I bought DomainNames.com from NetworkSolutions, but they took it back.

[owntype]

Hi, guys

I'm the buyer of DomainNames.com, I did the search via NetworkSolutions.com on 12.Feb, and found it's in their premium domain name lists with a very bargin price $2,577 (yes, it's a big bargain but a deal is a deal). Then I ordered it and paid via credit card.

This domain name is under control of New Ventures Services Corp and everyone knows it is NetworkSolutions/Web.com's warehousing company. All their domain names will be listed as premium domain names for sale on NetworkSolutions.com.

Once I made my order, Netsol sent me a order confirmation email. After 3 days, Networksolutions pushed the domain name into my Netsol account with a confirmation email to notify that my order has been completed, and I have the full control on it. I changed the DNS to my own hosting account.

But NetSol has removed it from my account today without any notifications nor explaination.

I will update further later.

 

[bmugford]

Network Solutions is such a shady company. This New Ventures Services Corp. is directly tied to them and just takes expired domains they want to keep, avoiding the ICANN intended drop cycle. There has been multiple comments about them in the past on forums and blogs.

In DomainIQ.com I can see the OP's WHOIS info on 2/15, so there is no doubt he controlled the domain after a legitimate transaction was made.

I think he has a valid claim to this domain.

- They owned it and put a price on it.
- He purchased it via a legitimate transaction and ownership was transferred to him.

I am not sure why they think they have the right to reclaim it.

If a pricing mistake was made on their end then tough luck. I can almost guarantee that they would not reverse a transaction from a 3rd party using their system, just because the seller was not satisfied with a price they set.

Brad

 

[equity78]

Hi, equity, thank you very much for the kind words. I would never complain people who blogged it.
This is a legitimate transaction and have no intention about hiding the deal. Actually I have already told several domain investor friends. If Netsol want to play dirty, they would do which registrar this domain name is managed.

But please help me do a post on social media, what would be very helpful.
I have posted as much screenshot proofs as possible, if you need any other proof, please do let me know.
Thank you in advance!

I got the post up and now we will take it to social media.

 

[equity78]

Thanks! Honestly, I don't blame the bloggers because I believe this is a legimate purchase and I don't have anything needs to be worried. I left the whois open to public, I told some of my domaining friends about this deal.

Hello Own, as the person who blogged about it I am sorry if it affected your transaction, I saw it posted here by Josh and thought like he did that it was a big purchase and a big deal.

If you need any publicity discussing this I will be happy to do a post and promote it on social media.

 

[snailman]

We need to put domains on a blockchain so no assholeism like this or Godaddy's monkey business that had cost me almost $1000 today can happen

 

[bmugford]

So now Network Solutions has created this precedent - after a domain was sold, paid for, and transferred they removed it from the owner's account.

Are they going to extend these same rights to other people who have a pricing "error" on their platform, or are these rights exclusively for them to use?

I am sick of these companies using an obviously biased TOS as some shield to give themselves above the law status for their actions.

Network Solutions was a shit company before this. This is just icing on the cake.

Brad

 

[Arca]

I would love to meet you in person just to experience this demeanor of yours.

What are lawyers going to do? There is no getting the name even if you did win a law suit; moreover, what are you suing them for?

Again just because there was an error in the system and this goes with other errors that DOES happens in the domain industry; people like you get their panties in a bunch and want the upper hand on every error that occurs, get over it and move on.

Sounds familiar. Is this much different from how Network Solutions use every little error a registrant can make to snatch their domain asap for themselves aka New Venture Services Corp?

OP bought a domain asset they priced lower than they intended. His gain would therefore be at their expense, which you take issue with.

But large swaths of the NetSol business model is based precisely around profiting at the expense of someone else, namely their own customers. NetSol have a history of taking domains out of users accounts without authorization by the owner, there are even cases where they have taken non-expired domains for themselves from registrants, they frontrun domains and pocket the difference, they hijack domain traffic with their ZTOMY name servers, they use any opportunity to grab domains for New Venture Services Corp (and do the absolute least possible they can to help their users retain their domain ownership - their own interest is always put above that of their customers), lots of cases of unauthorized credit card charges for services not ordered/delivered, I could go on.

NetSol ensure that they always have the upper hand usually at the expense of their own users. OP is trying to defend his legitimate purchase that was listed, bought, paid for, and transferred to his ownership - The transaction completed. His actions seem more justified than the day to day business operation of NetSol.

Domains accidentally get listed for too low prices and sold all the time. The marketplaces don't care that you accidentally listed a domain for a too low price. They don't reverse completed transactions. Would NetSol (or Sedo or Afternic) have let you reverse a domain transaction after it had completed and you'd gotten paid and the domain was with the buyer, if you realized that you accidentally listed the domain for a too low price? They absolutely would not let you do that. So why should NetSol let themselves do what they would not let their users do in the same scenario?

 

[equity78]

What we needed here was someone like Rick Schwartz paying $2,577 for the name and then having it removed from his account with no communication The TOS would still hold but he would have made them wish they left him keep the name and maybe throw some foolish cash at making their lives miserable.

 

[owntype]

Just an update:

A vice president of Web.com gave me a call last night, he told me he would like to appologize for this matter personally (I do appreciate his attitute). And he mentioned that there was a technical issue in their system, this domain name should never been listed for sale nor can be transferred, there should have been a registrar lock. But they have to reverse this domain name to their control and he talked about compensation suggestions. I told him that I prefer to talk about this via email and he told me he would send me an email. But I didn't receive any email yet, maybe this is weekend.

And Netsol issued the refund today, I paid $2,600.98, they refunded $2596.99, and didn't refund the $3.99 netsol hosting plan which attached to this DomainNames.com purchase.

I'll seeking opinions from lawyers, and will update later if there's any news.

Again, thank you for all the kind helps you guys have given me!

 

[TERADOMAIN]

I manage all my domain names at Godaddy. So when I have this domain name in my account on 14th Feb (Beijing Timezone), I requested the auth code. Net Sol has a policy that they provide auth code in 3 days (not like other registrars provide auth code immediately by email). Today is the 3rd day, and they removed the domain name.

This domain name has under my control for 2 days.

You can call NetSol to get Authorization code same day.

Sorry to hear about your loss. In last 2 months we heard lots of horror story about NetSol

 

[owntype]

Hello Own, as the person who blogged about it I am sorry if it affected your transaction, I saw it posted here by Josh and thought like he did that it was a big purchase and a big deal.

If you need any publicity discussing this I will be happy to do a post and promote it on social media.

Hi, equity, thank you very much for the kind words. I would never complain people who blogged it.
This is a legitimate transaction and have no intention about hiding the deal. Actually I have already told several domain investor friends. If Netsol want to play dirty, they would do where ever this domain name is transferred to.

But please help me do a post on social media, what would be very helpful.
I have posted as much screenshot proofs as possible, if you need any other proof, please do let me know.
Thank you in advance!

 

[Embrand]

Network Solutions should honor the deal, in my opinion. That they don't even give you a reason as to why they took the domain back is simply dispicable.

Oh, by the way, Network Solutions has been charging my credit card monthly for privacy for a domain that I transferred away many months ago... Finally got a refund yesterday.

I have a hard time finding a worse registrar than NetSol.

 

[RobM]

They should have honoured it whilst publicly ridiculing themselves for putting in too low of a price. Firstly this would have gained them respect as people who stand by their word. Secondly people would most likely laugh with them thus increasing their public image. Thirdly people would be more likely to use them hunting through for 'bargains'. Instead they prove they are *still* inept and soulless. I don't understand why people even still use them. They are overpriced and are notorious for being at the end of controversies, thefts, and shady dealings.

 

[voiceofreason]

Network Solutions made it clear way back in early 2000s that they OWN the domains and end users merely lease them.
And I'm hearing that they now feel they have carte blanche do whatever they want with the help of the current administration.

"Network Solutions, the oldest and largest registrar of Web domain names, changed its contract in recent months to allow it to take names back--and recent court decisions support that policy.

In a decision that went largely unnoticed in the press, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled 7-2 last month that a domain name "is the product of a contract for services," and not a type of property that a Web site owns."

https://www.cnet.com/news/web-registrars-may-take-back-your-domain-name/

 

[equity78]

NamesCon Rep says there is more to the story. dont believe everything you read on the internet.
which is unfortunately true, last time I trusted the internet too much I was sending money western Union to the king of Ardabil to release the billion rupees his ancestors left him.

but fact is , we should see the storey of the other side come on here and hash it out with the original poster, but no, they wont, they dont appear on here. just hide and lick the grease off their immoral paws. ( referring to netsol if story is true. )

Who said can't believe you read? Because people can certainly believe what @owntype wrote here. So was it a rep from @namescon @GoDaddy or Monte from right of the dot.

Network Solutions mispriced their name, @owntype purchased it, they have in their TOS within a certain time frame (usually first 30 days) they can pull a name back. Go read the TOS of your favorite registrar and read what you are actually agreeing to, it's not a balanced relationship.

Look the bottom line is registrars and marketplaces to a lesser degree have mechanisms in place if something is priced wrong to take back the name. Now if a domain investor makes a mistake those mechanisms are not in place and you would actually need someone to do you a favor. To be fair some absolutely have done favors to help out a domainer in some cases.

This time of year reminds me of a Christmas when @fleaking had Pets.tv taken from him and we spent part of the holiday weekend trying to figure out what happened and what he could do about getting the name back. Long story, short, he didn't get it back. Pets.tv went to Byron Allen and his Entertainment Studios and is actually played on cable tv at certain parts of the week depending on your cable provider.

The crazy part about Pets.tv was Fleaking traded a valuable name of his to the person who actually caught Pets.tv, so Verisign went in and took the name and Fleaking had not even entered into an agreement with them on Pets.tv where the TOS would have played out.

When registrars and aftermarkets screw up, domain investors usually get screwed.

 

[owntype]

Why didn`t you transfer out?

I manage all my domain names at Godaddy. So when I have this domain name in my account on 14th Feb (Beijing Timezone), I requested the auth code. Net Sol has a policy that they provide auth code in 3 days (not like other registrars provide auth code immediately by email). Today is the 3rd day, and they removed the domain name.

This domain name has under my control for 2 days.

 

[Steven McEvoy]

@owntype What’s your Twitter so I can tag you

 

[jberryhill]

New Ventures Services employee: Hey boss, let's price a lot of domain names with these prices, then if we see people congratulating the buyers or if they turn out to be a large corporation that could have afforded 6 figures, we just use the TOS to take them back.

Boss: It's almost too perfect, I see a promotion in your future.

And this plan makes money how?

There seems to be some disagreement on which set of Netsol terms applies. Both of them have this:

Web.com’s aggregate liability shall not exceed the total amount paid by you for the Services, but in no event shall it be greater than five hundred dollars ($500.00), and you acknowledge and agree that this will be your exclusive remedy under this Agreement and otherwise in relation to your use of the Services. You agree that Web.com’s entire liability, in law, equity or otherwise, with respect to any Services provided under this Agreement and/or for any breach of this Agreement, is solely limited to the amount you paid for such Services during the term of this Agreement, except as otherwise limited herein. Because some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, in such states Web.com’s liability is limited to the maximum extent permitted by law.

So, are we playing for the $500 in this lawsuit, or the full $2577?

Or do we decide that part of the contract doesn't apply, and the court will agree if we ask nicely?

Is it allowed (as per Florida laws) for Starbucks employee to forcefully take the remaining coffee away from my cup, as I am technically reachable (sitting in the same Starbucks). How would this situation be different (from the legal point of view)?

That's a good question worth an answer, because whenever one of these things comes up, people will chime in with general ideas about contract law, etc..

Here's the thing - people buy stuff from merchants every day, and nobody signs a contract to buy a cup of coffee from Starbucks. The way this works in the US is that every state has more or less adopted a body of law called the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC is a set of rules that are based on a distillation of old common law contract principles, and what it does is to say "If you buy or sell something without a written contract - then these rules are the contract."

In other words, in the ordinary course of trade, in the State of Florida THIS is the "TOS" which applies to you walking into Starbucks and buying a cup of coffee:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ml&StatuteYear=2017&Title=->2017->Chapter 672

Now, that applies to the sale of goods. Whether domain name registrations are "goods" is a fun topic to kick around. Suffice it to say, I don't see anyone paying Florida sales tax on these "goods", so there would be consequences if domain name registrations were considered "goods".

If, however, you walk into Starbucks, ask for a cup of coffee and they say, "Okay, please sign this contract for the sale of your cup of coffee" then that contract, not the default terms of the UCC, control that transaction.

On the "what would happen if a domainer did this" I did, in fact, handle a case a few years ago in which there was some sort of technical error on the Sedo website, which resulted in my client's domain names being priced wrong, and on which the sale was voided on the ground of unilateral mistake. So, yes, it happens.

 

[equity78]

Look if we made a mistake and offered $20,000 instead of $2,000 on a form, Net Sol would say that was binding offer.

 

[Michael M]

@owntype - I think it might be worth 5 minutes for you to setup a twitter account. Seems the department that operates their social media accounts is taking this pretty seriously and they might be your best contact to get this resolved quickly.

 

[Acroplex]

Someone is about to lose their job at NV either way. While I commiserate with your frustration, the listed price in no way represents the true value of this domain, that has been in the possession of corporate Netsol since 2004. So whoever included it in a for sale list at $2,500 screwed up. Has Netsol/NV contacted you with an official response and reason about the reversal?

 

[wwwweb]

Was everything ok with your transaction, until bloggers starting talking about it?

It takes 3 days to get auth codes from net sold.

 

[rafaelo0]

@owntype i'm shocked with this!

I never liked network solutions that's why i don't even have a account with them and cases like this is why i avoid them.

I'm not a lawyer but if it was me i would seek a good lawyer and sue their ass this is unacceptable i would proceed with legal action and wouldn't let go this is one of those cases that even if i went broke fighting network solutions i would fight until the end of my life.

I hope you get the domain back have my fingers crossed for you and you have my full support hope if you procced with legal auction hope you win and that network solutions lose BIG money when you hit their pocket is when you do the most damage and they won't forget it for a long time.

All the best to you.

Also good find at a great price.

 

[bmugford]

Look if we made a mistake and offered $20,000 instead of $2,000 on a form, Net Sol would say that was binding offer.

Exactly.

Pretty untenable position for Network Solutions to defend reserving special rights for themselves. The domain was purchased, paid for, and delivered. At that point when it was pulled back it is basically theft in my view. The domain was taken back from the rightful owner after a legitimate transaction.

Brad

 

[Steven McEvoy]

Unfortunately @owntype this is all you need to know about this transaction! If this was in their Terms of Service and you checked the box and/or accepted the terms of service, you won't have much recourse.
Sorry they wasted your time like this, but you won't be getting the name back, in my opinion!

True true, they don’t have to go through with the transaction but it looks bad on them. Social media can destroy any business no matter how big. If this is the type of business they want to be titled as, that can bring danger to their business, specially being on social media.