Recently I was intending to participate in an auction of expired names. I identified seven (7) names I considered to be worthwhile and made the opening bids.
Some time later I was advised ALL these names had been withdrawn. On checking Whois I found they are/were ALL with the same registrar (which I should stress was not the auction house).
This I thought was rather âcoincidentalâ particularly as ALL the names were withdrawn.
The plot thickens â¦
One of the withdrawn names HAD been owned by a company that went bust some four years ago.
This particular withdrawn domain name was:
Xxxxxx.Xxxxx.com
The plot further thickens â¦
There is also another very successful and long-established company that has the same name as the above bankrupted companyâs name.
The existing companyâs domain name is:
Xxxxxx-Xxxxx.com
ie a hyphen separates the two words.
I had intended approaching the 'hyphenated name company' with the opportunity to buy the 'non-hyphenated name' (presuming I had won the auction). However, this opportunity of further bidding is now denied me ... courtesy of the registrar Xxxxxx whom I am sure is well aware of the value of this particular name.
In four years the liquidators of the bankrupted company had not seen the merit of approaching the other existing company. The name was merely left to expire and it appears this matter had become âlost in the systemâ.
All this is just too âcoincidentalâ.
Summary:
I believe that registrars should be regulated by ICAAN to be either registrars OR traders â but not both. If this industry was operating with similar rules and regulations to the finance industry then this would be a clear case of insider trading (and there is a lot of money swishing around this domaining industry). Of course, if the same regulations were applied then a few of these people would now be in jail.
The names have not been identified here in order to protect the guilty ⦠and to me thatâs a real shame.
Comments would be welcomed â¦
Some time later I was advised ALL these names had been withdrawn. On checking Whois I found they are/were ALL with the same registrar (which I should stress was not the auction house).
This I thought was rather âcoincidentalâ particularly as ALL the names were withdrawn.
The plot thickens â¦
One of the withdrawn names HAD been owned by a company that went bust some four years ago.
This particular withdrawn domain name was:
Xxxxxx.Xxxxx.com
The plot further thickens â¦
There is also another very successful and long-established company that has the same name as the above bankrupted companyâs name.
The existing companyâs domain name is:
Xxxxxx-Xxxxx.com
ie a hyphen separates the two words.
I had intended approaching the 'hyphenated name company' with the opportunity to buy the 'non-hyphenated name' (presuming I had won the auction). However, this opportunity of further bidding is now denied me ... courtesy of the registrar Xxxxxx whom I am sure is well aware of the value of this particular name.
In four years the liquidators of the bankrupted company had not seen the merit of approaching the other existing company. The name was merely left to expire and it appears this matter had become âlost in the systemâ.
All this is just too âcoincidentalâ.
Summary:
I believe that registrars should be regulated by ICAAN to be either registrars OR traders â but not both. If this industry was operating with similar rules and regulations to the finance industry then this would be a clear case of insider trading (and there is a lot of money swishing around this domaining industry). Of course, if the same regulations were applied then a few of these people would now be in jail.
The names have not been identified here in order to protect the guilty ⦠and to me thatâs a real shame.
Comments would be welcomed â¦
