"Whew! That's where we're at."
I still don't know where we are here. Everyone is saying that Atillio controls the domain name. If I look at the whois right now, it appears to be registered to Domainp.
One fact that everyone seems to agree upon (except the whois) is that Atillio currently controls a domain name that he didn't pay for. Having this control, Atillio has assumed the role of a court of equity, and has stated that he will decide what to do with the domain name when his standards of evidence, whatever they are, are satisfied. I can understand the sentiment, but I'm not convinced that it is a good idea to get into the business of doing good by stealing things from thieves in order to return the things they've stolen to their "rightful" owners (as determined by one's personal sense of what is "right").
Now, if this domain name is under Atillio's control, the idea (as I understand this mess) that opencg can wander in and pay domainp $3,000 and then demand that Atillio turn over the domain name to opencg is, to put it mildly, absurd. This is something of a mess, but it is crystal clear that Atillio is not obligated to opencg for anything.
If Atillio wants to keep the domain name, then he should comply with his agreement to pay the $3,000 to whomever he got it from. If he does not want to keep the domain name, then he should return it to whomever he got it from. If a prior eBay seller claims that he was stiffed, then that prior eBay seller should pursue the remedies available to him.