either to courts from the two countries involved from the two parts, in this case the US and India, and not just only India.
And if they have to determine from where is the asset, in my opinion, a .com is managed by Verisign a US company, so ultimately it is a US asset.
Even more, if Verisign or ICANN say the asset is from where the user is paying for it, then the asset is from the US because is Brent who is paying for the assets and that's reflected on the WHOIS database.

 

[branding]

Anyway, ultimately a .com must be taken as a US asset, as it is ultimately managed by Verising, a US company.

I strongly disagree on this. Although it is managed by an US corporation all that should matter is the location of the registrar. Version or the US should have no say in this at all, for the sake of net neutrality.

The moment .com/.net will be considered an US asset that will be a major issue for the stability of the web. The moment this happens, it'll be the end of .com dominance.

There are signs we're heading in that direction. It won't happen overnight but ICANN better treads carefully.

 

[creataweb]

Downloaded the files, going to be an interesting read thru.