For Sale So where did the Sibername Security thread go???

[msn]

It seems as if CIRA is going to keep its hands off this. I might as well get set up as a registrar with CIRA, because it will be the only way to be 100% sure that no one will rip off our customers.

 

[lionfish]

I just finished reading this thread and I am not sure what to make of it.

It all sounds so unreal and literally makes no sense.

I have been using sibername for 7 years now and never had a problem. Every domain I got through TBR, was registered fine to myself and a merge process followed very shortly after payment was made. I usually pay within 24 hours.

Whenever a merge process is complete, the registrant that sibername created is cancelled and domains are transferred to my designated 'non sibername' registrant. The concept of CWA is understood from sibername point of view. If they register a domain in someone's name and that person does not pay, they need to be able to sell this domain to the next taker. So CWA is, in my opinion, legit and justified.

MSN and dropwizard apparently feel strongly about this registrar. It is their right to feel as they pleased and to take their business elsewhere. The way they chose to proceed leaves a lot to be desired however.

DW is beyond mad because of a sibername technical bug which apparently was verified by CIRA. That of course does not necessitate all this hostility and aggression he opted to use. Even if what he says is true and CIRA did confirm the presence of a tecnical bug, the matter was not deemed by CIRA to be worth any further action. I do trust CIRA and believe it is the best run registry worldwide and so wholeheartedly believe that whatever issue they found was no more than a technical bug, nothing more or less. If they decided none of the allegations for foulplay hold water, then they don't. It is as simple as that.

It goes without saying that this arm-twisting policy that dropwizard opted to use is counterproductive and not called for. It is actually quite strange and unsettling.

And of course sibername is a privately held company and has the right to not do any business with any entity it chooses. So why would he expect that they still will do business with him despite his attacks on them on a public forum? Again it makes no sense.

Regarding MSN allegations, these are completely different from those of DW and are nevertheless quite bizarre. Why would sibername shoot itself in the foot? More importantly....Why would sibername single out MSN for the alleged actions it has taken?

I really cannot imagine sibername doing anything as alleged and my experience with them is spotless. I also have noted that multiple domainers are still reporting the sibername TBR auction results and thus they are still using them, thereby making it clear that they do not buy these allegations. In other words, they never experienced a similar issue as MSN alleges.

So this only happened to MSN. So again...Why would sibername single out MSN?

The only thing I can think of is that payment was not made, or at least was not made in time. And if it was as MSN alleges, then a canadian court in 2006 would be the way to go and not a public forum in 2008. Simple questions that come to mind:

a) Was payment made in time?
b) Was payment made via credit card? And if so, was it reversed after the domain was 'transferred without authorization'? Did sibername issue the refund or did MSN file a chargeback?
c) What is MSN hoping to achieve after 2-3 year from supposed incident date? Why was there a 2-3 year waiting time?
d) It seems that both CIRA and his lawyer told him he has no case. So basically he has no case. What exactly does MSN expect to achieve from what amounts to public slander? No case, no facts, no legitimate complaint, and still a scathing attack 3 years later?

Is this an act of spite the pure purpose of which is to inflict damage on sibername reputation and good will? Does MSN believe that .ca domain owners are that gullible to believe whatever he claimed has happened despite it being very clear that on the balance of probability, the allegations are unlikely to be true and make no sense?

I see BS and nothing but BS both from MSN and DW. I simply do not buy what both are alleging and am quite baffled by the lack of professionalism exhibited by both. You do not like a registrar, take your business elsewhere and move on. No need for all this hostility and bizarre claims that aim purely to cause harm despite them not holding substance in court.

 

[DropWizard.com]

Bulent (or whatever sibername employee you are) this is a stupid effort.

You don't convince anyone like this. Somebody joins and immediately starts posting on all the threads denying sibernames well known (confirmed by CIRA) problems and claims it's their customers fault!!

I mean it's their:

CUSTOMERS FAULT.​

What an attitude!

 

[DropWizard.com]

 

[lionfish]

For everyone's entertainment, here are some excerpts of a number of MSN UDRP/CDRP cases:

A) http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0878.html

a) response:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]- that the Respondent did not register the domain name in order to sell it to a third party. In particular, the Respondent states that his e-mail from January 29, 1999, responding to the Complainant’s offer of US$500, was a "nonsense e-mail" for the addressee to explain to his superiors. Responding to an offer of US$200 by the Complainant through an online broker, the Respondent alleges that he asked a price for the domain name of US$22,000 just "to reply to an unsolicited offer in such a way as to turn away a potential purchaser";
- that although the Respondent was in the last two years engaged in two WIPO arbitration cases, the Panel should not conclude from this fact that the Respondent is misusing domain names;


.................

b) Panel findings:


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Respondent indicated several times to the Complainant that he would transfer the domain name only for a price in excess of the registration and transfer costs. First, on January 29, 1999, the Respondent rejected the Complainant’s offer stating that the Complainant’s offer did not sufficiently reflect the market value of the Complainant. The Respondent was well informed about the Complainant’s stock market value ("TSE Information") and the e-mail shows that the Respondent would only accept offers reflecting the Complainant’s market value. Second, the Respondent has offered the domain name for sale with Afternic.com, an online domain broker, and set an asking price of US$22,000 (Annex 19 Complaint). Third, on February 13, 2002, the Respondent was still willing to listen to an offer (Annex 29 Response) and indicated in his e-mail the next day that a price of US$9,000 plus costs represented the "state of the market" (Annex 20 Complaint). The Respondent’s allegations in this context ("nonsense e-mail for the addressee" of January 29, 1999, and "to reply to an unsolicited offer in such a way as to turn away a potential purchaser") are not plausible. The Panel infers that the Respondent intended to sell the domain name for valuable consideration far in excess of the out-of-pocket costs. The Respondent’s behaviour for over three years indicates that he acquired the domain name for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

B) http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0341.html

Although the Respondent as former owner of the domain name <t-dsl.net> as well has already received warning letters from the Complainant in October 2003, and therefore should be aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights in “T-” within the telecommunication businesses, the Respondent registered the domain name <t-isdn.com>.

The domain name <t-isdn.com> was registered in the name of the German office of Microscience Corporation in December 2003. At that time the Complainant’s reputation in the T-ISDN trademark was well established in Germany, so that the registration was made in bad faith.

.......

Furthermore, the President of Microscience Corporation, Mr. Daniel Mullen is already known by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center since several WIPO administrative panel decisions were rendered against him, namely
- Norisbank Aktiengesellschaft v. MSN, WIPO Case No. D2000-1307, with the Respondent’s administrative contact being Daniel Mullen, P.O. Box 1900, Charlottetown, Canada;
- America Online Inc. v. Daniel Mullen dba MSN and MSN Networks, WIPO Case No. D2000-1605;- Microsoft Corporation v. “MSNetworks” or “Microscience Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2002-0647 both represented by Daniel Mullen;
- Vector Aerospace v. Daniel Mullen, WIPO Case No. D2002-0878;
- Deutsche Telekom AG v. Terrabit, Working Group, WIPO Case No. D2004-0153, represented by Daniel Mullen, as former owner of the domain name <t-dsl.net>.
In Vector Aerospace Corporation v. Daniel Mullen, WIPO Case No. D2002-0878 the following is stated: “Further, the Panel considers the Respondent’s pattern of registering other domain names, which are identical or confusingly similar to famous and/or well-known marks. The Respondent registered other domain names of well-known marks such as “Norisbank” and “AOL”. In this respect he has been engaged in the last two years in WIPO arbitration cases (American Online Inc. v. Daniel Mullen dba MSN and MSN Networks, WIPO Case No. D2000-1605; Norisbank AG v. MSN, WIPO Case No. D2000-1307). In both cases the Respondent had to transfer the domain names in question”
This indicates that also the domain name <t-isdn.com> has been registered and is being used in bad faith according to the Policy.

C) http://www.adndrc.org/cn/image/DCN-0500031.pdf

The Panel in Vector Aerospace Corporation –v- Daniel Mullen, WIPO Case No. D2202-0878 had cause to note the pattern of behaviour exhibited by Mr. Mullen in registering other domain names which are identical or confusingly similar to famous and/or well-known marks.

The Respondent to the current proceedings is NETNIC CORPORATION, which, according to "James Deighan" the "CEO" of NETNIC, acquired the resale and services business of Miscroscience, shortly after NETNIC's incorporation on 5 May 2005. Microscience is owned, according to Mr Deighan by Daniel Mullen. However, all correspondence between the Respondent and the Complainant was conducted by Mr. Mullen. Indeed Mr Mullen feels sufficiently involved, we are told by Mr. Deighan, to have "given notice for a case in Provincial Court in Prince Edward Island against Complainant for abuse of process and other matters related to behaviour of Complainant".

The Panel finds that NETNIC CORPORATION is either a vehicle of Mr Mullen, or sufficiently closely associated with Mr Mullen for the Panel to attribute the Respondent's activities in relation to the Disputed Domain to Mr Mullen. The Panel finds that for this reason also (namely continuation of a pattern of registering identical or confusingly similar marks) the Complainant has satisfied the third condition under Article 8 of the Policy. One of the indicia of bad faith referred to by Article 9(ii) of the Policy is that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct.

D) http://www.cira.ca/en/dpr-decisions/00083-westinghouse.ca.pdf

The Registrant, in his Response, in referring to his Exhibit 4, in effect
acknowledges that some (though not "most") domain names registered by him incorporate third party marks by stating:

"Registrant has, according to ClRA records, a total of only one RANT
account for Daniel Mullen, which holds a total of just 39 domain
names; far fewer that the alleged "over 140 domain names"and most
not containing third party marks of any kind."
Based on the evidence, we hold that sub-paragraph 3(b) has been satisfied by the Complainant.

And now this guy is challenging sibername to take him to court .

Yeah...Victory is a sure thing for you Daniel. Simple advice: Get yourself a really good lawyer. Trouble is on the horizon.

 

[msn]

Hello BULENT from Sibername. While I was home sick we have been treated to your cowardly appearance courtesy of "lionfish".

Since you obviously cannot defend your actions you decide suddenly to start throwing mud - and without being sure at whom it is being thrown.

If you have any doubt that Sibername - "Bulent Co." have done questionable things, now I will get them posted for all.

When "lionfish" wants to sue me, "lionfish" can PM for an address for service to find out how good a lawyer I am.

I just finished reading this thread and I am not sure what to make of it.

It all sounds so unreal and literally makes no sense.

First, tell us who you are Sir or Madam. You could be Wallace Rose, Joe Blow, or a guy called Bulent.

I have been using sibername for 7 years now and never had a problem. Every domain I got through TBR, was registered fine to myself and a merge process followed very shortly after payment was made. I usually pay within 24 hours.

If you have been using Sibername for seven years, especially for TBR - wow, since seven years? - then you would know you had to prepay to do TBRs a number of years back.

Whenever a merge process is complete, the registrant that sibername created is cancelled and domains are transferred to my designated 'non sibername' registrant. The concept of CWA is understood from sibername point of view. If they register a domain in someone's name and that person does not pay, they need to be able to sell this domain to the next taker. So CWA is, in my opinion, legit and justified.

Creating a RANT in the name of the customer and accepting the agreement on behalf of the customer is not allowed at CIRA. Other RARs register in a transfer account and merge to a RANT, but Sibername registered into pre-existing RANT accounts held by customers.

Now if someone does not pay - which was not the case - there is no right to make a transfer of any registration without the knowledge and approval of the RANT.

Under Ontario law, you would have to provide an invoice, demand payment, have the payment either rejected or go to small claims court or take it to collection. There is no right to "eat" the domain, even if it was viewed as a service, in which case you would have needed to then send a notice by registered mail and give a set date for payment, just like a repair shop where you do not pick up your item.

Either way, not allowing the customer to set CWA - especially given the fact here that Sibername set up and approved the CIRA wording itself, so the customer could not verify any settings - did not in any way permit Sibername to transfer domains to third parties. What is technically possible and what is legal are two very distinct things.

MSN and dropwizard apparently feel strongly about this registrar. It is their right to feel as they pleased and to take their business elsewhere. The way they chose to proceed leaves a lot to be desired however.

Yes - they should post some evidence of wrong-doing first.

And of course sibername is a privately held company and has the right to not do any business with any entity it chooses. So why would he expect that they still will do business with him despite his attacks on them on a public forum? Again it makes no sense.

Sibername and Bulent did sign contracts - with CIRA, ICANN, EuRID and so on - and they are required to live up to those commitments, whether they are a privately-owned company or personally under Bulent. We already know that something bad happened with .eu domains due to how Sibername did business.

Regarding MSN allegations, these are completely different from those of DW and are nevertheless quite bizarre. Why would sibername shoot itself in the foot? More importantly....Why would sibername single out MSN for the alleged actions it has taken?

Since you asked, Sibername shot itself in the foot many times. Ask about the .eu domain problems and see the excuses you get.

I really cannot imagine sibername doing anything as alleged and my experience with them is spotless. I also have noted that multiple domainers are still reporting the sibername TBR auction results and thus they are still using them, thereby making it clear that they do not buy these allegations. In other words, they never experienced a similar issue as MSN alleges.

I have a copy of the e-mail where Bulent stated that he made the transfers, and also a .pdf file of the account showing there was no balance due on the account.

Claiming there is no problem because domainers are using Sibername TBR proves nothing other than the domainers are using every resource available to capture domains.

Interestingly, if Sibername wants to shoot itself in the foot, it should start to post information about customers to really try to scare away domainers.

The only thing I can think of is that payment was not made, or at least was not made in time.

I have the receipt that Sibername sent. Sibername simply does not do a good job with its technical systems.

Even if a domain was not paid, Sibername had recourse to all of the typical commercial processes to get payment, and no right whatsoever to transfer a domain from anyone, at any time.

And if it was as MSN alleges, then a canadian court in 2006 would be the way to go and not a public forum in 2008. Simple questions that come to mind:

a) Was payment made in time?

Yes - but even if it was not, there is no grounds for a transfer because there is no right under law for making a transfer.

b) Was payment made via credit card? And if so, was it reversed after the domain was 'transferred without authorization'? Did sibername issue the refund or did MSN file a chargeback?

There was no reversal, refund, or charge-back. What would be the point of that when the domain registrations are the property of the customer and they expect them back?

c) What is MSN hoping to achieve after 2-3 year from supposed incident date? Why was there a 2-3 year waiting time?

Because Sibername, when confronted with the facts, refused to deal with the matter, and they even went and deleted the ticket from their support system.

d) It seems that both CIRA and his lawyer told him he has no case. So basically he has no case. What exactly does MSN expect to achieve from what amounts to public slander? No case, no facts, no legitimate complaint, and still a scathing attack 3 years later?

No - CIRA was informed and said with all respect that it was a matter for Sibername. Sibername ran away.

The lawyer said it was a clear-cut case, but the cost could outweigh the value involved.

Rather than saying this is "no case" it is potentially a matter for the OPP along with the civil case.

If there is in fact any slander, sue now.

Is this an act of spite the pure purpose of which is to inflict damage on sibername reputation and good will? Does MSN believe that .ca domain owners are that gullible to believe whatever he claimed has happened despite it being very clear that on the balance of probability, the allegations are unlikely to be true and make no sense?

For Sibername to say it suffered damage to its reputation it would have to show how it had a positive reputation and that there was unwarranted comment about Sibername. So far, it seems all comment here about Sibername is both accurate and fair.

As to the balance of any probability in favour of one side or another, try a court case and then find out for yourself.

I see BS and nothing but BS both from MSN and DW. I simply do not buy what both are alleging and am quite baffled by the lack of professionalism exhibited by both. You do not like a registrar, take your business elsewhere and move on. No need for all this hostility and bizarre claims that aim purely to cause harm despite them not holding substance in court.

Until the matter has come before court you cannot claim they are not holding substance in court!

 

[msn]

Well, someone like you will find out for yourself.

 

[msn]

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,

So now I am getting even more confused

First you say you are a lawyer.

Then you state that your lawyer told you that the case will cost more than the domain value itself.

Are we supposed to infer that you told yourself that the case will cost more than the domain value itself? Was that because you were charging yourself too much?

And you still did not share why you decided to go public in 2008 and what do you expect to achieve right now?

And you really believe that for every $15 unpaid TBR order, sibername should:



?

Forgive my ignorance but doesn't the above sound insane to you?

Sibername is supposed to automatically register the domain in your name and then if you don't pay, they are supposed to do the above and incur hundreds of dollars in labor charges?

And if back in 2005, the cost of court proceedings was higher than the domain value....It seems that is not a correct statement. You are supposedly a great lawyer :uhoh: and it seems you are still quite distressed from what happened in 2005. So 3 years later, how many hours have you spent thinking about this matter so far? You seem to still be quite emotional about this alleged issue so I am sure that over the last 1000 days you have spent hundreds of hours thinking about this.

So being a great lawyer and all, you must charge quite much per hour. $400? $500?

So the cost you have suffered so far from that 2005 incident is now in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Must be some kind of a domain you lost in 2005.

I am really sorry but nothing of what you are posting makes any sense.

In polite company sir, you do not refer to someone by their first name unless you are already personally acquainted. Until and unless you come out from behind your hiding place "lionfish" then refrain from the discourtesy.

Since you have already trolled in another of my threads you can see the answers as to what and why there.

And to help with your reading skills, the domains were PAID the same day.

If you have some information to provide on the Sibername Security Problem then please reply now; you should otherwise troll elsewhere.:-/

 

[Namefox]

Please remove my name from your thread. I have nothing to do with this...have never used tbr, sedo or any other system. I'm not involved in this tiff so please take my name out.