information Registrar employees or reps please respond How would you have handled it?

[equity78]

With the ongoing situation with Brent Oxley and the lockdown of his domain names it's important for domain investors to know how other registrars would act, so please let the community know if given the same situation, what your company would have done? silence will be very telling.

@Dynadot
@namedotcom-jon
@epik
@sav
@Ross from Porkbun
@Mike Robertson Fabulous
@namesilo

Any any other registrar reps that are on Namepros

 

[equity78]

@Dynadot A reply from favorite registrar of end of 2020?

 

[biggie]

Hi

glad to see the replies by registrar reps, as it means attention is being paid to the issue...
.
however, are the opinions/statements given, "in-line" with their current TOS, as stated....
which they would be bound to, legally, at the time this issue occurred?

i have not read, in-depth, every registrars TOS as it would relate to this case, so that's the cause for the question.

wouldn't want anyone to state something that isn't in sync with the policy, which might put themselves in an awkward position, in the future.

just saying....

imo...

 

[NickB]

Have any registrars said they will be reviewing or changing their TOS based on what has happened?

 

[oldtimer]

Considering the different responses by different Registrars that we see here shouldn't the Registrants' Rights be the same no matter which Registrar they have their domains at,

I believe that we need to petition ICANN to come up with a set of Uniform Standards and Policies that can protect the Registrants' Rights the Same regardless of which Registrar (or Registry) is involved.

IMO

 

[Mike Robertson]

As I'm sure everyone can appreciate, domain disputes are highly nuanced. The only way to evaluate these issues is on a case-by-case basis, with all the facts and information presented for a thorough review by our legal department. With that said, Fabulous.com requires official court orders from a US court to take action when it comes to locking domains. There are, however, the possibility of extreme circumstances that may require us to lock domains in the absence of a court order. One such scenario would arise if our customer's domains were to be hijacked; thereby, necessitating us to act swiftly by imposing a lock to secure the names. We are proud to offer this level of security and involvement for our customers. We value our customers and have always gone above and beyond to protect their interests and their valuable domain assets. There is a reason why Fabulous has a very loyal and dedicated customer base, consisting of a lot of original/old school domain investors. We put our customers first and will continue to do so as any emergency circumstance may arise.

 

[bmugford]

As I'm sure everyone can appreciate, domain disputes are highly nuanced. The only way to evaluate these issues is on a case-by-case basis, with all the facts and information presented for a thorough review by our legal department. With that said, Fabulous.com requires official court orders from a US court to take action when it comes to locking domains. There are, however, the possibility of extreme circumstances that may require us to lock domains in the absence of a court order. One such scenario would arise if our customer's domains were to be hijacked; thereby, necessitating us to act swiftly by imposing a lock to secure the names. We are proud to offer this level of security and involvement for our customers. We value our customers and have always gone above and beyond to protect their interests and their valuable domain assets. There is a reason why Fabulous has a very loyal and dedicated customer base, consisting of a lot of original/old school domain investors. We put our customers first and will continue to do so as any emergency circumstance may arise.

Thanks for the response Mike.

I think everyone understands there might be extreme circumstances, in rare situations. That is also normally limited in time.

In this case it has been going on for over a year with no end in sight. It also appears there has been no service of process, court order, or judgement. On top of that, there are clear jurisdictional issues for a US citizen with US based assets, when it comes to a foreign court.

Brad

 

[NickB]

Is it just me or is the lack of response from @Dynadot on this thread a bit mystifying?

Have they commented on this situation on any other thread?

 

[oldtimer]

As I'm sure everyone can appreciate, domain disputes are highly nuanced. The only way to evaluate these issues is on a case-by-case basis, with all the facts and information presented for a thorough review by our legal department. With that said, Fabulous.com requires official court orders from a US court to take action when it comes to locking domains. There are, however, the possibility of extreme circumstances that may require us to lock domains in the absence of a court order. One such scenario would arise if our customer's domains were to be hijacked; thereby, necessitating us to act swiftly by imposing a lock to secure the names. We are proud to offer this level of security and involvement for our customers. We value our customers and have always gone above and beyond to protect their interests and their valuable domain assets. There is a reason why Fabulous has a very loyal and dedicated customer base, consisting of a lot of original/old school domain investors. We put our customers first and will continue to do so as any emergency circumstance may arise.

Mike why not take the best practices that apply to protecting the Registrants' Rights and expand them to the Industry as a whole so no matter where people have their domains they can get the Same optimal protection as Customers and Registrants.

Also all the special circumstances and situations that can require for a domain to be locked and the authority and jurisdiction that is required to do so can be spelled out so that there wouldn't be any room for confusion amongst all the different Registrars as to what procedures they need to follow.

I believe that when it comes to Registrants Rights the TOS for all the different Registrars and Registries should indicate the same things.

As I have already suggested ICANN should come up with a set of Uniform Standards and Policies for the whole Industry when it comes to Registrants Rights and clearly indicate the procedures that all Registrars and Registries have to follow in regards to those Rights.

IMO

 

[Future Sensors]

I am also curious about the official statement from @DAN.COM regarding these issues. They hold domains in escrow for a longer period of time for Lease-to-own constructions. DAN will also start offering registrar services to the general public later this year.

 

[branding]

I am also curious about the official statement from @DAN.COM regarding these issues. They hold domains in escrow for a longer period of time for Lease-to-own constructions. DAN will also start offering registrar services to the general public later this year.

Like you read my mind I was about to post the same thing. Although maybe a bit premature as they're not a public facing registrar yet.

They will most probably become my go-to registrar once they go live so good to know how they would handle this.

In my experience, Dutch registrars are fairly safe to use and won't bulge easily under pressure.

 

[Mike Robertson]

Mike why not take the best practices that apply to protecting the Registrants' Rights and expand them to the Industry as a whole so no matter where people have their domains they can get the Same optimal protection as Customers and Registrants.

Also all the special circumstances and situations that can require for a domain to be locked and the authority and jurisdiction that is required to do so can be spelled out so that there wouldn't be any room for confusion amongst all the different Registrars as to what procedures they need to follow.

I believe that when it comes to Registrants Rights the TOS for all the different Registrars and Registries should indicate the same things.

As I have already suggested ICANN should come up with a set of Uniform Standards and Policies for the whole Industry when it comes to Registrants Rights and clearly indicate the procedures that all Registrars and Registries have to follow in regards to those Rights.

IMO

I think this would be a discussion for one of the ICANN work groups; creating an industry standard/best practices. Maybe the ICA could get involved on some level too.

 

[equity78]

This is the key part that other registrars should be either saying they would do the same or would not like NameCheap did.

 

[equity78]

@Dynadot ???

 

[FolioTeam]

I am also curious about the official statement from @DAN.COM regarding these issues. They hold domains in escrow for a longer period of time for Lease-to-own constructions. DAN will also start offering registrar services to the general public later this year.

I think the fact that they are based in NL and are subject to the laws of the land there will bring its own nuance.

I believe the best solution will be from ICANN's level as suggested by @oldtimer. Leaving it to the registrars will be amongst other things, a question of which country is seen as having the superior courts which, frankly, is unacceptable to me.

 

[Future Sensors]

I think the fact that they are based in NL and are subject to the laws of the land there will bring its own nuance.

I believe the best solution will be from ICANN level as suggested by @oldtimer

Thanks. I happen to be from the Netherlands, but that may not be relevant here

I would like to hear from @DAN.COM how they deal with this, in the same way that other registrars communicate about this. Not only for the registrar platform to be launched soon, but also for the long-term escrow for lease-to-own.

 

[Dave]

@Dynadot Are you out there?

Crikey, maybe I should be considering Fabulous or even starting my own registrar at this rate.

 

[NickB]

@Dynadot

Terms of Use:

7 DISPUTES

7.1 For the adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from use of a domain name, You shall submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to:
a) The jurisdiction of the courts of Your domicile; and,
b) The jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

7.2 Your registration of a domain name shall be subject to suspension, cancellation, or transfer pursuant to:
a) Any consensus policy, specification, policy, procedure, program, bylaw and associated amendments issued by ICANN ("ICANN Rule"); and,
b) Any Dynadot, registrar or registry procedure not inconsistent with any ICANN Rule concerning (1) the correction of mistakes by Dynadot or the domain name's registry operator in registering the domain name or (2) the resolution of disputes concerning the domain name.


7.3 Unless otherwise stated herein, Dynadot may, in its sole and absolute discretion:
a) Refuse to provide or cease providing any Service or portion thereof;
b) Refuse to affect any transaction on Your account;
c) Delete, suspend, cancel, terminate, or otherwise interrupt any Service and/or Your account where such Service or account is used in connection with a morally objectionable activity, including but not limited to spam, fraud, illegal activity, defamation, slander, harassment, obscenity, profanity, indecency, deceptive practices, tortuous behavior, racism, bigotry, hatred, vulgarity, invasion of privacy, impersonation, intellectual property infringement, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, counterfeiting, piracy, unsolicited bulk e-mailing, phishing, pharming use of botnets, malware, any harm or threat of harm to a third party or to Dynadot, any activity contrary to applicable law and any activity or material deemed objectionable by Dynadot, in its absolute and sole discretion ("Objectionable Use Activity");
d) Delete, suspend, cancel, terminate, or otherwise interrupt any Service and/or Your account while investigating whether Your account is used in connection with any Objectionable Use Activity; and,
e) Treat any Objectionable Use Activity as a termination of this Agreement and deny any request for account credit and/or refund.


11.4 Circumstances where a domain name may not be transferred include but are not limited to:
a) Where the registrar of the transferor or of the transferee refuses to process the transfer;
b) Where the policies of the registry or registry operator of the domain name forbid the transfer;
c) Where there is a dispute concerning or arising from the use of the domain name;
d) A court order prohibiting the transfer of the domain name;


Can you summarise the above in plain English for us layman..........and highlight any other applicable T&C's that I missed out that relate to what is happening with Godaddy......

 

[Shimmy]

Why post long terms about a policy domain dispute policy, when the case has nothing to do with domain disputes ?

 

[NickB]

Why post long terms about a policy domain dispute policy, when the case has nothing to do with domain disputes ?

It is a domain dispute - Godaddy have locked those domains saying there is a court order/legal proceedings pending?

See highlighted section at the bottom of the post.....

 

[Shimmy]

No, a domain dispute means ownership dispute. Nothing to do with this.

 

[NickB]

No, a domain dispute means ownership dispute. Nothing to do with this.

Godaddy have locked those domains based on a dispute between the owner and a 3rd party? - So called legal proceedings from a court outside of the U.S which Dynadot's terms of say.....

7.1 For the adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from use of a domain name, You shall submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to:
a) The jurisdiction of the courts of Your domicile; and,
b) The jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

So if someone else raises a dispute on your/my domains at Dynadot does this mean they can do this from any court in any country?

This is how I am reading it, I personally can not see anything else related and that is why I posted what I did and made it clear I am a layman and want to see something in writing that is simple to read........

 

[branding]

So if someone else raises a dispute on your/my domains at Dynadot does this mean they can do this from any court in any country?

Anybody, anywhere can raise a dispute. The big question is what will they do with it

 

[equity78]

Godaddy have locked those domains based on a dispute between the owner and a 3rd party? - So called legal proceedings from a court outside of the U.S which Dynadot's terms of say.....

7.1 For the adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from use of a domain name, You shall submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to:
a) The jurisdiction of the courts of Your domicile; and,
b) The jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

So if someone else raises a dispute on your/my domains at Dynadot does this mean they can do this from any court in any country?

This is how I am reading it, I personally can not see anything else related and that is why I posted what I did and made it clear I am a layman and want to see something in writing that is simple to read........

It's odd @Dynadot have not replied here.

 

[branding]

Interesting content regarding the locking of some GoKeyword names in the other thread:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/br...s-worth-of-his-domains.1230431/page-37#post-8

 

[bmugford]

It's odd @Dynadot have not replied here.

Yeah, the lack of response is confusing.

Brad