RE: [registrars] Re: An Opportunity to Prove A Point - Hi-Jacked Name At GoDaddy

["Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry Ass ?

Far be it from me to actually comment on Phil Sbarbaro's actual ass, but
I don't think he deserves this.

I always found Phil to be a straight shooter and a decent individual.  I
believe we have him to thank for keeping domain names a service and not
property, as he was the pioneer taking arrows in the early days and
fighting hard for our industry (and his own company).  I believe he
retired with a perfect 200 and something win record.

When I think of Phil, it is not as a sorry ass, but rather as someone we
should thank, even though he did make some of our lives difficult at
times <grin>

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of elliot noss
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:28 PM
To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Christine Jones'; 'Adam Dicker';
registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Bruce Tonkin'
Subject: [registrars] Re: An Opportunity to Prove A Point - Hi-Jacked
Name At GoDaddy


in order to be consistent with my position, we will need to add to  
the facts. I state i) that in fact registrars remedy these situations  
themselves in the vast majority (read, nearly ALL) circumstances and  
ii) I have absolutely no problem with reasonable transfer  
restrictions on a second registrant transfer, as opposed to a second  
registrar transfer. this second point is appropriate subject matter  
for the current transfer review but, again, is dealing with the  
EXTREME edge case (like every few years?).

in the first case the registrant should be dealing with MIT to  
establish their fact pattern. then MIT should be reaching out to go  
daddy. this is the way that we (the industry) have been solving our  
problems since Tucows was bailing out phil sbarbaro's sorry ass. then  
MIT should provide go daddy with an indemnity and go daddy should  
return the name.

you are right john, let's see what they do. I know what we do and I  
know what both those organizations have done in the past on countless  
occasions. and john, as you know, your buyer is now on notice as to  
the facts and is thus no longer a bona fide purchaser for value  
without notice (which I do not believe would protect a buyer here in  
any event).

let's see what they do!

*sitting back and passing popcorn to john*

On 21-Feb-08, at 12:14 PM, John Berryhill wrote:

>
> For those that enjoyed the Delhi fireworks show between myself and  
> Elliot on
> the subject of Godaddy's interpretation of the transfer policy, a  
> unique
> opportunity has arisen to provide an acid test of whether Godaddy is
> sincere, or whether the Transfer Policy is broken.
>
> As you know, Elliot Noss and others have expressed eloquent and  
> enthusiastic
> skepticism concerning the "anti-hi-jacking" rationale of Godaddy's  
> 60 day
> hold.
>
> Here's what landed in my lap this morning.
>
> Married.com has been registered since 1995 to Marriage Ministries
> International through Melbourne IT as follows:
>
> Domain Name.......... married.com
>   Creation Date........ 1995-05-31
>   Registration Date.... 2002-11-23
>   Expiry Date.......... 2008-05-30
>   Organisation Name.... Marriage Ministries International
>   Organisation Address. 9132 W. Bowles Avenue
>   Organisation Address. _
>   Organisation Address. Littleton
>   Organisation Address. 80123
>   Organisation Address. CO
>   Organisation Address. UNITED STATES
>
> Admin Name........... Jason Phillipps
>   Admin Address........ 9132 W. Bowles Avenue
>   Admin Address........ _
>   Admin Address........ Littleton
>   Admin Address........ 80123
>   Admin Address........ CO
>   Admin Address........ UNITED STATES
>   Admin Email.......... jasonphillipps@[xxxx]
>
> On or about February 5, 2008, it was hi-jacked and transferred to  
> GoDaddy,
> most likely by compromise of the admin contact email address.
>
> Registrant:
>    Domain Manager DomainManager2006@xxxxxxxxx
>    Sattarkhan Blvd.
>    Copenhagen,  2400
>    Denmark
>
> The hi-jacker entered into a deal to sell the domain name through  
> escrow.com
> for $100,000.
>
> I was contacted by the prospective buyer, who had contacted the former
> registrant in the course of his due diligence.  The former  
> registrant had no
> idea how the domain name was transferred to GoDaddy, and when they  
> contacted
> GoDaddy support, he was told to "use the UDRP" and that there was  
> nothing
> else GoDaddy could do.
>
> Of course, the UDRP is useless here, since "married" wasn't being  
> used as a
> trade or service mark for marriage counseling, and GoDaddy  
> support's advice
> is typical of the useless things that are told to parties in this  
> instance.
>
> So, as the situation stands, and as I tried to convey to Elliot, it  
> is in
> circumstances such as this one that I am GLAD the name is at  
> GoDaddy, since
> it is at least not going anywhere for another 45 days.
>
> The remaining questions are these:
>
> 1.  Is GoDaddy actually going to look into the situation and USE  
> the 60 day
> period to resolve a domain hi-jacking?  The initial indication from  
> GoDaddy
> support is "no".
>
> 2.  What is the mechanism by which a registrant may request his/her
> registrar to institute a Transfer Dispute Resolution Proceeding?   
> This ball
> is in Bruce's court.  Melbourne IT provides no information to  
> registrants
> that is readily accessible which, as I have long argued, is the  
> fundamental
> flaw of the TDRS - there is no coupling between the people who've  
> had their
> names transferred without authorization, and the people who are in a
> position to invoke the policy.
>
> Now it may be that the registrant's admin email address was  
> compromised.
> Still, both Melbourne IT and GoDaddy will be able to determine  
> whether the
> originating IP address of the authorization is localizable to  
> Colorado or to
> somewhere else.
>
> So, Elliot, let's fire up the oven, put on some crow, and find out  
> who gets
> to eat it.  Either (a) GoDaddy does nothing to investigate or  
> remedy this
> hi-jacking, and their justification for the 60 day hold is a farce;  
> (b)
> Melbourne IT does nothing, and the Transfer Policy dispute  
> mechanism is a
> farce; or (c) the situation is appropriately resolved, and it turns  
> out that
> GoDaddy's policy actually does help address hi-jackings.
>
> But, as it stands, the only hopeful point in the situation is that  
> since the
> name is at GoDaddy, it is going to stay there for a while.
>
> The point is GoDaddy's to prove, or not.
>
>
> John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
> 4 West Front St.
> Media, PA  19063
> (610) 565-5601
> (267) 386-8115 fax
>
>