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

 

[The Rover]

I agree. 90 days feels more appropriate

Hard pass. Like @bmugford suggested, if a case truly has merit, not locking down domains won't prevent further legal action. The last thing a large corporation needs, is more power to abuse. The last thing the public needs, is yet another means to frivolously lock up domains. Getting a court order that has no actual merit, isn't really that difficult. It literally happens all the time.

 

[FolioTeam]

That sounds like a reasonable policy. Thank you for that update. Truly.

I agree. Though I feel the 30 days should be at least 60-90 days.

Remember, this policy doesn't just cover the scenario we have witnessed on this thread but all other disputes including cases of ownership and theft. So, 30 days might not be ample time to get that court order

 

[TheBaldOne]

I agree. 90 days feels more appropriate

I disagree.

Imagine the situation whereby a large public auction is coming up where it is likely that at least a few very valuable domains are going to be listed for sale. The auctioneers and indeed domain name owners announce the names of these domains to be included in the auction well in advance so as to garner publicity and hopefully bidders. This case has shown that for just $12 or so someone can initiate legal proceedings and this would have the possible effect of having the domains 'locked' by GoDaddy or any other registrar for a period of 30 days which might well include the date of the auction itself.

(Please note that @Paul Nicks refused to answer my earlier question as to whether the proposed '30 day lock' was a singular non-repeatable event or that it was one that could be repeated indefinitely as a series of 30 day locks.)

In the above event happening how would the auctioneer be able to:

1) ... auction the domain name without issuing a vary broad disclaimer that the domain was locked by the registar and that the sale might be nullified after the auction ended or that transfer of ownership of the domain name to the winner of the auction might only occur at some unknown date in the future, if indeed at all?

2) ... how can anyone under such circumstances expect the domain name thus affected as above to achieve its highest possible likely bid price?

Such a situation would be absolute manner from heaven for scammers, imagine the opportunities that would arise to blackmail owners, auctioneers, or indeed likely buyers so as to extort payment from them with the promise not to launch such legal proceedings.

This proposed solution is just trying to clear up one self inflicted mess by GoDaddy with a solution that indeed would create a whole plethora of even worse scenarios by imposing said solution.

This proposed solution is badly thought out and unworkable in my opinion.

Domains should only be locked by the registrars IF a court order in the correct jurisdiction exists OR there is clear evidence of the likelihood of theft of the domain having occurred.

 

[FolioTeam]

I disagree.

Imagine the situation whereby a large public auction is coming up where it is likely that at least a few very valuable domains are going to be listed for sale. The auctioneers and indeed domain name owners announce the names of these domains to be included in the auction well in advance so as to garner publicity and hopefully bidders. This case has shown that for just $12 or so someone can initiate legal proceedings and this would have the possible effect of having the domains 'locked' by GoDaddy or any other registrar for a period of 30 days which might well include the date of the auction itself.

(Please note that @Paul Nicks refused to answer my earlier question as to whether the proposed '30 day lock' was a singular non-repeatable event or that it was one that could be repeated indefinitely as a series of 30 day locks.)

In the above event happening how would the auctioneer be able to:

1) ... auction the domain name without issuing a vary broad disclaimer that the domain was locked by the registry and that the sale might be nullified after the auction ended or that transfer of ownership of the domain name to the winner of the auction might only occur at some unknown date in the future, if indeed at all?

2) ... how can anyone under such circumstances expect the domain name thus affected as above to achieve its highest possible likely bid price?

Such a situation would be absolute manner from heaven for scammers, imagine the opportunities that would arise to blackmail owners, auctioneers, or indeed likely buyers so as to extort payment from them with the promise not to launch such legal proceedings.

This proposed solution is just trying to clear up one self inflicted mess by GoDaddy with a solution that indeed would create a whole plethora of even worse scenarios by imposing said solution.

This proposed solution is badly thought out and unworkable in my opinion.

Domains should only be locked by the registrars IF a court order in the correct jurisdiction exists OR there is clear evidence of the likelihood of theft of the domain having occurred.

I understand your concerns which are valid. But remember this GoDaddy policy covers scenarios far broader than this particular incident.

What happens when your domain name is stolen from your GoDaddy account and your court order isn't issued before the 30-day hold deadline elapses?

 

[Tryjake]

I agree or just take a film now @googlegawk.com @Dynadot @GoDaddy @namecheap @Sedo

https://actnow.io/ozuAxSd

 

[TheBaldOne]

I understand your concerns which are valid. But remember this GoDaddy policy covers scenarios far broader than this particular incident.

What happens when your domain name is stolen from your GoDaddy account and your court order isn't issued before the 30-day hold deadline elapses?

Please see the provisos at the bottom of my post: "Domains should only be locked by the registrars IF a court order in the correct jurisdiction exists OR there is clear evidence of the likelihood of theft of the domain having occurred."

I think that covers the situation you mention.

 

[The Rover]

I understand your concerns which are valid. But remember this GoDaddy policy covers scenarios far broader than this particular incident.

What happens when your domain name is stolen from your GoDaddy account and your court order isn't issued before the 30-day hold deadline elapses?

Then that particular case has serious merit, and the person stealing that domain is in serious trouble. Valuable domains don't simply evaporate into the Ether. They can be recovered. Locking them down doesn't change the outcome of a case nor the penalties of the crime. That said, outright domain theft is normally caught within 30 days. It's normally rather obvious and depending on how a domain is stolen, the registrars do have some power there to assist the victim.

 

[Sutruk]

I agree. 90 days feels more appropriate

I disagree. 30 days is more than enough to have your domain locked without a court order.

 

[Sutruk]

That said, outright domain theft is normally caught within 30 days. It's normally rather obvious and depending on how a domain is stolen, the registrars do have some power there to assist the victim.

Totally agree.

 

[Sutruk]

All, I’d like to provide the community with another update on the recent situation. I appreciate all the opinions and engagement from the community.

As we reviewed our policies and procedures, our goal was to do what’s right for our domain investors and to protect the industry from domain theft. Your domain names need to be accessible and sellable, we get it. To be clear, this isn’t just about Brent’s issue, it’s about the long-term health of the aftermarket. The aftermarket has changed in the last 20 years, and our long-standing policy needed to address these changes.

Frankly, we needed to evolve with the times. After many discussions with outside experts, lawyers, and trade groups, we believe we have found the right balance. The new solution allows domain investing businesses to proceed while having robust anti-theft measures.

Moving forward, when we are notified of a legal dispute between two parties, we will not lock domains by default as we had previously done. We will review each notification and reserve the right to impose a 30-day interim hold, in part to help protect against improper domain flight, until a court order is obtained by the complainant. If a court order has not been received within 30 days of implementing a hold, then we will remove the hold.

While we can't guarantee we can stop all abuse of our system, we will use best efforts and multiple layers of review to root out potential bad actors.

As this rolls out, please let me know if you hear of any issue the new policy is raising. We'll continue to listen to your feedback and review our policies to ensure they do what's right for the domain investor community, while still maintaining antitheft practices.

Paul, thanks for the update and for having improved your policy to solve this issues in future.
I agree that you have to review each notification case by case and don't lock domains by default as previously.
A 30 days lock seems fair, until a court order is obtained. You must take care, protect and support your customers from having their domains locked by foreign claims without merit.

 

[oldtimer]

If we could come up with a consolidated list I would be more than happy to bring it to the ICA.

Should I start a separate thread about it?

Brad

Sure, but make it about Registrars and Registries in general and what ICA is going to do to protect the Registrants Rights so that we can have the same protections no matter where we choose to keep our domains at.

The first question that needs to be addressed is that why there has to be so many different TOS and polices in the domain Industry when it comes to Registrants Rights.

We can not allow this situation to die down without it resulting in some sincere and substantial changes in the status quo of how things are being run in the domain Industry.

Although the goal should not be to Destroy but rather to Reform.

IMO

 

[CatchDeleted]

Thanks @Paul Nicks! Appreciate GoDaddy for quick action on this. To the gentleman who will go in Hall of Shame forever. Next time you have 11 bucks use it to register a domain and not to file a case. .. You better change your name third time..

 

[bmugford]

Sure, but make it about Registrars and Registries in general and what ICA is going to do to protect the Registrants Rights so that we can have the same protections no matter where we choose to keep our domains at.

The first question that needs to be addressed is that why there has to be so many different TOS and polices in the domain Industry when it comes to Registrants Rights.

We can not allow this situation to die down without it resulting in some sincere and substantial changes in the status quo of how things are being run in the domain Industry.

Although the goal should not be to Destroy but rather to Reform.

IMO

I agree, but it is not like these things are quick or easy to change. Lots of these policies are ICANN based.

I would love to see some universal, common sense Registrant Bill of Rights when it comes to domain names.

I will create a thread related to that.

Brad

 

[Lox]

Let’s not waste anymore time.

All parties involved, they’re responsible for their mess and for taking our precious time.
The bot did a nice DD.

They did a few things behind the scenes & it didn't end well.
It was a half-half mess, miscommunication, misinterpretation, hope based on promises, brokerage piracy, waxing, ... pudding all over the place.

GDs job is to protect their customers right. Lego serious play.
B.O. job is to avoid dancing again with a discount brokers.
P.A. job is to recover from burnout / pressure, fix the "influencers" crap and have a great life.
Person 1,2,3,4 and 5 job is to avoid using a strategy called tortious interference. (And yes this did happen. Again! B Boys!)

Now, this "drama/s" @ NP is taking mine & your precious time, a time that could be spent with your family, friends or relaxing in other ways - counting star$.

Next time you see "drama" thread, make a perfect cup of tea and hug a pillow.

ZIP

Regards

 

[oldtimer]

I agree, but it is not like these things are quick or easy to change. Lots of these policies are ICANN based.

I would love to see some universal, common sense Registrant Bill of Rights when it comes to domain names.

I will create a thread related to that.

Brad

That's great, we need more good guys like you in the domain Industry.

Although some problems that domainers complain about might seem trivial to the big companies and organizations that exist in the domain Industry, but nevertheless we need to create a united front against some of the tyrannical forces and their pundits who want to trample on our rights.

One thing is for sure a lot of nasty things are going on behind the scenes in the domain Industry which affect not only our situation as domainers, but the end users and the general public too who most likely have no clue as to how they have been taken advantage of over the years.

We need to make sure that everything is going to be up an up in the domain Industry from this point on not only for our sake as domainers, but also for the sake of millions and millions of domain name Registrants out there who perhaps don't have all the resources and knowhow that are available to us.

IMO

 

[Lox]

The ICA really is a worthwhile organization. If anyone wants to join, their support is very much appreciated.

Even if you can't or don't want to make a financial contribution just supporting the message and cause is also appreciated.

Show attachment 185460

Temporarily, I trust more Facebook Privacy Policy vs ICA. Once they turn off compatibility broship and kick out a few candies, I will go in and wear a ICA shirt 8h/day.

Things can change anytime.

Regards

 

[Jeremiah S]

Thanks @Paul Nicks! Appreciate GoDaddy for quick action on this. To the gentleman who will go in Hall of Shame forever. Next time you have 11 bucks use it to register a domain and not to file a case. .. You better change your name third time..

RIP

 

[oldtimer]

I will go in and wear a ICA shirt 8h/day.

Thanks for volunteering,

We need a few guys like you and Brad to bring Transparency and Accountability to this Industry. (starting with ICA itself)

IMO

 

[WINNA]

Damage has been done now PooDaddy.com

You should be called Dogaddy.com registrar for Dogs!

I say for one NoDady.com

 

[Samer]

Damage has been done now PooDaddy.com

You should be called Dogaddy.com registrar for Dogs!

I say for one NoDady.com

It has to be bad enough for Netflix to want the streaming rights.

I think it shouldnt stop here, since the damage confidence of people who trusted Godaddy to have common sense especially for the court of law where the Country operates in. (US, AZ?)

I wish someone would still bring up the issue at their next shareholder meeting;
it’d be nice to hear something from the CEO; GD do not value Domainers, as try show?

Most dont 500 or 250 to waive "Hostage Tax" which doubled price. At least grandfathered : )

making interesting for sure thought watchin collapse Roman Empire again. But as many pointed; aided by coverage (or lack thereof) Now "Fixed" what is there to report? The "new" i dont trust 90, 30. Make perpetuity &UScourts.
If anyone see Aman; never had reason ask him before; job tough enough run GD ya kno?
Would cool if acknowledge next share meeting changes and try act side of registrants, instead hiding TOS; behind littlest sign trouble.

Does he know? 100% 3rd person accounts.
Can you make "amendment" in writing official. Maybe by announcing it next board meeting! Probably will be blimp radar.... Hahaha

@create.com maybe i have too much kindness
It would b anti-climactic if settled confidentially, with behemoth Godaddy, who actually makes everything go away with money, it seems. think they bought NoDaddy.com (two D's) hope they have thicker skin and dont buy one 1 D 1 here and just do the right thing.

"We made mistake, dont care trust granted."
"We will notify you NOW (since didnt before, but OK better now than never.)

Abuse of power, and lack of empathy by GD; —@Paul Nicks alllllll business. Thank you Paul! We value your time, since one of the few can get changes done GD

Hope whatever in private hope it was worth it, @create.com Update Pl If significant money settlement; Use start own Registrar : ))

Call it Create.com, @create.com thread shud stay open.. still holes fill, but happy so far.

It's lack of transparency why people resorted to thought Politics as reason GD’s behavior,
and i believe them. Funny part, i never knew Brent's Political views, but i sure do Godaddy's.(find out when sites not GD beliefs, get shut; sad times; afraid as GD further aligns itself ideologically; — i fear more intolerance!

They're going to come for "Godaddy" soon.
"Daddy" isnt gender-neutral. prospective fight, and lol i cant begin to fathom the alternatives.

Rename yourselves... just in case. : ))

 

[tonyk2000]

George Kirikos posted a good analysis of the applicable ICANN policy (TDRP - Transfer Dispute Resolution Procedure), right in this thread:
https://www.namepros.com/posts/8189433/

Since, as per ICANN, a court order is required in such a case - why would GoDaddy still lock the domain(s) without a court order, for 1 day, or for 30 days?

@Paul Nicks , can you please clarify GoDaddys position in the above aspect - TDRP policy?

 

[carob]

Limiting the discretionary lock to 30 days is a good step forwards.

Does anyone have a definitive list of the countries where Godaddy have a legal presence? Is it this: https://uk.godaddy.com/contact-us ?

Will a court order in any country where Godaddy has a legal presence be sufficient to lock a domain, regardless of the location of the domain registrant?


If Godaddy want to support transparency and good behaviour in the domain world, will they please use their vote to help all *.uk domain owners by supporting the much needed reforms to the controlling body, Nominet UK? @Paul Nicks @Joe Styler Godaddy are still sitting on the fence in advance of the vote next week - whereas @namecheap openly support the reforms.

You can see the positions taken by registrars at https://publicbenefit.uk/#support

 

[Alop]

It has to be bad enough for Netflix to want the streaming rights.

I think it shouldnt stop here, since the damage confidence of people who trusted Godaddy to have common sense especially for the court of law where the Country operates in. (US, AZ?)

I wish someone would still bring up the issue at their next shareholder meeting;
it would be nice to hear something from the CEO; They dont value Domainers, as try show?

Most Dont have 500 or 250 Domains or whatever to get waived "Hostage Tax" which you've since doubled. At least i was grandfathered $79.99 price! : )

making interesting for sure I thought we watching collapse Roman Empire again. But as many pointed; they aided by the coverage (or lack thereof) Now "Fixed" what is there to report? The "new" changes? I dont trust them, guess 90 days beats 30 perpetuity & follow US courts
If anyone sees Aman; I never had reasons to ask him anything before;
His job was tough enough running Godaddy, ya know?
Would be cool if acknowledge in the next shareholder meeting changes and try like you're on the side of your registrants, instead of hiding to dry citing TOS; behind the littlest sign trouble.

It's who you know. Does Aman know? We keep hearing third persona ccoutns of his views this-- How does he feel?
Can you make this "amendment" in writing and official. Maybe by announcing it next meeting! Probably be blimp radar.... Hahaha

@create.com maybe i have too much kindness in my heart.
It would be anti-climactic if you settled confidentially, with the behemoth Godaddy, who actually make everything go away with money, it seems. I think they bought NoDaddy.com (two D's) & i hope they have thicker skin and dont buy the one with 1 D, and just do the right thing.

"We made a mistake, and we dont care your trust for granted."
"We will notify you NOW (since didnt before, but OK better now than never.)

Abuse of power, and lack of empathy by @Paul Nicks alllllll business.
Thank you, Paul! We value your time, since you're one of the few can get changes done GD.

Hope whatever said private worth it, @create.com Update us Pl
If you get significant monetary settlement; Use it to start your own Registrar : ))

Call it Create.com, @create.com I'll remain captiously optimistic.
This thread should remain open.. holes to fill, but I'm happy so far

It's the lack of transparency why people resorted thought Politics as the reason this behavior,
and i believe them. Funny part, i never knew Brent's Political views, but i sure do Godaddy's. (You find out when sites on opposite side of GD beliefs, get shut down; sad times i'm afraid as Godaddy further aligns itself ideologically with certain agendas...

They're going to come for "Godaddy" soon.
"Daddy" isnt gender-neutral. That's prospective fight, i cant begin to fathom the alternatives.

Rename yourselves... Just ideas, as you further get ready to take down more websites;
This was a new low;

No it’s not Roman Empire ..we are just running circles here ..Even Netflix may not want the “stream” any more

 

[Sutruk]

Will a court order in any country where Godaddy has a legal presence be sufficient to lock a domain, regardless of the location of the domain registrant?

I think it should be backed by a US court order that is from where Godaddy has its main office, or backed at least by a court order from the country of the domain registrant, if Godaddy also has legal presence there.
Let's not forget that the domain registrant is paying for the asset and Godaddy must, or should protect his or her domains.

 

[FolioTeam]

I think it should be backed by a US court order that is from where Godaddy has its main office, or backed at least by a court order from the country of the domain registrant, if Godaddy also has legal presence there.
Let's not forget that the domain registrant is paying for the asset and Godaddy must, or should protect his or her domains.

International laws are intricate. Only a lawyer can really tell us how it works. What happens when both parties are from outside the US or the complainant is from the US and the registrant from India?