Epik.com Locking Policies

[Name Trader]

I've just been told by Epik support that if I purchase a domain from another customer and it's pushed to my account, that it is locked for another 60 days. JUST LIKE @ GODADDY. If this is true, that's me done with Epik as a customer. One of the worst policies GoDaddy has is a new 60 day hold on a push. And now I'm being told it is the same at Epik. That's the end of my experiment with Epik (:

 

[branding]

You guys are all aware that generally speaking the 60-day lock policy is there to protect the industry at large right? There's a lot of fraud in any and all industries where there are sales and transactions .. particularly of digital products.

I'll be the first to say it's a pain in the butt .. however the consequences of not having such a lock are far worse than having it.

I think that it most certainly could be reduced down to 35 days .. but removing it completely, while being amazing for domain management .. would have significant consequences in terms of fraud.


That being said .. if ever you need an exception you'd probably be better served talking to @Rob Monster or someone higher up at @epik .. as long as you don't abuse the privilege, I'm sure if the changes of ownership were clear and they get direct consent from the previous owner, they could look into making an exception every now and then. But because of the security aspects I mentioned above, it shouldn't be something too easy to do.

I don't agree. Domain locks are ment to protect the customer. Additional locks imposed upon us by registrars are protecting the registrar/sales venue, not us.

If I want to lock a domain, I'll just lock it myself. Forced locks are never in the owners best interest.

 

[Name Trader]

Very strange indeed. Unless it's a new registration and there's some time left on the first 60 days there should not be any lock at all.

It's less than two months to expiry, and 1.5 months from the 60 day expiry

 

[Name Trader]

Hi there!

A 60 day lock is a standard necessity. Thats security and protection system. If you want to transfer all your questions between accounts and registrars, send me a PM and I`m discuss this issue with the team and you personallly.

I've DM'd you with my case. But I do not accept your reasoning for a domain received by a push being locked unnecessarily for 60 days. Whois it that protecting? Certainly not me, or the previous owner.

 

[Rob Monster]

The only locks we actually enforce are the first 60 days of a domain's life.

The other locks of 60-day wait between registrants mainly exist to prevent fraudulent conveyance of a domain through daisy chain of registrar hopping that would make IRTP almost impossible for unwinding a domain sale.

For example, last night, we were informed by Web.com that a 5L brandable .com domain bought by a customer on May 12 at Sedo was stolen goods. The domain had just arrived.

In this case, the domain buyer should be able to get a refund from Sedo as a condition for unwinding that transfer. I am guessing Web.com will end up paying off Sedo if they can't track down the seller.

Now, imagine if between May 12 and today the domain had hopped between 3 or 4 registrars. It would have been almost impossible to unwind.

So, no, we don't enforce arbitrary locks and will almost always remove them upon request, but I believe that is the reason why the 60-day cooling off period exists.

For escrow transactions, we don't enforce these locks unless the buyer is paying with a credit card or PayPal where there are reasonable forensic concerns that the transaction is high risk.

The good news is that we actually take the time to review cases, and use increasingly smart analytics to manage those risks. The DNProtect.com project will take this very far in terms of:

- Domain Risk Assessment
- Domain Insurance
- Domain Monitoring for future impairment

@bhartzer is leading that for Epik -- a very ambitious project that is making steady progress.

See related info:

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/irtp-status-2018-11-14-en

 

[karmaco]

Hi there!

A 60 day lock is a standard necessity. Thats security and protection system. If you want to transfer all your questions between accounts and registrars, send me a PM and I`m discuss this issue with the team and you personallly.

Its not industry standard to lock even from pushes.

 

[D Haynes]

The only locks we actually enforce are the first 60 days of a domain's life.

The other locks of 60-day wait between registrants mainly exist to prevent fraudulent conveyance of a domain through daisy chain of registrar hopping that would make IRTP almost impossible for unwinding a domain sale.

For example, last night, we were informed by Web.com that a 5L brandable .com domain bought by a customer on May 12 at Sedo was stolen goods. The domain had just arrived.

In this case, the domain buyer should be able to get a refund from Sedo as a condition for unwinding that transfer. I am guessing Web.com will end up paying off Sedo if they can't track down the seller.

Now, imagine if between May 12 and today the domain had hopped between 3 or 4 registrars. It would have been almost impossible to unwind.

So, no, we don't enforce arbitrary locks and will almost always remove them upon request, but I believe that is the reason why the 60-day cooling off period exists.

For escrow transactions, we don't enforce these locks unless the buyer is paying with a credit card or PayPal where there are reasonable forensic concerns that the transaction is high risk.

The good news is that we actually take the time to review cases, and use increasingly smart analytics to manage those risks. The DNProtect.com project will take this very far in terms of:

- Domain Risk Assessment
- Domain Insurance
- Domain Monitoring for future impairment

@bhartzer is leading that for Epik -- a very ambitious project that is making steady progress.

See related info:

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/irtp-status-2018-11-14-en

When I requested the domain be unlocked I had to verify my account even though I have my account PIN. Now my account is veryfied will I be able to unlock my domains just by asking the live chat reps?

 

[Rob Monster]

When I requested the domain be unlocked I had to verify my account even though I have my account PIN. Now my account is veryfied will I be able to unlock my domains just by asking the live chat reps?

Yup, account was already approved for early pushes, bypassing the 60 day lock requirement. If you run into any push issues or transfer issues, contact @Jess Robison, @Sufyan Alani and we'll see what's up.

For folks with verified accounts, we'll be bringing forward a number of process automations related to domain movement and real-time cash out of proceeds.

That's why verification matters -- it is not to get into people's privacy or external regulators. This is just to allow process automation where we don't get scammed.

 

[Ategy]

I don't agree. Domain locks are ment to protect the customer. Additional locks imposed upon us by registrars are protecting the registrar/sales venue, not us.

I think maybe I'm a little unclear on the specifics here. Locks are supposed to happen when there is an ownership change. Usually triggered by a change in the name of a whois owner .. and sometimes a change in email.

Some registrars give a one-time option to impose or not impose the lock when the change is made.

When I say the rule is meant to protect the industry at large then that definitely includes us. Just do a search here at NP and you'll see tons of examples of stolen domains. Yes it is a pain, but it's not there for nothing .. it's simply the lesser of two evils.


As for Epik specifically, their current state and size is a massive bonus to you and all their customers. Compared to GD, they are (relatively) small and nimble (and caring) enough to make exceptions when it makes sense. I personally think that's amazing because it still leaves a general level of protection, while still allowing us to be flexible in the cases where we need an exception.

I actually have the perfect example. In April I transferred a domain that I owned a couple of years over to Epik. Then yesterday I got an email from Afternic saying there was an offer on the domain. After negotiating the price up, it looks like I'm going to make a sale. Since I was the previous owner of the domain at the other registrar (I'm assuming @Rob Monster can see and confirm that with some of the various WhoIs historic tools), then it's a very simply and risk-free unlock (if it needs to be done for Afternic to complete the sale).

 

[Chris Hydrick]

In this case, the domain buyer should be able to get a refund from Sedo as a condition for unwinding that transfer. I am guessing Web.com will end up paying off Sedo if they can't track down the seller.

Since when does Sedo issue refunds for stolen domain purchases?

See/Help @Daehler Ralph if that's the case.

Per his experience on the CWR.com thread

I have a very important message for all domainers. I have bought 1 month ago the domain cwr.com (Registrar Networksolutions) over Sedo for USD 19950 and the transfer happened successful after a few problems with an invalid Authorization Code for a transfer to my GoDaddy account, I decided to takeover the domain to my account by Networksolutions. But yesterday Network Solution has transferred the domain back to the old owner without any information. I have opened a ticket by Network Solution and they explained me that the domain was hijacked and sold later and also back transferred to the old owner.

Sedo hasn't checked well the whois-Informations with the seller contact information, which was somebody from Mexico.

Now I have lost my money and for Sedo is the task closed when the domain is transferred.

A warning on all domainers that can happen to everybody which buy a domain on a non-registrar-platform like Sedo.

Also, since when does Web.com (or network solutions) pay off Sedo (or other marketplaces) if they can't track down the seller?

I don't believe Web.com (or network solutions) had paid off @BoothDomains when he purchased an alleged stolen domain from somebody alleging to be the domain owner, @spoiltrider,

In fact, @BoothDomains resorted to (hiring, retained, or whatever the proper word is when you have a lawyer represent you) @Zak Muscovitch to represent him. To attempt to have the domain owner (@spoiltrider) pay @Zak Muscovitch $25k to facilitate the return of CQD.com from @BoothDomains and back to @spoiltrider .

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't believe that @BoothDomains was ever refunded the funds he allegedly lost in his alleged purchase of CQD.com. Be it by escrow.com, web.com, networksolutions.com. But, a lawyer got involved, so maybe I'm wrong.

 

[branding]

That's why verification matters -- it is not to get into people's privacy or external regulators. This is just to allow process automation where we don't get scammed.

Out of curiosity, what you need from the user to verify the account?

Even if it is like you say, and a verified account can easily have a lock lifted, the gaining account will end up with a locked domain.

I can think of a lot of reasons why this would be undesirable.

 

[Rob Monster]

Since when does Sedo issue refunds for stolen domain purchases?

See/Help @Daehler Ralph if that's the case.

Per his experience on the CWR.com thread



Also, since when does Web.com (or network solutions) pay off Sedo (or other marketplaces) if they can't track down the seller?

I don't believe Web.com (or network solutions) had paid off @BoothDomains when he purchased an alleged stolen domain from somebody alleging to be the domain owner, @spoiltrider,

If fact, @BoothDomains resulted to hiring @Zak Muscovitch to represent him. To attempt to have the domain owner (@spoiltrider) pay @Zak Muscovitch $25k to facilitate the return of CQD.com from @BoothDomains and back to @spoiltrider .

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't believe that @BoothDomains was ever refunded the fundeds he allegedly lost in his alleged purchase of CQD.com. Be it by escrow.com, web.com, networksolutions.com. But, a lawyer got involved, so maybe I'm wrong.

Earlier today, I spoke with the registrant @domainduude who paid $650 for a domain on Sedo ~10 days ago, paid via credit card. If the domain was not sold in good faith, he will be able to do a chargeback and we would provide evidence to support his claim that he was sold impaired goods.

If Sedo is smart, they will step up and clean up the mess, and chase down the seller. In the meantime, the domain is safely at Epik and sitting in the registrant's account while the various stakeholders clean up their mess.

Thankfully it is a small transaction and Sedo is able to do the honorable thing since they presided over the transaction.

As for cleaning up other people's messes, it is no secret that I sometimes assist as ombudsman in cases where I think I can be of some assistance. Sometimes people can be pragmatically brought to some amicable resolution. And sometimes egos get in the way, and those tend to not get cleaned up.

 

[branding]

I think maybe I'm a little unclear on the specifics here. Locks are supposed to happen when there is an ownership change. Usually triggered by a change in the name of a whois owner .. and sometimes a change in email.

Some registrars give a one-time option to impose or not impose the lock when the change is made.

When I say the rule is meant to protect the industry at large then that definitely includes us. Just do a search here at NP and you'll see tons of examples of stolen domains. Yes it is a pain, but it's not there for nothing .. it's simply the lesser of two evils.


As for Epik specifically, their current state and size is a massive bonus to you and all their customers. Compared to GD, they are (relatively) small and nimble (and caring) enough to make exceptions when it makes sense. I personally think that's amazing because it still leaves a general level of protection, while still allowing us to be flexible in the cases where we need an exception.

I actually have the perfect example. In April I transferred a domain that I owned a couple of years over to Epik. Then yesterday I got an email from Afternic saying there was an offer on the domain. After negotiating the price up, it looks like I'm going to make a sale. Since I was the previous owner of the domain at the other registrar (I'm assuming @Rob Monster can see and confirm that with some of the various WhoIs historic tools), then it's a very simply and risk-free unlock (if it needs to be done for Afternic to complete the sale).

Oh I definitely agree that it's awesome they're willing to judge things on a case by case basis. That's the power of Epik generally speaking. They're approachable and get shit done.

Now let me give you this example. A while ago I sold a domain held at Epik that got locked. Couldn't unlock 'supposedly'. The buyer wanted to have nothing to do with Epik as he didn't know the company. So I needed to transfer out.

Lucky he didn't mind waiting for 2 weeks untill I was able to transfer out but it is situations like this that can kill a sale.

Same if we would have decided to push it to his account. The name would get locked for 60 days and he would have been stuck there. Lets face it, a lot of endusers don't want or need their names to be at Epik. Obstacles like these keep people from using Epik.

 

[Ronald Regging]

How did the domain industry ever survive before these new and improved policies were incorporated? It's almost like they would have us believe that fraud is a new thing. The world may never know...

 

[Rob Monster]

Oh I definitely agree that it's awesome they're willing to judge things on a case by case basis. That's the power of Epik generally speaking. They're approachable and get shit done.

Now let me give you this example. A while ago I sold a domain held at Epik that got locked. Couldn't unlock 'supposedly'. The buyer wanted to have nothing to do with Epik as he didn't know the company. So I needed to transfer out.

Lucky he didn't mind waiting for 2 weeks untill I was able to transfer out but it is situations like this that can kill a sale.

Same if we would have decided to push it to his account. The name would get locked for 60 days and he would have been stuck there. Lets face it, a lot of endusers don't want or need their names to be at Epik. Obstacles like these keep people from using Epik.

As you say, we get stuff done. If some deal is at risk due to an Epik policy, we can almost always fast-track a resolution 7 days a week. Fact.

 

[Rob Monster]

How did the domain industry ever survive before these new and improved policies were incorporated? It's almost like they would have us believe that fraud is a new thing. The world may never know...

Fraud happens in domaining. As people get more desperate, more fraud happens. In my experience, the all-knowing and all-seeing God of the universe who allows someone to be presented with the temptation to commit blatant fraud will also provide the way out. If everyone in the industry chooses wisely, it will help make it even more inviting for new industry participants without triggering more regulatory nonsense.

 

[Ronald Regging]

If everyone in the industry chooses wisely, it will help make it even more inviting for new industry participants without triggering more regulatory nonsense.

Again, the industry has been mostly unregulated for decades. Are there any studies showing that domain fraud is increasing and becoming a huge problem where it never was before? I would personally argue for more regulation in some ways due to the fact that registrars are censoring domains based on website content and also incorporating policies such as yours to unduly burden it's customers.

 

[Rob Monster]

Again, the industry has been mostly unregulated for decades. Are there any studies showing that domain fraud is increasing and becoming a huge problem where it never was before? I would personally argue for more regulation in some ways due to the fact that registrars are censoring domains based on website content and also incorporating policies such as yours to unduly burden it's customers.

ICYMI, @epik has carried about as much burden for registrant rights as anyone both externally in the media, but also internally as a member of the ICANN registrar stakeholder group. We are not advocating for more regulatory intervention -- quite the contrary. I would give you screen shots of these discussions but since the ICANN Registrar stakeholder group is governed by Chatham House rules, you will have to settle my assurance that there are some folks that are going to bat regularly, and I would include EasyDNS, Tucows and Epik as among the most active on holding the line there.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Again, the industry has been mostly unregulated for decades. Are there any studies showing that domain fraud is increasing and becoming a huge problem where it never was before?

Great point.

There are recent opinion pieces published on main stream media.

Such as:

[Forbes] Why the largest cyber attack in history COULD happen within six months [May 14th, 2020]

But that article is generic to cyber attacks, and is citing the current pandemic as contributing increased factors that could lead to such.

<< Also, as a kind of messed up tactic by Forbes.com, the URL conatins
why-the-largest-cyberattack-in-history-will-happen-within-six-months
But the headline on the article says could happen. I wonder if that is intentional? >>

With regards to fraud in the domain industry.

One would have to open the domain history book
to see where fraud was at prior,
to know if current levels of fraud,
have risen to a huge problem,
unlike never before.

Searching...
both public information, and***
*** private information domainers try to keep secret. I think I heard an epik employee talk about (in a public zoom conference) domainings history of domainers in hotel rooms bidding on each other domains. I could try to dig that excerpt up if anyone is interested.

I would personally argue for more regulation in some ways due to the fact that registrars are censoring domains based on website content and also incorporating policies such as yours to unduly burden it's customers.

As the world evolves, hopefully the internet will too.

Fear of eternal damnation shouldn't be the only fraud deterrent if it's possible to add logical processes in its place.

 

[Mifuru]

Out of curiosity, what you need from the user to verify the account?

Even if it is like you say, and a verified account can easily have a lock lifted, the gaining account will end up with a locked domain.

I can think of a lot of reasons why this would be undesirable.

The verification process takes a maximum of 12 hours. It is necessary to confirm operations with domains if you are a professional client with a large portfolio. Depending on the region, the support service may request different documents that confirm your identity.

 

[Mifuru]

Great point.

There are recent opinion pieces published on main stream media.

Such as:

[Forbes] Why the largest cyber attack in history COULD happen within six months [May 14th, 2020]

But that article is generic to cyber attacks, and is citing the current pandemic as contributing increased factors that could lead to such.

<< Also, as a kind of messed up tactic by Forbes.com, the URL conatins
why-the-largest-cyberattack-in-history-will-happen-within-six-months
But the headline on the article says could happen. I wonder if that is intentional? >>

With regards to fraud in the domain industry.

One would have to open the domain history book
to see where fraud was at prior,
to know if current levels of fraud,
have risen to a huge problem,
unlike never before.

Searching...
both public information, and***
*** private information domainers try to keep secret. I think I heard an epik employee talk about (in a public zoom conference) domainings history of domainers in hotel rooms bidding on each other domains. I could try to dig that excerpt up if anyone is interested.



As the world evolves, hopefully the internet will too.

Fear of eternal damnation shouldn't be the only fraud deterrent if it's possible to add logical processes in its place.

Where there is a lot of money, there will be fraud by default. I have read a lot of stories about this and so I can say with confidence that the actions of all registrars in recent years are aimed not only to expand the possibilities of buying/selling, but also security.

I read your article in Forbes. This is fortune-telling on coffee grounds. If an attack occurs, it will affect the most popular and vulnerable sectors. Personal data of users of Zoom, Hangouts, and other services.

Even against the background of a General pandemic, no one will forget about privacy and security. Therefore, there is no need to worry again. Just make sure that you have two-factor authentication installed and that you have a good password.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

I read your article in Forbes. This is fortune-telling on coffee grounds.

Not my article; just an article I shared.

And on the URL/Article headline discrepancies alone,

<< Also, as a kind of messed up tactic by Forbes.com, the URL conatins
why-the-largest-cyberattack-in-history-will-happen-within-six-months
But the headline on the article says could happen. I wonder if that is intentional? >>

one can infer the fortune-telling narrative,
without even having to read the article.

#clickbait but imagine the information spread (as with most main stream media) that occurs once published on a trusted site such as Forbes.

Are URLs (after the dot com) subject to the same scrutiny that article headlines are?

There seems to be quite a difference when saying something will happen compared to something could happen.

I think in the simplest form, that could be the basis of this thread.

One member possibly feeling a lock was put in place due to something that could happen, which was contrary to what the member believed will happen**

**will happen situationally dependent.

 

[Name Trader]

Everybody is just prevaricating here. @Rob Monster.

This is my request and the reply @Makise sent me. The title was the Domain Name in question.

Hi Makise,

OK. My username is XXXXXXX. I don't take you first premise as necessarily true. There are many registrars which don't hold a domain hostage (although it's still my domain) due to an internal push. Which is what has happened in this case. I don't accept there is any reason for me to not be able to transfer this domain. It was purchased from the previous owner of this domain, here on NPs. All Epik staff seem to disagree with this assessment. But at most registrars, I could do this, if it wasn't locked for 60 days.

I'm therefore asking that the lock is lifted for this domain, and if there is another lock in place which is harder to have unlocked, I need you to appeal to top management to have that lifted too. Also. As I have learned from that thread on NPs, that I can request that one, other, or both these locks can be lifted permanently, by placing a simple request. So I an requesting this permanent lifting of whichever lock(s) can be permanently lifted.

rgds
stu

and her reply

Hi! I receive a message from our CS director.

We cannot remove the 60-day lock due to the recent purchase. Most if not all Registrar's put a 60 day lock on domains that are newly purchase or if the Registrant details are updated.

If I read the post correctly, he did not make the purchase but someone else did and then pushed it to his Epik account. Who was the original buyer (the person that paid for the domain)?

Please specify all the necessary information.

Now I represent a Epik, but don 't forget that the user's opinion may not be
the same as the company's. Most often, I send messages as a regular user.

You can read for yourselves if I said anything like Epik's CS Director was suggesting. I think not. They get one more chance to fix this. My patience is now at breaking point.

 

[Rob Monster]

Everybody is just prevaricating here. @Rob Monster.

This is my request and the reply @Makise sent me. The title was the Domain Name in question.



and her reply



You can read for yourselves if I said anything like Epik's CS Director was suggesting. I think not. They get one more chance to fix this. My patience is now at breaking point.

@stub - I don't know what motivates someone to produce such a nonsense but let's be clear. I don't know who you are in real life. If you were ever an Epik client, it would have been small-time.

You are obviously very active here with an ASTOUNDiNG 24,000 posts. That's great. I suggest don't waste your reputation on a cheap shot. My advice is to have this thread deleted.

The funny thing about your silly thread is that in the span of 12 minutes, we have the following 3 folks contributing to this post:

Your registrar is Dynadot:

As for XYNames?

As for Grilled, he has been consistently subversive for weeks, enough for many folks to either take a break or quit NamePros entirely. The Moderators allow this nonsense.

Do you think people don't connect the dots? Of course they do. Like it or not, discerning people can and do spot the difference. People are not that stupid, guys. Sorry to disappoint you.

When folks conspire to produce rhetoric to align with a subversive agenda, you will find my engagement will be limited to calling out the nonsense that propagates it.

As for your opening premise, there is a fully operational policy of waiving 60-day locks upon request for unverified customers. For verified customers, it is typically not even in place.

In short, if your arbitrary interpretation of our transfer lock policy is the argument for why people would not overwhelmingly choose Epik as registrar, it is a weak case.

If you want to thoughtfully engage as a vested stakeholder in building the world's greatest registrar, I will sit down with you for as long as you like to review your feedback.

I think I sum it up nicely here:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6650803591445569536/

Those were not prepared remarks. It was a sincere statement from my heart, including the comment about embracing those who hold us to a higher standard. If that's you, I can accept that and respect it.

Hope that helps.

 

[equity78]

Since when does Sedo issue refunds for stolen domain purchases?

See/Help @Daehler Ralph if that's the case.

Per his experience on the CWR.com thread



Also, since when does Web.com (or network solutions) pay off Sedo (or other marketplaces) if they can't track down the seller?

I don't believe Web.com (or network solutions) had paid off @BoothDomains when he purchased an alleged stolen domain from somebody alleging to be the domain owner, @spoiltrider,

In fact, @BoothDomains resorted to (hiring, retained, or whatever the proper word is when you have a lawyer represent you) @Zak Muscovitch to represent him. To attempt to have the domain owner (@spoiltrider) pay @Zak Muscovitch $25k to facilitate the return of CQD.com from @BoothDomains and back to @spoiltrider .

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't believe that @BoothDomains was ever refunded the funds he allegedly lost in his alleged purchase of CQD.com. Be it by escrow.com, web.com, networksolutions.com. But, a lawyer got involved, so maybe I'm wrong.

Sedo does not refund you.

For an article I have not yet published because it's gotten more complicated and making sure all info is 100% accurate.

But Carolyn at Sedo was good enough to talk to their people and get me the direct answer

Unfortunately, as with anything sold on a secondary market, buyers bear a degree of risk that a domain was once stolen or that the seller has otherwise violated the terms of the purchase and sale agreement. While Sedo employs strict marketplace terms and conditions, between WHOIS privacy and disparate registry policies, it is impossible for Sedo or anyone to guarantee that a domain has never been stolen or remains subject to any other kind of legal dispute. The domain’s registrar, ICANN, or a court of law are the venues to resolve any dispute and Sedo gives our full cooperation once a dispute has been initiated.


We empathize with our buyer’s desire to eliminate that risk entirely but we ask buyers to perform their due diligence research prior to agreeing to a purchase (especially to ensure that their purchase or intended use does not violate a third party’s trademark which is a key element in UDRP proceedings) and to review their registrar policies on how they would handle a claim of domain theft.


Sedo does help our buyers minimize risk by requiring sellers to provide a legally binding representation and warranty that they have the authority to sell the name. Once a purchase and sale has been completed, however, Sedo cannot return the funds paid to a seller as we are not an appropriate party to arbitrate a dispute. If a domain is later taken away from a buyer because of the seller’s violation of the purchase and sale agreement Sedo advises the buyer to seek legal counsel to pursue the seller for breach of contract and will support the buyer by providing a documentation history regarding the transaction. This allows a buyer who ends up losing the domain because of theft to pursue the seller for a refund/damages.

 

[equity78]

Paul Nicks was kind enough to get GoDaddy Legal to answer

If I buy a domain at GoDaddy or Afternic, pay for it, goes through fine, you get the name pushed to you and you push to me, and somewhere down the road, someone comes back to me and says this name is stolen, and I lose that name either through the registrar taking it back, or a UDRP or any other process. Will GoDaddy/Afternic reimburse me for the stolen goods I purchased on their website?

The GoDaddy legal email is an auto reply, Sedo needed to speak to their legal team too, so I understand, I just wanted to make sure I could give GoDaddy's response in the article on how all marketplaces deal with theft and a customer left holding the bag.

Thank you

GoDaddy reply:

Sorry for delay. Here's our statement


When a customer lists a domain for sale at GoDaddy, they must state they are authorized to list and sell the domain name. If we find out a domain name has been stolen, we promptly remove it from the auction platform and ban the user.


One a domain auction is completed and there is a dispute regarding the rightful ownership of a domain, we do not get involved in the resolution of the dispute. That issue needs to be handled in the appropriate court of law.