RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] two real-world examples of PEDNR problems

["Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Berry et.al. - 

 

I will address this as I represent two of the companies involved,
Moniker and SnapNames.

 

This actually is a good example of what I discussed very early in this
process, when presumably we were focused on preventing "catastrophic"
loss of a name.  As we discussed there are very rare - only a handful
per year, in our experience - of instances where a RAE or registrar
mistakenly puts a domain name into one of several different
marketplaces.  Again, in our experience, we are almost ALWAYS successful
in recovering the name if the RAE so requests.  If you study the
operations of these marketplaces, you would find that operators are
interested in helping RAEs, even if the RAE has long since let the name
go, and even if the name appears to be valuable in the marketplace.

 

In this instance, the registrant did not intend for the name to be put
into the auction.  This was an error on the part of the current
sponsoring registrar.  That is the SOME reason - a mistake, not because
Moniker just felt like posting up names for sale in bad faith.  The
registrant made BOTH Moniker and SnapNames aware of the situation;
Moniker didn't immediately reply, but SnapNames did, which you would see
if you read further into the comment section.  The registrant
acknowledges he was in fact contacted in a timely way but he did not
check his messages.  Once he did, and his intentions were verified, we
pulled the name.  (Side note: believe it or not, in the rare instances
this kind of thing occurs, there have been a couple of times when the
registrant, at that point, doesn't come unglued and decides to go ahead
and sell the name.)  We clarified the situation with all involved,
including the registrar, and the registrant is satisfied that this was
an error.

 

I will further point out that sometimes the registrant awakens long
after the name has expired, sold and registered to a new registrant.
EVEN IN THESE CASES, we often are successful in recovering the name for
the RAE.  Those don't happen very often, either, though. 

 

I'm not sure what happened to the name in 2004 / 05.  I would have to
research it.  And I have no way of knowing what K.A. Tech's intentions
were for letting the name go in the first place.  Assumptions would be
irresponsible.  What I do know is operationally, this does not happen
often; but even if I didn't know that, I might observe that I don't see
an increasing wave of reports of nefarious activity in the marketplace -
I see the occasional mistake, or more often the "whoops," like the ski
club that Paul forwarded earlier.

 

Berry, I don't know that there's much more onion to peel here, but if
you want to discuss it, feel free to give me a call.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Berry Cobb [mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:45 PM
To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'Tim Ruiz'
Cc: 'PEDNR'; 'Mike O'Connor'
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] two real-world examples of PEDNR problems

 

 

Team,

 

I am not sure if you guys read the entire page.  The owner of the domain
responded in the blog string.  The domain never even expired. For SOME
reason, Moniker posted the domain up for auction and people were bidding
up to $20K on it.  The Registrant just happened upon seeing the domain
offered for auction.  He contacted Moniker and it took them 2 days to
take it down.  Within that time frame the auction went as high as $20K.
Here is at least a link to some evidence of the publicity.

http://domainnamewire.com/2010/01/14/snapnames-finally-hits-the-mark-in-
showcase-auction/

 

MHB is affiliated with "TheDomains.com" and wrote the blog post that
Mikey sent us.  His angle is attacking the fact that a number of domains
were showing up for auction when the Registrant never let the domain
expire nor intended the domain to go to auction.

 

Now what does start to come in scope of PEDNER is back in 2004/2005.
The domain at the time owned by K.A Tech somehow expired 12/22/04, it
was picked up in the drop by TopNames and then ownership transferred to
Telepathy Inc. on 1/22/05.  I did not find any notices of sale at
DNJournal, so it never made the press.  In the course of a month,
ownership changed hands on a 3 letter dot com name. I am not saying
anything bad happened here, but noting the fact that this is the kind of
scenario where Registrants can lose domain names unintentionally, and
ownership changes hand quickly without recovery to original owner.  K.A.
Tech owned the name since at least 2001 if not as long as 1996.

 

There is probably more to this onion to peel, as I only looked at this
for about 20 minutes.

 

I will dive in to the first case, and let you know if I find anything.

 

Thx. B

 

 

Berry A. Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC

866.921.8891

 

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel

Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 20:11

To: Tim Ruiz

Cc: PEDNR; Mike O'Connor

Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] two real-world examples of PEDNR problems

 

 

Agree.

 

The first case presents a concrete example where an RAE missed more than

"adequate opportunity" to renew and redeem an expired name.  And the

second is a good example of an auction service protecting & preserving

rights of the RAE to redeem.

 

J.

 

 

 

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] two real-world examples of PEDNR problems

From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Sat, January 16, 2010 12:17 pm

To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>

Cc: "PEDNR" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

 

 

Not sure thee are PEDNR type problems Mike. In the first case it looks

like the name went all the way the through the renew grace period and

redemption grace period before they woke up. If someone ignores or

doesn't renew until the name becomes available again, that's a different

issue.

 

In the second case, SnapNames' process worked for the RAE. When they

realized it had expired they were able to renew and recover the name. So

no recovery problem there, right?

 

Tim 

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] two real-world examples of PEDNR problems

From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Sat, January 16, 2010 9:58 am

To: PEDNR <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

 

 

funny how you get "attuned" to things when you're working on them. here

are a couple of real-life examples.

 

this first one is a great example of the degree of confusion that

exists. the city of Morehead, Kentucky lost their domain on the drop --

and they're accusing the buyer of cyber-squatting. 

 

http://www.themoreheadnews.com/local/local_story_015125424.html

 

in a second example, the domain kat.com was pulled from a SnapNames

auction -- bidding had reached $20k. i'm guessing here -- i bet the RAE

woke up and got their name renewed post-expiry, thus short-circuiting

the auction.

 

http://www.thedomains.com/2010/01/15/kat-com-is-pulled-out-of-snapnames-
com-monthly-auction-with-a-high-bid-of-almost-20k/

 

food for thought.

 

mikey

 

 

- - - - - - - - -

phone 651-647-6109 

fax 866-280-2356 

web www.haven2.com

handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,

etc.)