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:

 

[GoWebnames.com]

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.

You need to *READ* and *UNDERSTAND* the issue properly before you jump in with your hasty opinion.
Also read what other reputed members have to say about the whole issue.
It's nowhere stated in Original Post or this thread that it's a pendingdelete or dropping name, it's an expiring name which was autorenewed and absorbed by Name.com without following the due process.

 

[carob]

it's an expiring name which was autorenewed and absorbed by Name.com without following the due process.

Currently the WHOIS is under privacy. Did the whois change to showing that name.com owned it before privacy was applied?

It would be interesting if the original registrant or their representative appeared on the scene now.

 

[matrigaldo]

After all these new informations i'm not feeling to exclude anything right now.
If Name.com has done what @GoWebnames.com thinks they do, they would lose most of the reputation they've been acquired recently. I (and most of us, i'm sure) consider it as one of the best registrars, but this fact would make me think twice before to transfer or register a new domain through them.

However, i don't see a certain proof of anything yet.
Is it possible the owner renewed the domain and Name.com is brokering it?
Is it possible Name.com or its owner company has correctly acquired (read: bought) the domain from the previous owner?

On the other hand is it possible Name.com decide to risk their reputation just to gain $125,000 with a domain sale?

Oh, by the way, @GoWebnames.com , i think it's also important for you to understand Name.com hasn't deprived you from acquiring Hosts.com, if their behaviour isn't legal or lecit like you state, it's a bad thing and must be reported to ICANN, but they aren't depriving you to become rich with a $50 investment.
Name.com backourder would never, never, have catched Hosts.com .

 

[pooky]

In the case of CloudStore.com, the domain went into privacy directly around day 35.

Name.com is welcome to clarify things on this forum.
They should declare publicly that they don't own these domains (Hosts.com and CloudStore.com) either directly or through one of their partners/subsidiaries.

If they admit to being the current owner of these domains, they should explain how they got them.

@matrigaldo, please read earlier posts, this wasn't a pendingDelete backorder, it was a prerelease expiring domain.

One thing is clear, if these domains weren't renewed by their original owners, Hosts.com should belong to GoWebNames and CloudStore.com should be mine.

 

[GoWebnames.com]

However, i don't see a certain proof of anything yet.
Is it possible the owner renewed the domain and Name.com is brokering it?
Is it possible Name.com or its owner company has correctly acquired (read: bought) the domain from the previous owner?

On the other hand is it possible Name.com decide to risk their reputation just to gain $125,000 with a domain sale?

It seems Name.com has been doing this on a daily basis, only no one reported it before. Like #Pooky says, they did the same thing with his "pre-release" backorder on CloudStore.com.

Rightside.co is the current owner of Hosts.com which they obtained by fraud, this is confirmed by their sales agent "Trevor" who is now selling this name. For your answer about current ownership, I am quoting my earlier post below:

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?

 

[matrigaldo]

@matrigaldo, please read earlier posts, this wasn't a pendingDelete backorder, it was a prerelease expiring domain.

One thing is clear, if these domains weren't renewed by their original owners, Hosts.com should belong to GoWebNames and CloudStore.com should be mine.

Well, i'd post a original OP screenshot.

He wasn't buying a domain from the pre-release list of Name.com, but he placed a backorder (Nabber Backorder Service), and it's quite different. @GoWebnames.com don't have the right to have the domain, but if what he says is correct, he has the right to wait until the domain is going to be deleted and then catched by someone else.

And again, what makes you so confident Mr. Dan Sheley (former owner) didn't decide to sell his domain to Rightside company?

 

[chickenfillet]

And again, what makes you so confident Mr. Dan Sheley (former owner) didn't decide to sell his domain to Rightside company?

I've done my Homework, unlike you. Why would he sell it:

1. At the exact same time that his domain name has expired?
2. When emails bounce trying to sending him an email, because his email address is a domain name, which now doesn't exist?

It seems to me that poor Dan Sheley has either died, or completely left all of his domain names to expire.

 

[pooky]

The former owners selling their names to the registrar on the day the registrar says it will offered for backorder seems very coincidental - because it has happened atleast twice.

According to chickenfillet's earlier post, the original owner's email address is bouncing. This points to the likelihood that he has not renewed.

Edit: @chickenfillet, we posted almost at the same time, I was referring to your post on the previous page.

 

[GoWebnames.com]

Well, i'd post a original OP screenshot.
He wasn't buying a domain from the pre-release list of Name.com, but he placed a backorder (Nabber Backorder Service), and it's quite different

Please do your homework before you post something that derails the OP.
Make a pre-release order at Name.com, see if you get the mail from "Pre-release Backorder" or "Nabber Backorder". It's the same thing at Name.com for expiring names that they control.

 

[Keith]

@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.

The registrars agreement with ICANN says that a registrar can only renew domains under extenuating circumstances. In this case, they immediately listed the domain for sale which is clearly a violation of ICANNs policy.

That said, the OP has no shot at getting the domain.

 

[chickenfillet]

@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.

Unfortunately in a Court of Law that is not the case. Take a look at what I wrote earlier:

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.

 

[carob]

The registrars agreement with ICANN says that a registrar can only renew domains under extenuating circumstances. In this case, they immediately listed the domain for sale which is clearly a violation of ICANNs policy.

That said, the OP has no shot at getting the domain.

Are they clearly identified as the seller eg in the emails, or on Sedo? Transparency would help this situation a lot.

Some of this is very confusing - it would help to give a summary of the difference between pre-release, dropping and backorder and then the apparently different way that Name.com use some of these terms.

What exactly was the OP really getting for $50 - a chance to buy before dropping ala Godaddy, or a dropcatch ala Snapnames?

 

[pooky]

@carob

Normally, Name.com offers up the domain to the (only) backorder on Day 35/36.
If there is no backorder on the name, I believe the domain is listed on expiring domains:
https://www.name.com/expired_domains.php

I'm not sure a link would work, but if you search for myintellipath.com there (owned by Dan Sheley), you can see it available for immediate purchase @ $79.00 (It was $129 yesterday, tomorrow it will be listed at $39 and so on if no one purchases it.)
It's not an auction, it's the equivalent of GoDaddy closeouts.

It will go into redemptionPeriod if no one buys it.

The $50 was for the purchase of the domain before it got listed on expiring domains.

What should definitely not happen is the registrar hijacking the domain.

 

[chickenfillet]

Wow pooky. Thanks for posting that link for http://www.myintellipath.com/ which was owned by Dan Sheley.

^The post above is pure proof that Dan Sheley's domains have been expiring, including hosts.com.

So why did http://www.myintellipath.com/ go through the usual expiration steps, and http://www.hosts.com/ DID NOT, even though they were owned by the same Registrant Dan Sheley? It's obvious that Name.com (aka domainsite.com) registered/renewed it for themselves, without going through the proper expiring protocol, to sell it for profit.

Shame on you Name.com. I just can't believe they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Well, I'm off to the top domaining sites to inform them about this...

 

[pooky]

Because one's a $x domain and the other's a 6-figure one!

I should probably outsource expiring domain lists to them so I can find out good expiring domains.

 

[pooky]

Shame on you Name.com. I just can't believe they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

The temptation to put their hand into the cookie jar is there because the maximum Name.com can make out of an expired domain is $129.

If they had an expiring auction like many other registrars, they could make a fortune from the bids - but they have to abide by their own rules as they stand today.

 

[Name Trader]

Unfortunately in a Court of Law that is not the case. Take a look at what I wrote earlier:

Well it will take GoWebNames.com to take them to court for him to get any satisfaction. I'm not at all sure bleeting about it on NP is going to further his legal case against Name.com. If they have been underhand in this case, it really is shame on them. We've only heard one side of the story so far. And you know how that can change once you hear from the other party involved.

 

[chickenfillet]

Well it will take GoWebNames.com to take them to court for him to get any satisfaction. I'm not at all sure bleeting about it on NP is going to further his legal case against Name.com. If they have been underhand in this case, it really is shame on them. We've only heard one side of the story so far. And you know how that can change once you hear from the other party involved.

What do you mean you've only heard one side of the story? You've been shown complete proof of what Name.com has been doing. Didn't you read my post above? Dan Sheley had myintellipath.com & hosts.com expire. Only myintellipath.com went through the normal expiry steps, while hosts.com did not, and is now being sold for $175,000/$125,000. It's obvious why, because they want to sell it for huge profit, so they claimed ownership but not by the legal way of acquiring the domain name.

We don't take Name.com to court, ICANN just sends the Registrar warning notices to send more information on the complaints that have been received. If they don't comply, they will most likely suspend the domain name hosts.com from being used by Name.com until they receive more information.

 

[Name Trader]

@chickenfillet - There are always 2 sides to any story and we have not heard Name.com's explanation. I'm not siding with Name.com, I'm just saying we haven't heard their side of this story. Good luck with your getting ICANN involved in your dispute resolution. They might at least get an explanation from Name.com which Name.com are unlikely to give to GoWebNames.com (mostly for legal reasons).

Personally, I don't think GoWebNames.com has much of a case because his backorder was never valid because the domain never dropped. But if he can prove that the only reason it never dropped was because of malfeasance on the part of Name.com, then he might have a case, which he is unlikely to win, because there would be hundreds of other domainers bidding for this domain on the drop, and there is no guarantee that Name.com would be the one who captured this domain, under these circumstances. Again, personally, I think he needs a top rated lawyer, like Berryhill, to put his best case forward, imho.

 

[Keith]

IMO the registrar is obviously stealing domains. It's sad but a normal occurrence. This time it's easy to spot since the original registrants Whois was public and Name immediately listed the domain for sale. They even admitted it in their email to the OP, which I can't believe.

This is a case where several people need to band together and launch a lawsuit. The rules that ICANN have in place should be enforced but they're being ignored by many crooked registrars.

Name.com has a rep at NP. Please provide an explanation!

 

[Name Trader]

@Keith - From the onesided story we see here, it would appear to be the case. But we shouldn't jump to conclusions, conclusively, without hearing an explanation from Name.com

 

[Electric-Shadow]

A very interesting read, I see a few are having trouble understanding what the OP is getting at.

He's saying he paid for the opportunity to catch the domain, which he didn't get because Name.com acquired it themselves after he had paid. From the wording of the post am I right in understanding they haven't refunded the backorder fee as their own TOS promise?

Also, you might want to do a reverse whois on the previous owners email to see what else he has with Name that is due to expire.

 

[chickenfillet]

Also, you might want to do a reverse whois on the previous owners email to see what else he has with Name that is due to expire.

I wrote above what other domains the owner Dan Sheley had to expire: myintellipath.com is one of them. And it actually expired, and is going through the usual expiration process as expected.

But hosts.com & hosts.org both haven't gone through the usual expiration process, which clearly shows that Name.com held them both for themselves.

@Keith - From the onesided story we see here, it would appear to be the case. But we shouldn't jump to conclusions, conclusively, without hearing an explanation from Name.com

If you want, I can contact Name.com right now and get them to reply to this thread here. My guess is, they will not bother to reply here because they have nothing to defend their actions with.

 

[Electric-Shadow]

Yep, I meant he might have others as well as that domain, which may or may not be due.

 

[equity78]

Ok, I have done some research on the company side. Hosts.com was Hosts Learning Corp they filed for bankruptcy in 2008.

After 35 years of transforming the lives of millions, one student at a time, one mentor at a time, the HOSTS Learning Corporation has fallen victim to our nation’s current harsh economic times and is closing its doors as of August 27.

But while the HOSTS Corporation is closing its doors, Natomas Unified is keeping its HOSTS doors open to our students and our mentors. We will continue to use the HOSTS Link individualized learning plans that our HOSTS mentors and Coordinators use everyday. It will be business as usual serving our students with our HOSTS mentors and our HOSTS materials and plans.

Our students and mentors should not notice any difference caused by the corporate HOSTS closure. We will continue to monitor our program, students needs, and support for our mentors. We will fill any training needs for newcomers by our own highly qualified staff. While we are saddened to see such a great force for good fall, we are grateful that we can continue to serve our students and community.

http://www.natomasbuzz.com/2008/09/hosts-corp-files-for-bankruptcy/

Archive.org shows the site up til 8/28/08 and then it changes to a Google page.