Hosts.com - How Name.com defrauded me out of a great backorder

[GoWebnames.com]

Ok, here is a recap of what happened in short in last 10 days:

1) I was checking expiring names at Name.com and saw Hosts.com available for backorder since the original owner didn't renew it for some reason best known to him. Couldn't believe someone would let it expire, it's registered since 1998

2) Since Name.com accepts only 1 backorder per available name, I placed a backorder immediately and double checked to make sure if backorder was not available to anyone else. Soon as I placed a backorder, Hosts.com said it was not available for any other backorders.

3) The backorder was SUCCESSFUL and CONFIRMED to me by Name.com on my email (see screenshot)

4) 4 days later, I saw my backorder change to not available in my name.com account and when I checked Hosts.com again, it showed to be available as a PREMIUM NAME with Name.com

5) When I enquired with Name.com, they gave a vague answer saying backorder is only possible when Name is available.

6) I enquired through their interface, they gave me a BIN price of $175,000 for Hosts.com

Can you believe it? Name.com just defrauded me out of a great backorder and kept the name for themselves.

I am trying to talk to them , let's see what comes up.

Is there any possibility of a law suit here in case they don't transfer the name?

Here are the screenshots:

 

[AEProgram]

Did you actually think you had a chance to get hosts.com for $50?

if it dropped and name.com was the catcher he would have gotten it for 50 bucks, but it would never have dropped given name would auction it and possibly thru namejet.

 

[The New Guy]

if it dropped and name.com was the catcher he would have gotten it for 50 bucks, but it would never have dropped given name would auction it and possibly thru namejet.

That was part of my point.

When bespoke.com actually did drop this year, the winning drop catch cost nearly $20,000.

 

[GoWebnames.com]

That was part of my point.
When bespoke.com actually did drop this year, the winning drop catch cost nearly $20,000.

It depends how the backorder system works at different registrars.
At Name.com, they only take a single backorder for the name, so there aren't any auctions like you find at Namejet.
I remember from somewhere else on this forum, Mouthwash.com was awarded and caught by Name.com for someone for $50.

 

[GoWebnames.com]

My suspicion eventually proved right, the domain was kept by Name.com for themselves, after auto renewing the domain. Perhaps their system is designed to automatically open such names for backorder but when they must have realized the value of Hosts.com, they chose to keep the name for themselves without honoring my backorder first.

Here is the mail response from the Name.com agent who was selling the domain to me for $175,000 after Name.com cancelled my BO:

Name.com is the registrar of record for hosts.com and a subsidiary of Rightside.co. I work with Rightside and we are the current owners of the domain. If you would like to present your best offer I will certainly discuss it with my team.​

What I wrote to the sales agent:

Just wanted to know if you are making me the offer on behalf of Mr. Dan Sheley who's the original and current registrant of this domain in my understanding or you, at Name.com, have acquired this name from Mr. Dan Sheley and are negotiating on behalf of Name.com itself?​

Does ICANN allow that? If a registrar likes an expiring name, are they allowed to keep it themselves and put it on sale without first letting it go through the expiry / auction / drop route?

The thread title should be changed because you obviously don't understand how backorders work.

It seems you understand backorders much too well. How do you explain the whole situation?

 

[Soofi]

GoWebNames, you need a lawyer IMO

 

[chickenfillet]

My suspicion eventually proved right, the domain was kept by Name.com for themselves, after auto renewing the domain. Perhaps their system is designed to automatically open such names for backorder but when they must have realized the value of Hosts.com, they chose to keep the name for themselves without honoring my backorder first.

Here is the mail response from the Name.com agent who was selling the domain to me for $175,000 after Name.com cancelled my BO:

Name.com is the registrar of record for hosts.com and a subsidiary of Rightside.co. I work with Rightside and we are the current owners of the domain. If you would like to present your best offer I will certainly discuss it with my team.​

What I wrote to the sales agent:

Just wanted to know if you are making me the offer on behalf of Mr. Dan Sheley who's the original and current registrant of this domain in my understanding or you, at Name.com, have acquired this name from Mr. Dan Sheley and are negotiating on behalf of Name.com itself?​

Does ICANN allow that? If a registrar likes an expiring name, are they allowed to keep it themselves and put it on sale without first letting it go through the expiry / auction / drop route?



It seems you understand backorders much too well. How do you explain the whole situation?

Are you serious? Contact ICANN and explain the situation. This is what I would do, for myself:

DISCLOSURE: I AM NOT A LAWYER, AND YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE ANY ACTION BASED ON WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN BELOW. GET YOUR OWN ATTORNEY BEFORE TAKING ANY PRELIMINARY STEPS.

Get ICANN to legally ask name.com to explain chronologically what happened, how they obtained the domain name because the owner didn't renew it, and why they didn't honor your backorder request before they decided to keep it for themselves.

In summary: Tell ICANN that Name.com bypassed the the legal steps to obtaining a domain name legally as outlined in the ICANN rules for Registrars. Their are no laws that give Registrars "authority" to register dropped domain names WITHOUT the proper domain dropping procedures taking place.

If you can explain to ICANN that Name.com didn't follow the legal domain name dropping chronological steps, and that they bypassed it for "profits" sake, to keep it for themselves, you may well get Name.com sweating in front of ICANN.

EDIT: IT'S CONFIRMED.The Whois was updated September 19, and the DNS changed to ns1.sedoparking.com & ns2.sedoparking.com on September 21, so it definitely changed hands "for profit" or "to sell for profit". Heck, do you want me to contact ICANN for you and explain the situation? ICANN makes more money out of lawsuits than you can imagine.

I lol'd when the guy in the email wrote "current owner". Yea, he wasn't the "current owner" a few days ago. Hurry up and contact ICANN!

 

[GoWebnames.com]

Are you serious? Contact ICANN and explain the situation. This is what I would do, for myself:

EDIT: IT'S CONFIRMED.The Whois was updated September 19, and the DNS changed to ns1.sedoparking.com & ns2.sedoparking.com on September 21, so it definitely changed hands "for profit" or "to sell for profit". Heck, do you want me to contact ICANN for you and explain the situation? ICANN makes more money out of lawsuits than you can imagine.

I lol'd when the guy in the email wrote "current owner". Yea, he wasn't the "current owner" a few days ago. Hurry up and contact ICANN!

Sure, thanks for your help. If you may know, is there a specific dept. at ICANN that handles this?
Do you have any advice for a good internet lawyer? Not sure if John Berryhill would handle something other than UDRPs.

 

[Soofi]

John Berryhill is definitely a good option, however you could also seek help from Jason Schaeffer from Esqwire Inc or Karen Bernstein from Bernstein IP.

Let me know if you need introduction to any of these.

I also, sort of, know Akram Attalah (ICANN GLOBAL HEAD) and could introduce you to him as well.

Also, consider bringing this thread to the notice of Ron Jackson (DNJournal.com), Mike Berkens (TheDomains.com) and other domain name bloggers to highlight the issue through their websites.

Whatever it may be, take your chances and pursue what you think is right with proper proof.

Good luck!

 

[GoWebnames.com]

I have another followup mail from the Name.com agent (Rightside.co is the owner of Name.com):

On Thursday, September 25, 2014 12:59 AM, Sales ATN <[email protected]> wrote:​

Sunil,
I spoke with my team and we'd be willing to go as low as $125,000 for Hosts.com. This would be contingent on completing the deal this week. If agreed upon we could also add in hosts.org free of charge.

I look forward to your reply.
Regards,
Trevor
​

John Berryhill is definitely a good option, however you could also seek help from Jason Schaeffer from Esqwire Inc or Karen Bernstein from Bernstein IP.

Let me know if you need introduction to any of these.

I also, sort of, know Akram Attalah (ICANN GLOBAL HEAD) and could introduce you to him as well.

Also, consider bringing this thread to the notice of Ron Jackson (DNJournal.com), Mike Berkens (TheDomains.com) and other domain name bloggers to highlight the issue through their websites.

Whatever it may be, take your chances and pursue what you think is right with proper proof.

Good luck!

Hi Soofi, thanks for your advice. An introductory mail with a CC to my email would be a great help.
Meanwhile, let me also discuss this with Ron Jackson and Mike Berkens and see how they can help.

 

[chickenfillet]

Why are they so keen on selling so fast? What other communication was there between you and them? Did they answer you as to whether the owner is still Dan Sheley, or how they now manage to claim they are the "current owners"?

Why are they throwing in hosts.org too? The DNS History clearly shows that hosts.org was owned by the same person, Dan Sheley, because the DNS servers used were the same since registration.

Until Name.com admits how they managed to get their hands on that domain name, I am contacting ICANN myself.

EDIT: Has anyone tried emailing the previous owner "[email protected]" to check if emails bounce? It actually looks like the previous owner may have died (I can't confirm anything yet), because even the hostscorp.com domain name has been for sale by another party for a while now.

2nd EDIT: Confirmed. Emails bounce when emailing [email protected], so there is a good chance the previous owner died, and Name.com illegally decided to snatch it up, and bypass proper procedure of obtaining domain names.

Hi ICANN, I have a complaint regarding Name.com...

 

[AEProgram]

reading this thread reminds me of these commercials, "Thats not how it works"

 

[pooky]

My sympathies, GoWebNames.

Exact same thing happened to me with CloudStore.com back in June.

I had saved this piece regarding Name.com's domain expiry rules for future reference at the time (don't remember where from):
Depends on the extension, but after day 26 it is no longer visible in your acct. Days 35 and 36 the domain is offered for backorder, and on day 37 the domain is offered to the public via our 'expiring domain' service.

They seem to refer to as 'backorder', what would be known as pre-release anywhere else. This is different from their Domain Nabber, which is a conventional backorder.
As mentioned above, according to their own rules, any expiring domain is given to the person who has backordered (pre-release actually, only one person can place the order), and if there is no such order, the domain is put on expiring auction at decreasing prices till it goes into redemptionPeriod.

Instead, the domain was "absorbed" by the registrar around day 35 and put on sale at different sites, including GoDaddy auctions and Sedo.

Their asking price for CloudStore.com was $82000, a few days after they took over ownership.

I haven't visited their website after this distasteful experience, except to transfer out my domains from there.

 

[GoWebnames.com]

Why are they so keen on selling so fast? What other communication was there between you and them? Did they answer you as to whether the owner is still Dan Sheley, or how they now manage to claim they are the "current owners"?

2nd EDIT: Confirmed. Emails bounce when emailing [email protected], so there is a good chance the previous owner died, and Name.com illegally decided to snatch it up, and bypass proper procedure of obtaining domain names.

Hi ICANN, I have a complaint regarding Name.com...

Probably their have it covered in their TOS as well. If you (the registrant) die, they are going to misappropriate all your domains.

I have requested Michael Berkens of thedomains.com to highlight this on his blog already and will contact one of internet lawyers shortly.

Guys, any help would be genuinely appreciated. I don't care if I ever get the name or not but it hurts me to see a registrar profiteering on unfair business practices.

 

[GoWebnames.com]

My sympathies, GoWebNames.

Exact same thing happened to me with CloudStore.com back in June.

I had saved this piece regarding Name.com's domain expiry rules for future reference at the time (don't remember where from):
Depends on the extension, but after day 26 it is no longer visible in your acct. Days 35 and 36 the domain is offered for backorder, and on day 37 the domain is offered to the public via our 'expiring domain' service.

They seem to refer to as 'backorder', what would be known as pre-release anywhere else. This is different from their Domain Nabber, which is a conventional backorder.
As mentioned above, according to their own rules, any expiring domain is given to the person who has backordered (pre-release actually, only one person can place the order), and if there is no such order, the domain is put on expiring auction at decreasing prices till it goes into redemptionPeriod.

Instead, the domain was "absorbed" by the registrar around day 35 and put on sale at different sites, including GoDaddy auctions and Sedo.

Their asking price for CloudStore.com was $82000, a few days after they took over ownership.

I haven't visited their website after this distasteful experience, except to transfer out my domains from there.

Thanks for your support, #Pooky.

CloudStore.com is a great name, I guess you should have reported this just the way I am doing it.
We don't know afterall, how many other such domains they are misappropriating on a daily basis.

How I "backordered" this name was through a "Backorder" (what you say others call as pre-release) link on Hosts.com domain itself and I have the successful backorder email from them. It didn't make it to public expiry list since they are just keeping the names they like.

I will try my utmost to get done what needs to be done.

 

[pooky]

I guess I should have reported it here then - I was too busy with other stuff at the time.

Same here, 49.95, prepaid at Domainsite.com (which seems to be their sister site).
Before anyone snickers at hoping to get a domain like CloudStore.com for that price, this is the way their expiring domain system works (or should have worked) - only one person gets to backorder.

 

[pooky]

Interesting update.

Looks like myintellipath.com, owned and not renewed by the same person, is on their expiring auctions route right now!

 

[chickenfillet]

Probably their have it covered in their TOS as well. If you (the registrant) die, they are going to misappropriate all your domains.

Registrars can't write anything they want in their TOS. It's been proven time and time again where courts have ruled out entire TOS' because they were unreasonable (that is the word they used), and law breaking. It's like me writing on my websites TOS, "If you use my website, I have permission to kill you". Obviously this is for illustration purposes, but so you can see that Name.com's TOS is not the be-all-and-end-all of what they can or can't do.

Guys, any help would be genuinely appreciated. I don't care if I ever get the name or not but it hurts me to see a registrar profiteering on unfair business practices.

Registrars do this all the time, because no one reports this illegal activity to ICANN. Not today though, because once I find the correct department on the ICANN website, I will actively pursue this case myself until justice has been served against Name.com. I will rigorously be in contact with ICANN, until Name.com is brought to it's knees.

 

[Keith]

Please read 3.7.5.2. This tells me that Name.com broke the rules. Please launch a complaint!

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/eddp-2012-02-25-en

 

[Keith]

I launched a complaint using the form below. You all should report this as well.

https://forms.icann.org/en/resource...registrars/standards-complaint-form?another=1

 

[chickenfillet]

I launched a complaint using the form below. You all should report this as well.

https://forms.icann.org/en/resource...registrars/standards-complaint-form?another=1

I reported Name.com for bypassing the legal way of obtaining and claiming ownership of a domain name, using the link you provided. If ICANN does nothing, I will be filing another complaint in a few days from now.

 

[Name Trader]

@GoWebnames.com - "...at any time for any reason" gives them all the justification to do what you are suspecting them of doing. So the rest of the facts, known, unknown, or guesses, are irrelevant. If you don't like their ToS, use another backorder company whose ToS you prefer.

 

[Name Trader]

..

 

[FPForum]

The name never dropped. If it did, the WhoIs would have reset.

 

[Soofi]

Hi Soofi, thanks for your advice. An introductory mail with a CC to my email would be a great help.
Meanwhile, let me also discuss this with Ron Jackson and Mike Berkens and see how they can help.

I will do the needful, just send over your email address

 

[discobull]

Huh? This sounds to me like much ado about nothing.

1) The domain never dropped or even entered pending delete status.

2) Just because you're the only one that places a backorder through Name.com does not mean that you would have won the domain even if it had dropped. If hosts.com was dropping, you can be sure that there would have been 100+ backorders for it through namejet, snapnames, etc., and the probability that name.com would have beat those dropcatchers is pretty close to 0 ( I've placed about 50 backorders through name.com for domains that actually dropped and so far they've captured exactly none).

You can't be defrauded out of something you never had in the first place so I'm not sure what all the commotion is about.