[secretary.com] stolen domain

[izopod]

Originally posted by Mr Webname


This sale was not conducted at DNF and has no direct association with DNF, other than the fact that another DNF member was offering this name for sale prior to this sale taking place. He hasn't posted since 26/10/2003 so I guess that's why we havn't heard anything from him since this thread started.

I very much disagree here, MR W. I don't care if this sale wasn't conducted here or not. A DNF member was obviously wronged. A statement of support or something would have gone a long way. There is no way to spin this.

 

[Spider]

I remember seeing a thread about this on DNF. It was going to be used for an adult site from what I remember.

 

[Mr Webname]

1) I have edited my above post in case I am wrong but I cannot find any reference to this name being brokered in the Exclusive Brokerage forum, neither does a search indicate this sale took place on DNF.

2)Obviously the management disapprove of any fraudulent deals, however it is not for DNF to be judge and jury in such matters that have not been properly decided upon. To do so would be prejudicial and quite wrong in my view - it is easy to be carried along on a wave of emotion and anger but that is not the right and proper way to act. We are not a lynch mob!

 

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by Spider
I remember seeing a thread about this on DNF. It was going to be used for an adult site from what I remember.

That thread was not the source of this sale and neither was it offered by cjmacd!
The original seller who made that post has not contributed to this thread or posted on DNF since 26/10/2003

 

[ReignDomain]

Originally posted by Mr Webname
1) I have edited my above post in case I am wrong but I cannot find any reference to this name being brokered in the Exclusive Brokerage forum, neither does a search indicate this sale took place on DNF.

2)Obviously the management disapprove of any fraudulent deals, however it is not for DNF to be judge and jury in such matters that have not been properly decided upon. To do so would be prejudicial and quite wrong in my view - it is easy to be carried along on a wave of emotion and anger but that is not the right and proper way to act. We are not a lynch mob!

If management really "disapprove of any fraudulent deals", the management has to get to the bottom of this matter, because it involves two DNF members.

Nobody suggests you have to pre-judge this case. But management of this forum should be actively involved in trying to resolve this situation.

NamePopper, where are you?

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by Mr Webname
1) I have edited my above post in case I am wrong but I cannot find any reference to this name being brokered in the Exclusive Brokerage forum, neither does a search indicate this sale took place on DNF.

2)Obviously the management disapprove of any fraudulent deals, however it is not for DNF to be judge and jury in such matters that have not been properly decided upon. To do so would be prejudicial and quite wrong in my view - it is easy to be carried along on a wave of emotion and anger but that is not the right and proper way to act. We are not a lynch mob!

The proper thing to do is to help DCC in any way we can. If that is wrong, or improper then I will disolve my membership right here, and right now.

signed

izopod

 

[Spider]

It envolves 2 DNF members, 2 domainstate members and 2 namepro members.

Maybe they should all be held accountable then?

 

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by izopod


The proper thing to do is to help DCC in any way we can. If that is wrong, or improper then I will disolve my membership right here, and right now.

signed

izopod

Help - yes .... form a lynch mob - no!

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

"Hasn't it already been said and proven the domain was registered in 1995. If it had dropped it would have a newer registry date."

One thing which is important to distinguish is the difference between "evidence" and "proof". The registry creation date is relevant evidence, but it does not necessarily mean the domain name was stolen.

"Evidence" is something which is *relevant* to the truth or falsity of a proposition. "Proof" is when you have enough evidence to conclude as to the truth or falsity of a proposition. Mr. Webname has these concepts intuitively nailed down correctly.

What seems fairly certain is that Chris made promises to Hal that, in exchange for money, the domain name would be transferred to Hal. The thing is, that is what was done. There is some dispute about the entirety of promises alleged to have been made, which is why it is helpful to write things down and have them acknowledged by the other side to a proposed transaction.

It is not always a matter of whether it would be economically viable to bring a full blown lawsuit over, say, an $800 contract - because the act of writing it down and signing it carries a certain moral force, and it also can resolve genuine disputes over the extent of agreed-on terms without having to go to court.

 

[ReignDomain]

Originally posted by Mr Webname


Help - yes .... form a lynch mob - no!

Then help.

Because comments like "DNF management will not get involved" are not really helpful.

 

[llew]

Originally posted by Mr Webname
1) I have edited my above post in case I am wrong but I cannot find any reference to this name being brokered in the Exclusive Brokerage forum, neither does a search indicate this sale took place on DNF.
/B]

I remember seeing Secretary.com for sale in the "Domain Brokerage Forum" by cjmacd sometimes in September. It looks like that forum is completely gone or hidden from me. On that forum, I remember Spider (Jason) was brokering a bunch of 3 letter domains and Attilio was brokering some very high quality domains but gave up after he couldn't get a hold of the owner.

 

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by llew


I remember seeing Secretary.com for sale in the "Domain Brokerage Forum" by cjmacd sometimes in September. It looks like that forum is completely gone or hidden from me. On that forum, I remember Spider (Jason) was brokering a bunch of 3 letter domains and Attilio was brokering some very high quality domains but gave up after he couldn't get a hold of the owner.

Memory can sometimes play tricks on us cjmacd did not have a post in the Domain Brokerage Forum for secretary.com - another member did - however it was not sold in that forum by that member. Hal (DotComCowboy) posted in that thread that the name was no longer available as he had bought it.

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by Mr Webname


Memory can sometimes play tricks on us cjmacd did not have a post in the Domain Brokerage Forum for secretary.com - another member did - however it was not sold in that forum by that member. Hal (DotComCowboy) posted in that thread that the name was no longer available as he had bought it.

Obviously you misunderstand a few things Mr W. We don't care where the name was bought. Let's get the record straight on that.

The other thing is that as a community we will not tolerate a member losing $2K on a deal. That's the "perks" for belonging to a "tight-knit" community.

DNF management "can't" make this deal right, but certainly a few "kind" words would go a long way here.

 

[ShaunP]

Funny how some have turned this from a problem between DCC, Chris and Chad .. to a problem for DNF and/or DS. If some put the same effort into solving the situation, it would be closer to a conclusion.

Shaun

 

[Mr Webname]

Izopod calm down and take a deep breath - you don't care about evidence of this issue but others do and as for your speaking on behalf of the entire domain community it seems to me that you are being more than a little presumptious.
"Kind words" will not help this issue, but keeping a level head and not jumping to conclusions certainly will. DNF management does not condone fraudulent transactions but neither does it condone prejudicial actions toward any of its members.

 

[Anthony Ng]

Originally posted by izopod
The proper thing to do is to help DCC in any way we can. If that is wrong, or improper then I will disolve my membership right here, and right now.

signed

izopod

DNForum is NOT a court of any kind and should NOT render any summary judgement BEFORE respective law enforcement authorities are even contacted. Of course, if a certain member is PROVED to be engaged in any fraudulent activity, I'm sure his or her membership will be "taken good care of".

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by aactive
Funny how some have turned this from a problem between DCC, Chris and Chad .. to a problem for DNF and/or DS. If some put the same effort into solving the situation, it would be closer to a conclusion.

Shaun

Well, when or if you lose $2K on a domain deal, I'll be sure to "keep quiet"...

BTW: This is a very important matter to all of us (I feel) as this did involve DNF members, who I might add, have been here for a very long time.

It does bring into question, what if a deal I'm involved in does sour . Can I count on any of you to speak on my behalf??

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by nameslave

I'm sure his or her membership will be "taken good care of".

You are missing the "big picture" here NS... No one is asking for "heads". I have not asked for any that is. My comments were merely in reaction to "Bob's" one-liner. They could have been better. However knowing Bob, I'm sure he had the best of intentions.

What I am suggesting we do is use our influence as a community to rectify this situation. If that means DCG making a statement, that "IF" this deal was sour, it will not be tolerated, blah, blah. He by no means is obligated to do so, as I guess that's up to him.

 

[izoot]

Hal is the victim of "potential" fraud. Nothing has yet been proven that Enom took the name legally or Chris knowingly sold a stolen domain. We don't know whether this woman just forgot to renew the name and then "pulled rank" being a State Rep to get the name back unjustly ... politicians forget things too.

Being that the domain was in Hals name last at Enom, he will be the only person able to dig at them for what happened, they will not release any information to Chris. So far Hal has shown no interest in pursuing this even thos he is the only one able to at this point. I think if this happened to any of us that would be one of the first things we did.

If it turns out that Enom did take then name without adequete proof from the previous owner, then the responsiblity is not Chris' to give the money back to Hal ... It is up to Hal to deal with this woman as current owner of the name ... and he is still on the hook for the remainder of the selling price, probably not what Hal wants to hear but thats the reality of it.

If it proven that the name was stolen by Chad, then ya its up to Chris to refund every cent of Hals money, then get it back from Chad and go forward with the legal issues involved.

Theres no doubt that this situation sucks and it needs to be resolved ... but it needs to be resolved correctly and honestly. To date there has been no solid proof provided.

note) I am not taking sides, just trying to look at this without bias

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by Mr Webname
Izopod calm down and take a deep breath - you don't care about evidence of this issue but others do and as for your speaking on behalf of the entire domain community it seems to me that you are being more than a little presumptious.

I don't care about evidence?? Boy even for you Mr W., that was a pretty low, blow. I think I deserve better than that.

The facts seem to be laid out here very well. Both "main" participants have agreed something went wrong. DCC paid $2k for a name, that is no longer in his account. If, I'm wrong on these facts please let me know!!!

As far as my "speaking" on behalf of the community, I feel I have put in enough time here to speak to a "wrong". Not a "alleged" wrong. See point made above with respect to the "two main" participants.