[secretary.com] stolen domain

[Mr Webname]

I'm not suggesting that we don't want to know the outcome, or that we shouldn't have information about the situation. However I do think that nothing is achieved by stimulating the thread as this just seems to provoke confrontation. Better IMO that we allow the process to take its course and those involved, both regular and seasoned domainers, inform us of the outcome when that is achieved - or of the failure to resolve when all avenues have been followed.

 

[Steen]

Originally posted by WebCat

If on the other hand, a registrar can arbitrarily and without due process transfer a domain away from the owner to a person with political clout, then things are even worse. That is frightening.

I was under the impression there have only been two cases where domains were considered property.


Doesnt VS own all the domains?

 

[WebCat]

Originally posted by Steen
Doesnt VS own all the domains?

If that were true, God help us!

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

eNom's General Counsel has written to me stating that the [secretary.com] domain was taken from my account because it was stolen "hijacked." Mary Gallegos has told me the same thing in several phone calls. NSI has provided no information.

I believe this is sufficient "proof" to trigger the indemnification that Chris promised me in public and in private.

Here is the email I just received:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Subj: RE: secretary.com
Date: 11/7/2003 1:04:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: [email protected] (Martin Garthwaite)
To: [email protected] ('[email protected]')
CC: [email protected] ('[email protected]')

Hi Hal.

We received information that the domain name was hijacked from its rightful owner.

Please contact Network Solutions (cc'd on this email) regarding the matter.

Regards,

Martin Garthwaite
General Counsel
eNom, Inc.
2002 156th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98007


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 9:41 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: secretary.com

Dear eNom,

On or about October 22, 2003 the domain [secretary.com] was transferred out of my eNom account without notice to me or my consent.

I demand an explanation.

Sincerely,
Hal Meyer

 

[WebCat]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
We received information that the domain name was hijacked from its rightful owner.

Please contact Network Solutions (cc'd on this email) regarding the matter.

Regards,

Martin Garthwaite
General Counsel

Sounds like a load of horse pucky to me. Between the lines, here's what I read: "Oops, we really screwed up. We did not investigate the matter, or have proof of any kind, or posssess a court order, or even give you the chance to state your case. We just===> transfered it.

But don't worry sir, because we will not take the slightest responsibility for this colossal screw-up, because NSI now has the domain. So call them, don't call us!

(dis)Regards,
Slimy Corporate Attorney"

Sounds like the basis of a major lawsuit to me. Enom acts as the guardian of your property, like a title or escrow company. This sounds like they have massively abdicated that responsbility, and done you great harm. And there appears to be no remorse at all. Not even a "sorry Hal".

If I was an domain atty, I would jump on this case! Could be the "OJ" of domain litigation!

WebCat

PS- While this does not appear to be "irrrefutable proof" the domain was stolen, it DOES seem like irrrefutable proof that the people at eNom are a bunch of nincompoops!

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

"irrrefutable proof"
+++++++++++++++

This letter from eNom was not the "irrrefutable proof" I had in mind, however, I think it is sufficient proof for Chris to indemnify me.

Chris promised clear title, and this proves there was a problem.

I should not have to battle eNom and NSI and the FBI.

 

[Steen]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
I believe this is sufficient "proof" to trigger the indemnification that Chris promised me in public and in private.

Although it is most likely the domain was stolen somewhere,

Is there any proof that the previous owner forgot to renew and used her position as a politician to her advantage?

 

[WebCat]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
This letter from eNom was not the "irrrefutable proof" I had in mind, however, I think it is sufficient proof for Chris to indemnify me.

It is definitely proof that someone at eNom says that some unnamed person or person says the domain was stolen. He did not disclose either the source or the type of "information" upon which they acted.

And it's proof that based upon whatever "information" they received, they did transfer the domain to another party without your knowledge, consent, or even notification. I seriously doubt that action will hold up in court under intense scrutiny, unless they have rock solid documentation. Which based on the wording in the Email, I doubt they have.

If I go to the DMV and "say" you stole my car, do they then transfer the title and registration to me?

WC

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Is there any proof that the previous owner forgot to renew and used her position as a politician to her advantage?
+++++++++++++++

I am aware of NONE.

Although, she says that there is evidence that the person who stole her domain also stole many other domains.

 

[Domagon]

Jeez, this is a heck of a thread and I likely missed some details, but here's some important points to consider...

1. A broker who has a close personal relationship (ie. a business "partner") to the seller is likely going to be liable too...

...and regardless, may not be legally protected anyways, if they're not registered as a sales broker and/or escrow agent (required in some jurisdictions - and/or for certain types of goods).

2. What matters is what was the state of the domain at the time of sale? If was stolen goods at that time - regardless of whether that was known or not at the time, then the seller and those persons who assisted them are most likely liable for trafficking in stolen goods.

3. IF Chris MacDonald had *accepted all the money at once* from the "buyer" and forwarded it, less any applicable escrow fees, to the "seller", then his claim of being just a "broker", which I personally believe is dubious from what I've read, would likely hold up legally and would likely absolve him from liability...

BUT in this instance, Chris MacDonald may have made a serious legal error...*offering financing for the domain*...which means...

A. The domain name was never legally transferred to the new buyer since full payment was never received. While the Whois may have indicated transfer, the law may say another in the regard of legal transfer...interesting question...Whois by itself is not authoratative in regards to "ownership" - something many people don't realize.

B. Chris MacDonald appears to have transferred ownership of the domain personally himself to Hal...I suppose a "broker" could legally perform such an action, but it does certainly increase their legal exposure...

C. More importantly, Chris MacDonald appears to NOT have been acting in the compacity of an "escrow agent", since the domain name was being financed...escrow is typically all or none from my understanding...so even supposing for a moment that he was acting as a "sales broker", was he also truly acting as an "escrow agent" in regards to accepting the money?

Based upon what I've read in this thread and my interpretation of it, in my personal view (this not legal advice - I'm not an attorney), Chris MacDonald should immediately repay Harold Meyer III the $2000 and be done with it...reputation is important in this business and to lose much of that over $2000 is very foolish...give him back his money.

Ron

 

[Mr Webname]

"We received information that the domain name was hijacked from its rightful owner."

Loose translation:-
"We didn't check and get evidence of whether or not this was correct we just dumped the problem on someone else."

Doesn't seem to me that we are any further forward in establishing if the domain was actually stolen. Network Solutions must provide an answer now.

As for taking Enom through the courts - aren't they covered by their registration agreement (see JB's previous post)?

(Nobody doing any chargebacks?)

 

[Domagon]

Originally posted by Mr Webname

Loose translation:-
"We didn't check and get evidence of whether or not this was correct we just dumped the problem on someone else."

Doesn't seem to me that we are any further forward in establishing if the domain was actually stolen. Network Solutions must provide an answer now.

As for taking Enom through the courts - aren't they covered by their registration agreement (see JB's previous post)?

(Nobody doing any chargebacks?)

One needs to backtrack to who the original registrant was, and then work from there. There are some third-party services that maintain archives of registrants for most gTLD domains registered through most gTLD registrars.

Also, the registry for .com (NSI Registry [VeriSign] also maintains records/archives (in particular registrar, name servers, and dates of changes) - that info, while limited, can yield some additional clues/help confirm who the past registrars and registrants were, if any.

With that said, a generic domain transferred from NSI to Enom itself raises a red-flag in my mind...if one can't determine how a particular domain name was originally obtained, they likely shouldn't buy it...

I'm waiting for the day someone decides to offer "domain title searches" ... or even better yet "title insurance" of sorts for domain names, though I'd imagine that's too risky right now.

Until then, one should do some checking on their own, ask around, and sometimes just wait...if the seller seems overly anxious and only had the domain for a short time, that should be a warning something is likely wrong.

On a related thought...even if a domain is listed in a well known venue, that's no guarantee...about a week ago, I came across a domain name listing in Afternic's *showcase* that was highly suspicious and was subsequently removed...one would think they'd check those domains a little, but appearantly not...

It ultimately comes down to buyer beware...one needs to know with whom they're dealing with (reputation very important in this business) and research very carefully what they're buying.

Ron

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Ron,

I relied on the assurances of Chris, made both privately and publically.

I am now waiting to see if those assurances are actually good; I am waiting for Chris to return my $2000.

 

[beatz]

Incredible.

If that's all enom has to say, maybe that opens up a door for a new WLS/backorder alternative?

Like, if you see an enom domain you like, don't bother with backorder services - just tell enom the domain was "stolen" and ask them to transfer the name to you.

Nice.

 

[Domagon]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
Ron,

I relied on the assurances of Chris, made both privately and publically.

I am now waiting to see if those assurances are actually good; I am waiting for Chris to return my $2000.

Yes...and hopefully Chris will come through for you and do the right thing (not just ethically, but from a business standpoint) and return your all money promptly, without any further complaint.

Ron

 

[Domagon]

Originally posted by beatz
Incredible.

If that's all enom has to say, maybe that opens up a door for a new WLS/backorder alternative?

Like, if you see an enom domain you like, don't bother with backorder services - just tell enom the domain was "stolen" and ask them to transfer the name to you.

Nice.

Well, not exactly...based on my understanding of reading this long thread is that the domain *never* dropped (was not deleted) ... so how could it get on a WLS?

From what I've read from folks watching the "drop" watch lists, "secretary.com" was *never* on any them...so how did the registrant at Enom get it then?

Either they bought it from the former registrant or stole it from them...can't think of too many other possibilities

Ron

 

[GeorgeK]

The domain never dropped, period. The creation date in the WHOIS at www.internic.net, which is authoritative, proves that.

Given the other questionable names the seller was trying to unload, there's little doubt in my mind that the name was stolen.

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by GeorgeK
.......there's little doubt in my mind that the name was stolen.

izopodian philosophy: Sometimes the truth get's lost in the details. That's why it's better to go straight to the source after others have "weighed" in with their "take on things".

more philsophy: A good defense lawyer of a guilty party will always throw out more information than is needed to cast doubt on his/her client's guilt.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Chris has made a partial restitution to me of $150, which shows some effort.

Chris,

Thank you.

 

[Mr Webname]

Great news that this is being resolved amicably.