Stolen CC.com in my posession - Escrow.com, Netsol and FBI involved

[bdjuf]

I just know, that had Netsol told me to watch out, told me that the lock was there for a reason, that I would not have proceeded with the purchase

I put my trust in netsol and went ahead with the purchase, and then they just took the domain out of my account with not even a word said to me

[Warrior]

I had a few run ins with Network Solutions and I will tell you from my own experience that they just dont transfer domains from one account to another without proper documentation.

I recall one case when I was trying to transfer my domain to another Register, no big deal, Only to find out 4 days into the transfer that somebody claiming to be me was trying to hijack it during the transfer, not only was I surprised, I was enraged to find out that Network Solutions ACTUALLY moved it to the hijackers account!. I immediately called NS and they placed a legal-lock on the domain, a couple Fax's of identification coupled with my business license and the domain was back in my account. Whooo!

[Dave Zan]

I believe the case should have been placed on the one making the claim, evidence it was stolen.

What if the other party had done just that, which later prompted the registrar
to transfer the domain name from bdjuf to them?

And some people wonder why some registrars don't intervene in some alleged
domain hijacking cases...

I just know, that had Netsol told me to watch out, told me that the lock was there for a reason, that I would not have proceeded with the purchase

What if the rep you spoke with that time just really didn't know, much more if
there really wasn't any sign of potential trouble?

Unfortunately, we'll probably never know the real answers...

[business_man]

One of the previous posters suggested netsol acted differently from other registrars in terms of acting as they please, as they appear to have done so here.

Another suggested that transferring domain names to a european registrar, such as Joker.com might be best to prevent names from being "decided upon by the whim of the registrar".

I am very concerned about how netsol has acted here.

Are other registrars terms and conditions any better?

If this person who bought the name had transferred it away to a different registrar, would his case be better, as NetSol would have effectively agreeed that he was the owner?

Also, after transfer, the former registrar still has 60 days to actually take the name back - but what happens after that 60 day period?

very interesting thread, and perhaps one of the most important ones i have read for a long time for anyone with domain names.

[TheLegendaryJP]

What if the other party had done just that, which later prompted the registrar
to transfer the domain name from bdjuf to them?
...

If that is the case netsol acted as judge jury and as Robert may feel, executioner.

Fact is people lie, make fraudulant paperwork and so on. I am all for a victim getting the name back but doing so in a manner which considers all involved. Proving you once owned a name is not the issue, proving you never sold the name is and simply taking their word for it put aside any right Robert had. This is where I take issue. Anyone can trade a name and later state they never did. By simply telling the registrar this or claiming a transfer was not authorized by you should not lead to an immediate return of the name. Who is to say the previous owner isnt running a scam ?

Not saying the name was stolen or not but saying netsol acted inappropriately imo.

[Dave Zan]

Another suggested that transferring domain names to a european registrar, such as Joker.com might be best to prevent names from being "decided upon by the whim of the registrar".

It doesn't matter what registrar you transfer it to. If this exact thing happens
to them and is within the registrar's power to possibly correct it, they might.

I am all for a victim getting the name back but doing so in a manner which considers all involved. Proving you once owned a name is not the issue, proving you never sold the name is and simply taking their word for it put aside any right Robert had. This is where I take issue. Anyone can trade a name and later state they never did. By simply telling the registrar this or claiming a transfer was not authorized by you should not lead to an immediate return of the name. Who is to say the previous owner isnt running a scam ?

That's the thing. We'll never really know until, say, Network Solutions decides
to say something about this, which they don't really have to unless forced to
via court or so.

Now, I just learned from a friend of mine with a registrar of a similar thing but
for a different reason. What happened was the registrant paid for the renewal
before expiry.

The registrar emailed them confirming renewal. But the domain didn't renew at
the Registry.

The domain name was subsequently auctioned to another party but used the
same registrar. Of course, the original registrant was mad and demanded that
the registrar get the name back.

You can imagine what that registrant went through as he was asked by that
registrar to fax a copy of his card statement verifying the payment bearing its
merchant, the email confirming renewal, and the registrar cross-checking with
their own data. Eventually the registrar confirmed it's their fault for having let
that one slip, so they eventually took the domain name from the new owner
and notified him what happened.

Naturally, the new owner was pissed. But the registrar chose to at least issue
a full refund for the full original price that new owner paid for, which is about
$100+.

If you were in that situation, would you take the name back from the new guy
and refund him after verifying everything is indeed what it turned out? I would
do that, even though it's troublesome but still my unintended fault for letting
that happen.

OTOH, I know not everyone has to do that. If anything, it's questions of being
able to weigh the risks and gains, and deciding what their priorities should or
ought to be during that moment.

[TheLegendaryJP]

Dave, that example I actually can understand and agree with, thing is netsol was never paid for this name and therefore no refund for Robert.

Its somewhat of a mute point for netsol as either way someone would have been upset at the decision. Personally if they simply locked and held the name letting each side fight it out they could have remained neutral.

I ment moot

[business_man]

It doesn't matter what registrar you transfer it to. If this exact thing happens to them and is within the registrar's power to possibly correct it, they might.

and is within the registrar's power to correct it...

It is clear that different registrars have different terms and conditions, and theat gives them different powers. Network Solutions clearly, in this case, had the powers to just remove the name without, it seems any court decision or impartial third party to oversee the process.

In your example, again, the holding registrar is making the decision in their own favour to prevent them being sued.

The domain name was subsequently auctioned to another party but used the same registrar. Of course, the original registrant was mad and demanded that the registrar get the name back.

If the new registrant had transferred the domain name away to a different registrar, that would have given the new registrant far more powers to keep the domain name, instead of it just being awarded to the person who did not ensure it had been renewed in the first place.

If you were in that situation, would you take the name back from the new guy and refund him after verifying everything is indeed what it turned out? I would do that, even though it's troublesome but still my unintended fault for letting that happen.

I would NOT do that. I am a charitable person, but why would you just hand over the name? Clearly the fault was with the registrar.

Had the new registrant transferred the domain name away, as soon as they owned it (and some registrars clearly don't make you wait 60 days after a change of ownership from auctions) - then the new registrar would not have removed the name from the new registrant.

What I would have done was to allow the previous registrant to sue the registrar for their fault, and they would then have had to purchase the name off me. I would have made a profit there, which would have taught the registrar a lesson for having such a poor payment processing system in place. That would have prevented it happening again. Just accepting the registrar taking the name back is not going to make them change their poor payment processing systems now is it? However a big fee to recover the name would have turned heads at a board meeting I can assure you.

So no, I wouldn't. I'm charitable, but not to registrars who seem to hold all the cards, and clearly aren't impartial and aren't charitable back.

This brings me back to my original post that has not really been answered.

Back to the very original example of the cc.com dispute at NetSol - If an owner has a domain name, and transfers it away to a different registrar, which registrar would give them the strongest protection when it comes to a previous registrant "claiming" that their domain name was stolen. Clearly if it was "stolen" then the police should be involved to gather the appropriate "evidence" that it was actually stolen and not just sold rashly.

The only way to get a fair hearing, having read this is to get the name you buy out from that registrar asap. Transfer it away. But to which registrar? They have different terms and conditions, and some I imagine would provide more scope for investigations than others. Is it better to transfer to Joker.com in Europe for greater rights, or is it better to use a USA registrar where the laws might see domain names as property? This is a very interesting and valid question for all domain name "owners". Are we not all leaseholders?

Also, what about after the 60 day period that is given to allow previous registrars to recall the domain name transfer?

I think we need someone with legal experience of domain name disputes and registrar T&Cs to offer their feedback here.

[TheLegendaryJP]

Once a name is transfered out the former registrar as far as I know has no control or right to " get it back " by simply demanding it. At that point the complaint would need to be followed up by a decision in the victims favor and an legal document/court order for the name to be returned. Basically the legal route would become the only route. Also a transfer within a registrar does not produce a 60 day lock as far as I have experience. Maybe some do.

[Dave Zan]

Its somewhat of a moot point for netsol as either way someone would have been upset at the decision.

And there you go. Someone is going to be unhappy no matter what happened,
but a a choice had to be urgently made in that given moment.

As business_man said, being sued is one thing NetSol wanted to avoid. That's
not necessarily wrong, though that probably depends on the situation and how
the possibly affected party views it.

I would NOT do that.

And some people wonder why some registrars would not do that either.

Back to the very original example of the cc.com dispute at NetSol - If an owner has a domain name, and transfers it away to a different registrar, which registrar would give them the strongest protection when it comes to a previous registrant "claiming" that their domain name was stolen. Clearly if it was "stolen" then the police should be involved to gather the appropriate "evidence" that it was actually stolen and not just sold rashly.

By strongest protection, you mean who would work to try to get it back? The
owner ought to talk to the registrar where they intended the domain name to
stay with.

But if you're really referring to what registrar can realistically guarantee they'll
not do what's discussed here, there's none. It's case to case.