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

 

[Sutruk]

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.

You are right. But in this case the registrar, Godaddy, has 53 offices around the world, and is taking attention only to the India branch.
So in my opinion, Godaddy should not do nothing until there's a court order, and only from the two of its offices from where are the two parties involved, India and US. Taking only consideration of the Indian court would not be quite normal, in my opinion.
I was just talking about the asset, to see from where it is, as Godaddy has so many branches to look from where it is. So if you have to "untie" to see what jurisdiction must prevail, it should be the one of the main office of Godaddy, this is the US, or the one from where its client is paying for the asset, and this is also the US jurisdiction.

 

[Mister Funsky]

I've been keeping up with the posts and there seems to be no response here or anywhere else from daddy (top level response).

Tonight is earmarked for other things, but if daddy doesn't make an official statement here or in another industry related thread by tomorrow this time, another name transfer marathon will start. Like someone said above, most of my names are at other registrars but I have left the numerous auction wins from the last few months at daddy.

Guess they might all have a new home soon.

 

[Future Sensors]

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.

At the highest level, Signing of the DNS Root, there are Trusted Community Representatives (TCRs), who have a fair representation from countries over the world. In short, I can say that this is handled very carefully.

The .com TLD has US roots, but here too, stakeholders are handled with care. There has been a 'battle' between ICANN and ITU, but for the time being it has been silent on that front.

https://www.iana.org/dnssec/tcrs
https://www.circleid.com/posts/the_geo_politics_of_icann_vs_itu/

 

[oldtimer]

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

Brad, even if Godaddy wants to change direction at this point it's not something that is going to happen overnight and it certainly is not something that their Reps can announce here on this forum,

It's not beyond reason to assume that even the lawyers might not know exactly what the right course of action is to take in this situation.

GoDaddy's legal team has to consult with ICANN's legal team in addition to any other official organizations and agencies that are involved here in order to sort things out and that may take months knowing the scope and scale of this situation.

At this point any changes in rules and Policies regarding Registrants Rights including locking domain names and the authority and jurisdiction that is required to do so has to be made by ICANN and not by any Registrar or Registry on a random basis.

IMO

 

[Amar D]

I'm using his hosting services and they're great.

 

[creataweb]

I'm using his hosting services and they're great.

Free for 2 yrs for us? Sign me up.

 

[Rich]

...

 

[lambo.com]

If, indeed, Godaddy did not debit @create.com for domain renewals as demanded by registrant but rather paid on their own account - such an act with be akin to an asset forfeiture attempt by way of jostling and inserting implications into their own claimancy. A fair declaration of meta-war alone, I'd say.

 

[Lox]

.

If, indeed, Godaddy did not debit @create.com for domain renewals as demanded by registrant but rather paid on their own account - such an act with be akin to an asset forfeiture attempt by way of jostling and inserting implications into their own claimancy. A fair declaration of meta-war alone, I'd say.

^ Post
"Consistent with our policy, we have paid for renewals and will continue to pay for renewals as necessary."

This means you can read GD ToS/ToC etc for hours and

 

[Paul Nicks]

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

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.

 

[oldtimer]

@Paul Nicks ,

This is a very positive step towards transparency and providing better customer care,

Lets hope that we all can find the best practices for the domain Industry as a whole in situations like this,

Keep up the good work,

IMO

 

[bmugford]

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.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the response. I think keeping the community updated is very important in this case since it involves registrant rights in general.

As I mentioned the other day, I think GoDaddy would greatly benefit by adding more resources to communicate with the investment community, especially on NamePros.

Compared to the size of GoDaddy, the engagement with the investment community is lacking. You and Joe do as well as you can, but have full time jobs outside NamePros that keep you very busy. You guys can't be everywhere at once.

When you have a lack of engagement it is easier to fill the gaps with conspiratorial thoughts and opinions.

In this case I don't really care about the political beliefs of anyone involved, this is simply about property rights and protections.

I would like to know what happened, how it happened, what GoDaddy is going to do about it, and what GoDaddy is going to change going forward.

Brad

 

[Sutruk]

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.

Hi Paul. First of all thanks for your post.
Here comes my question: Please, can you define "registration rights"?
Because you immediately talk about Create.com, and as @create.com says, he acquired this domain on 2015, before engaging in any business or contact with the other party.
So, how can you talk for two times about "registration rights" and then say that the lock of Create.com follows your standard operating procedure, when here there's no "registration rights" involved?

I'm still waiting for Godaddy to explain why they locked Create.com, especially when considering that I purchased it in August of 2015, and it wasn't until years later Puenet and I met!

Thanks!

 

[Chris Hydrick]

The heart of the matter is that there is a dispute involving registration rights between two parties who both acknowledge a prior working relationship.

Here comes my question: Please, can you define "registration rights"?
Because you immediately talk about Create.com, and as @create.com says, he acquired this domain on 2015, before engaging in any business or contact with the other party.
So, how can you talk for two times about "registration rights" and then say that the lock of Create.com follows your standart operating procedure, when here there's
no "registration rights" involved?

Exactly!

This is beginning to sound more and more like domains scammy/extorty version of Kleiman V. Wright. Except that case has actual court orders (I think)....

tagging @SatoshiNakamoto

 

[DOMAIN ILLUMINATI]

... popping more popcorn ...

... as the popcorn ...

... explode from popcorn ...

... need more popcorn ...

Show attachment 184376

... on the popcorn ...

... is just popcorn ...

... pop some popcorn ...

... ...

Popcorn still going ...

Show attachment 184655

Aside from all tragedies that the www. can bring (along with all the advances of course) us, I recommend topcorn instead of popcorn.

@Paul Nicks (GoDaddy)
In meanwhile I am only grateful that GoDaddy never offered .top domain - registrations.

 

[Silentptnr]

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.

It seems nonsensical that a domain registration rights issue without any proof of ownership or interest from one party would outweigh the clear rights of another. GoDaddys legal teams decision to lock the registrants rights without evidence of ownership from the complainant is wrong on many levels. GoDaddy will more than likely be sued for this blunder. As well they should imo.

 

[Shimmy]

I don’t understand why people are thanking Paul Nicks, all he said is if you claim rights to any domain at GoDaddy they will keep the domain locked for at least a year, and not give a damn about it until a ton of people start complaining.

 

[Keith]

The scary thing here is how quick registrars will side with the opposition. It happened with Netsol and France.com

At some point we have to demand a registrar that puts the rights of registrants first. They work for us, not vice versa.

 

[DomainBarracksRob]

I have yet to catch up on this thread and will in due time...but wanted everyone to know this was shared on LinkedIn so I’m sharing it here

Something to think about come renewal<Transfer

 

[Keith]

I want to move my domains to the blockchain. Decentraweb.

Who’s building that tech? My .com under my control without a third party interfering!!!

 

[Maximinus]

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.

Hello @Paul Nicks,
Please, help me understand your "lock procedure"!
You're mentioning the term "lawsuit":

As for Create.com, it was added to the lawsuit

Are you referring to the Radjasthan court lawsuit?
How much "GoDaddy" as an US entity falls in the jurisdiction of any Indian court?
Is it enough to inform your legal team for the start of any lawsuit, anywhere in the world, in order to engage your standard operating lock domains procedure?
Best Regards

 

[rh2000]

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.

You must not know how bad you sound.

 

[boker]

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, you are talking about registration rights dispute but even the plaintiff could say it again and again for you to understand, he is not arguing that he has any rights to register those domains, he is just arguing that he should receive some kind of commission, so is plain and simple a commercial dispute between two sides, nothing else. The thing about create.com it's even more absurd. You have been involved in something that doesn't concern you and you are doing things that is not your right to do it. I can't understand why is taking you more than a second to correct this thing. So, you can't argue properly about anything in this case, but you still need time to debate something. The next thing, we will see godaddy being involved in 90% of commercial disputes just because the plaintiff or the defendant owns a domain at godaddy or used godaddy at some point. This is just going from bad to worst, bud godaddy needs time to think about this. Absurd and illegal. If Brent will not sue you after all this is over, than he deserves all this as a lesson.

 

[Sutruk]

So, you are talking about registration rights dispute but even the plaintiff could say it again and again for you to understand, he is not arguing that he has any rights to register those domains, he is just arguing that he should receive some kind of commission, so is plain and simple a commercial dispute between two sides, nothing else.

This, exactly. Paul is talking about "registration rights" when this is not the case. As you say, this is a question of commission, that should be a commercial dispute as you say, and not about "registration rights".
Godaddy is wrong from the very first second they locked the domains, because there's no trademark or "registration right" issue here, but a mere commercial dispute about commissions.
Besides the fact that there's no court order to lock the domains.

 

[Silentptnr]

To me, it is even more insulting that a complainant just for sh*ts and giggles decided to add create.com to the list and GoDaddy immediately complied. Makes no friggin sense.

I could see GoDaddy telling a person they would consider a court order, but to just lock the domains seems like bad business. No excuses.