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

 

[koolishman]

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.

Want to hear @Rob Monster on this.

 

[Future Sensors]

I previously referred to critical infrastructure that uses GoDaddy services. This involves many DNS services, such as an anycast instance of B-root, and registration services. Due to the size of the company, Godaddy will increasingly play an important role at the heart of our Internet infrastructure.

But there's a Trust issue. In this thread we notice how easily services can be taken hostage by the company. There have been successful social engineering attacks on the company as well, which have been reported in other places.

Today I like to share this.

Public Interest Registry (PIR), which manages the .ORG TLD, is using Godaddy registrar for their domain name PIR.ORG. For their other domains, like thenew.org, they're using Dynadot.

Domain Name: PIR.ORG
Registry Domain ID: D96207-LROR
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.whois.godaddy.com
Updated Date: 2021-02-20T01:28:49Z
Creation Date: 1996-02-18T05:00:00Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2022-02-19T05:00:00Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date:
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Reseller:
Domain Status: serverDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#serverDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: serverTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#serverTransferProhibited
Domain Status: serverUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#serverUpdateProhibited
Domain Status: autoRenewPeriod https://icann.org/epp#autoRenewPeriod
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant State/Province: Arizona
Registrant Country: US
Name Server: NS1.AMS1.AFILIAS-NST.INFO
Name Server: NS1.MIA1.AFILIAS-NST.INFO
Name Server: NS1.SEA1.AFILIAS-NST.INFO
Name Server: NS1.YYZ1.AFILIAS-NST.INFO
DNSSEC: signedDelegation
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form https://www.icann.org/wicf/)

 

[MapleDots]

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 have read, and continue to watch this topic, but have only responded once. I prefer to read the facts and will make my decision on what to do about my domains at godaddy when this topic is resolved.

There is a lot of emotion in this topic, but also some good information, and occasionally a golden nugget.

May I say your letter to Epik was incredibly well thought out, especially the last sentence. For someone in a similar situation to the OP I admire how you handled yourself and can only assume you run your business in the same professional manner. I think Rob at Epik needs to give that a second look because to me it sounds like you are a leader when it comes to a proper response, by a domainer, to a situation like this.

Thank you so much for posting your letter.

 

[Peak.Domains]

It's my understanding that we have an example of NameCheap refusing to lock names based on court filings, and we have examples of GoDaddy and Epik who both decided to lock names based on court filings, without a court order. Am I correct here so far?

Can we compile any other examples of registrars who have refused to lock names based on court filings? And examples of registrars who have locked names based on court filings? (Let's say, locked for longer periods of time, since I think a short lock while they consult their legal team could be reasonable, but six months or a year is not reasonable, in my layman's opinion.)

Has anyone else had an experience with a registrar either choosing to lock their names based on a court order, or choosing not to?

It's one thing to give the PR statements about what a registrar might or might not do in any given scenario (and there is absolutely value there and I'm glad that some registrars have stepped forward to discuss), but it's better to have concrete examples of what they DID do when faced with similar situations.

 

[GTBAAA]

Thanks Brad, I'll do my best to update everyone on where we are, but also wanted to address some of the conspiratorial nonsense I've been seeing. I understand that not having me always online addressing each new point immediately provides a fertile ground for drawing conclusions, but let's please not devolve into the ridiculous.

The heart of the matter is that there is a dispute involving registration rights between two parties who both acknowledge a prior working relationship. Our current procedure is to lock domain names upon notification that there is a registration rights dispute. We do this to maintain status quo on the domain names.

As for Create.com, it was added to the lawsuit, so it followed our standard operating procedure. This SOP was created in order to protect against business disputes involving registration rights and domain theft, and has worked well in that regard for many years.

Part of our review into our processes focuses on the growth of the aftermarket. We are continuing conversations with industry experts to better understand what current standards are and whether we can use this situation to promote industry-wide processes that have domain investing interests in mind.

As we’ve started to have these conversations, we’ve identified a couple of things that could have gone better in Brent’s case. First, we erroneously told Brent that a court order was issued when, in fact, we were served with a legal complaint, starting a lawsuit. This doesn't change how we would have or did act, but it was inaccurate to describe it as a court order. Second, we needed to do a better job in proactively notifying Brent of the domain locks on his domains. We’re taking these learnings and applying them to our procedures going forward.

As we continue to make progress on our review, we will keep the community posted.

Now, as for the conspiracies, let's tamp down the rhetoric a bit.

Understand that when a legal complaint comes in, it goes into our legal team. And they aren’t domain investors and don't know the players at all. There is simply no way that the legal team member that locked the domains per SOP knew anything about Brent, much less what his political views, hobbies and personal beliefs were.

Aman has been briefed on the situation, but has absolutely no contact with either Brent or Puneet.

I understand that tempers are high, I'm doing everything I can to make sure that the long-term health of the industry that I've been a part of for 14 years is on solid footing. Balancing domain security with a robust aftermarket is a challenge that I don't take lightly. With that, I will continue to consult the experts and will let you all know what we come up with as soon as I can.

So, let me understand this correctly @Paul Nicks and @Joe Styler...

I have a friend in Pakistan who has been cheated by your auction system and HUGE domains sniping of auctions through the API not available to everyone. If he files a lawsuit regarding this Godaddy practice - which is illegal in Pakistan - will you lock all the domains that Huge Domains has fleeced through your expired auction system? Wiil Huge Domains no longer be able to sell these domains as you would have locked them down?

 

[blogspotter]

I have read, and continue to watch this topic, but have only responded once. I prefer to read the facts and will make my decision on what to do about my domains at godaddy when this topic is resolved.

There is a lot of emotion in this topic, but also some good information, and occasionally a golden nugget.

May I say your letter to Epik was incredibly well thought out, especially the last sentence. For someone in a similar situation to the OP I admire how you handled yourself and can only assume you run your business in the same professional manner. I think Rob at Epik needs to give that a second look because to me it sounds like you are a leader when it comes to a proper response, by a domainer, to a situation like this.

Thank you so much for posting your letter.

Specially how he concludes that there can be no flight risks in the case of domain names

 

[kaposzta]

Wow, Godaddy's policy is really fucked up. What if someone starts a lawsuit regarding the domain "Godaddy.com"? They will lock that as well? :D

 

[bmugford]

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

Care to explain @Rob Monster?

Brad

 

[Shimmy]

There is no policy involved here . If a registrar has a policy of locking domains without a court order because the domain is reported stolen that is perfectly fine. That has nothing to do with what happened here. GoDaddy simply lets there employees do whatever the hell they want. If a GoDaddy employee wants to have fun and get involved in a commission dispute between other people, they don't care. They only care when it gets out in the public and they feel stuck because if they release the domain now they have no way to explain what changed from a year ago. GoDaddy simply doesn't care about anyone's business.

 

[trelgor]

Of course it’s policy. It’s like what if anyone could file for your bankruptcy and freeze your assets until an investigation is done, regardless if the merit of the claim? Your ex? It’s the definition of legal uncertainty. It’s ”rechtshaberei” field day.

 

[GoWebnames.com]

There is no policy involved here . If a registrar has a policy of locking domains without a court order because the domain is reported stolen that is perfectly fine. That has nothing to do with what happened here. GoDaddy simply lets there employees do whatever the hell they want. If a GoDaddy employee wants to have fun and get involved in a commission dispute between other people, they don't care. They only care when it gets out in the public and they feel stuck because if they release the domain now they have no way to explain what changed from a year ago. GoDaddy simply doesn't care about anyone's business.

Only REPORTEDLY stolen, as in it's an ALLEGATION. When GoDaddy sold me the name, locked it down and removed the lock upon concluding their investigation, who is another registrar to lock it down? And whether there was a theft or not, at another registrar, it's none of the business of your current domain registrar or domain registrars in general. Leave that to the courts, it's a legal thing. The registrars shouldn't dabble with moral policing, it's just not the right thing.

 

[Shimmy]

i didn't read any of your posts i'm just talking about the Brent case . There is no policy involved. they call it policy, but there is nothing to actually follow, they just let their employees freeze domains whenever they want , no court order needed

 

[wwwweb]

You guys got to stop blaming Paul Nicks, and Joe Styler, I dealt with enough things to know once an order comes into legal, their departments can’t do much other than give their opinions. Legal overrides all other sales departments.

There is a lot of strange things going on here, the fact you hand this guy your credit card to charge purchases on , and it’s saved on his godaddy profile, to give consent, and take it away verbally to someone who you are on arms lengths transactions with as informal broker to really throws away the regular norms of a client/broker relationship.

You guys were more than just buyer/broker here, and it has really complicated whatever agreements you had in place. My assumption is you paid what he was owed, he squandered it living above his means thinking the gravy train was going to keep on rolling by, when the money stopped, but the wants didn’t he brought you to where you are today. There are a lot of internal controls you kind of let down based on compassion which you probably shouldn’t have, and he has taken advantage of that grey area, by misrepresenting it thru the judicial process.

I have seen this a lot, people come with a good deal, you oblige, they get paid, money is spent, and all the sudden they come back wanting more because they think they didn’t get enough. As we know a deal is a deal, and things don’t work like that, you did give him benefit after benefit to work off his debts, or bring more names your way.

The names in question should be outlined in the court order, any names acquired thru outside means that have nothing to do with this case really should not be sequestered.

As many people have mentioned the legal system is setup where anyone can make any assumptions based on lies, and the burden of proof lies on you to prove it wrong.

Even though you had nothing to do with it other than buy a name, there was a huge thread here a few years ago between two well known brokers about the analyze.com deal, with one broker saying he stole the right to buy the name from under him etc etc etc ... they didn’t drag you into it, but squashed it between themselves, but had it gone legal, most likely name could have been frozen also.

It could be just the call of the head of legal over there who made this call, given the scope of the names, and the nature to resell them locking them up, and having them listed on legal filings really hurts their valuations, as even if thru are sold you run the risk of potential buyers having to deal with this person down the road.

Maybe one day you can recoup your legal fees by selling the movie rights to this nightmare one day, it’s obvious Justice will prevail here, but the amount of legal fees you pay before this person backs off is really going to be all for nothing.

 

[Rob Monster]

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

For those not aware, this is a high profile case of a whole stack of allegedly stolen domains:

https://domainnamewire.com/2020/09/29/stolen-go-domains-end-up-in-court-battle/

In my experience, the only practical way to unwind a domain theft is to stop the daisy-chain of fraudulent conveyance. Once the domain has hopped twice, it is mighty hard to roll it back. By the time the domain has hopped 3 times, the registrant who lost the domain has a near impossible task.

In June 2020, GoCars.com got a TM complaint. At the time, I intervened on behalf of the registrant, and told the complainant to pound sand and/or get a court order - see partial excerpt:

As should be obvious, I had the registrant's back.

However, as mentioned above, the case with domain THEFT is different. The daisy chain of fraudulent conveyance has to be stopped in its tracks in order to accomplish anything.

As for these Go names, there are a few of them in Sunil's account. When the alleged former registrant's counsel approached us about locking the domains, the abuse team would have told them "get a court order".

In August 2020, I see our abuse department was approached by outside counsel requesting a domain lock for allegedly STOLEN domains. In that case, Sarah, likely did the right thing.

In the meantime, I did not hear from the registrant, so I don't know Sunil's side of the story. I suggest Sunil email me privately and will see what we can do to get the matter settled.

In past cases like this one, I have been able to get the complainant to compensate the unwitting victim so that they were restored. If Sunil wants that help to settle the matter, happy to do it pro bono.

Even if there is a court order, confirming that there was a domain theft, the registrant likely still has the right to appeal the outcome through injunction or otherwise, assuming it was not conveyed in bad faith.

At the end of the day, domain theft is a problem in this industry. That is why Epik funded DNProtect.com, led by @bhartzer, to prevent, track and warrant against domain loss or impairment. Check it out.

All that said, I would be interested to get the perspective of the domain attorneys here as to whether they agree with the plaintiff's counsel in their interpretation of the law. See his correspondence:

The lawsuit was filed on August 11, 2020. We were approached on August 26, 2020. We took no locking action on the domain whatsoever until August 28, 2020.

I see that these domains are also being promptly released by the court, as was the case with this one where the domain was since sold on Epik.

Also, for the record, I had not personally reviewed this case until this morning.

As for the remaining locked names, if there are transactions to be done in the meantime, we would just make sure the buyer is aware that there is litigation related to the domain.

I am pretty sure there is a win-win still sitting on the horizon with this one and I doubt Sunil is going to be left holding the drippy bag.

 

[Shimmy]

You guys got to stop blaming Paul Nicks, and Joe Styler, I dealt with enough things to know once an order comes into legal, their departments can’t do much other than give their opinions. Legal overrides all other sales departments.

I don't recall anyone blaming Paul Nicks or Joe Styler. I just asked why people are thanking them because they just give lip service. That's all they can do, since they have no power. They are not to blame at all, should't be thanked either.

 

[Alop]

Why drag more into a dramatic scene where people don’t even understand?

I for one appreciate the silence from GoDaddy.. the wall is very thick .....whatever THEY say will not be comprehended into a user mind ..just pass the popcorn if you may

 

[GoWebnames.com]

For those not aware, this is a high profile case of a whole stack of allegedly stolen domains:

https://domainnamewire.com/2020/09/29/stolen-go-domains-end-up-in-court-battle/

In my experience, the only practical way to unwind a domain theft is to stop the daisy-chain of fraudulent conveyance. Once the domain has hopped twice, it is mighty hard to roll it back. By the time the domain has hopped 3 times, the registrant who lost the domain has a near impossible task.

1. ALLEGED THEFT
2. GoDaddy, who sold most of these GO domains, locked them upon complaint by the former owner, but ended up releasing them upon their investigation. Only after that, they were transferred to EPIK.
3. Is it proper for the registrars to decide if a property is stolen or not? What would the courts/UDRP panels do? That's an OVERREACH.

In June 2020, GoCars.com got a TM complaint. At the time, I intervened on behalf of the registrant, and told the complainant to pound sand and/or get a court order - see partial excerpt:

As should be obvious, I had the registrant's back.

That's good and I defended my case about 10 days before (May 19) before you told the complainant to go pound sand on Jun 1. BUT, why the need at all to take up for determination any such TRADEMARK complaints and be asking your customers to explain? Domain registrars are not a competent authority to decide on that and you shouldn't be interrogating your customers about these trademark claims at all. You can just BIN such junk mails or tell the complainants to take their complaints to a proper forum such as the UDRP.

Suppose the complainant did own a LIVE TRADEMARK for "GOCARS", you would have made a decision and transferred over my domain to them? Think about it.

In past cases like this one, I have been able to get the complainant to compensate the unwitting victim so that they were restored. If Sunil wants that help to settle the matter, happy to do it pro bono.

Thanks but not interested in any settlement. I would rather let the domains meet their destiny but just UNLOCKED.

All that said, I would be interested to get the perspective of the domain attorneys here as to whether they agree with the plaintiff's counsel in their interpretation of the law. See his correspondence:

This should be REVIEWED by your firm's LEGAL TEAM and be converted into a UNIFORM POLICY DECISION to be applied to my case and to all such other cases henceforth.

As for the remaining locked names, if there are transactions to be done in the meantime, we would just make sure the buyer is aware that there is litigation related to the domain.

I am pretty sure there is a win-win still sitting on the horizon with this one and I doubt Sunil is going to be left holding the drippy bag.

That's again an OVERREACH and not a good thing to do. Let's not deal with such cases on an individual basis. Let your policy determine whether you want to keep my domains locked without a COURT ORDER or if you want to unlock them.

That said, I have no beef with you or your company EPIK. I have many domains with you guys.

Cheers

 

[LarryDomain]

More more more! This story getting interesting. Who's coming into the Royal Domain Name Rumble next??

More *POPCORN* please..

@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

 

[Lox]

You shouldn't be surprised by now that no media has picked up this.
(I'm guessing it is, because they are interested in the Epik & Rob more than anything.)

 

[Lox]

concerned for @barybadrinath's health, ..... what Mr. Agarwal may be experiencing.

It's called burnout and will make you exhausted, annoyed, and feeling unappreciated.

 

[Lox]

.... I am starting to disbelieve there are registrars out there who do it in this right way.

& Registries

To survive, registrars will need to specialize (clientele), innovate (outdated sys) and hire 24/7 international law firm/s specializing in e-assets + tax.

 

[Alop]

& Registries

To survive, registrars will need to specialize (clientele), innovate (outdated sys) and hire 24/7 international law firm/s specializing in e-assets + tax.

I do like the innovate word..does Ai or invention come first ? ...nevertheless what makes a business successful is their secret..more popcorn please

 

[create.com]

. Our current procedure is to lock domain names upon notification that there is a registration rights dispute.

Does your current procedure involve notifying the registrant to inform them of a dispute when their name is locked?

Second, we needed to do a better job in proactively notifying Brent of the domain locks on his domains.

I can understand an honest mistake when you failed to notify me the first time, but how did this failure happen a second time when create.com was locked?

Can you also explain to me why Godaddy's Dispute department continues to ignore my emails? My dns change request from 12/14/2020 still has not been responded to.

Can you tell me why you all ignored my email to you from 2/19/21 asking for information on why create.com was locked? It's madness that I'm just now hearing why from you on this forum! Thank you for telling me nonetheless.

There is simply no way that the legal team member that locked the domains per SOP knew anything about Brent, much less what his political views, hobbies and personal beliefs were.

Paul, I do not see how this could remotely be possible. The emails I sent to your dispute department have my signature in them, and I've even told them who I am.

"--------------------------------

http://www.oxhuntingranch.com

http://www.drivetanks.com

http://www.oxley.com

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

"

This signature could easily be more than enough information to establish prejudices and hate towards me; hopefully, this isn't what is happening, but unless you provide more explanation, many people will assume this.

I've been very patient this last year, and in this time, I've had numerous conversations with Godaddy employees, some even in management that reached out to the dispute department to argue my case. A few of these employees have even requested to speak to me from their personal cell phones and email addresses. There has been much discussion on why I am being ignored, including the possibility of it being politically driven.

One theme most of these employees have had in common is that as soon as they'd talk to your dispute department, they stop responding to me. Godaddy has some amazing people working there, but unfortunately, there's a greater force preventing them from doing what they believe is morally and legally the right thing to do.

I've taken this long to respond to you as once again, I have hoped Aman would make this a priority and call me.

 

[Lox]

including the possibility of it being politically driven.

or maybe, big maybe, business driven

 

[create.com]

I'm not sure how create.com being locked would be good for business. Not exactly the image we want to project that we don't have control of our own name!