Which domains belong to the "stolen domains"?

[beatz]

Hi,

trying to find out which domains exactly belong to the batch of names that have dropped during the last few days that apparently had been stolen and now have been transferred back to Verisign?
As you can see on the Soul.com thread, it seems that Soul.com and Lotto.com are not the only names of that batch that show fake whois info - at least partially provided by Verisign.
As i'm preparing a fax to Verisign, i'd like to include as many names as i can of those premium ones that show fake whois - so these names gonna be released to the public pool again.

The ones that i'm aware of so far:

Soul.com
Lotto.com
URL.com

All these names have fake whois data.
Which other recently "transferred" premium domains do YOU know of?

 

[Brujah]

Beatz, haven't you been reading the threads ? You might want to do a search. This isn't new info. Its been discussed repeatedly, and there are various threads that do list many of the other names that were stolen.

Additionally, Verisign IS aware of them. They ARE working with DotRegister to get them back and its a slow process.

 

[beatz]

Wrong.
YOU may wanna reread what i have posted on the Soul.com thread; especially for you again:
Verisign THEMSELVES confirmed they WILL gonna return those names to the public will they not be able to obtain true whois info for those names.
Besides that,it's not a matter of stolen or not.
It's LAW that they have to make sure no fake whois is allowed.
Haven't YOU read about the ICANN/VS ongoings about exactly the same matter (fake whois data)?
If VS doesn't manage to get correct data, THEY HAVE to return those names to the public.

 

[Drewbert]

>All these names have fake whois data.

THe only fake data lefton the WHOIS for all those names is the emailaddress.

A minion at Verisign is probably running his arse off trying to find out correct email addresses for all those names that were hijacked.

I seriously doubt that anyone at VS would be silly enough to issue deletes on those names.

Who was the "executive" you talked to?

 

[Brujah]

beatz,
I think you're arguing with yourself here, or you're completely misunderstanding me. Either way, I'll not bother with your threads on the matter anymore.

 

[beatz]

Originally posted by Drewbert
>All these names have fake whois data.

THe only fake data lefton the WHOIS for all those names is the emailaddress.


I seriously doubt that anyone at VS would be silly enough to issue deletes on those names.

Who was the "executive" you talked to?

Well the executive indeed confirmed deletes on those names shouldn't they be able to get correct whois data.Won't tell the name until i have sent off my fax.

And you might wanna take a closer look at the respective whois for instance for soul.com :

- The address is fake ( There is no roma in CA,not in california; Rome,Italy doesnt have a street that is called "Massa Carr"; neither does Roma, Italy have.Roma, Texas doesnt have that street as well.Neither in Canada, US, Italy or elsewhere you will find a company named "Data Farm" that is linked to that street name or to the cities name.)

- The phonenumber 000-000-000 is not valid

- The email is fake too (powered/provided by Verisgn)

So it's still ALL fake.

 

[DomainSage]

Beatz go ahead and fax the list and do your best to get those names avaliable to the public, because we ALL want them.

 

[RacerX]

Originally posted by Brujah
beatz,
I think you're arguing with yourself here, or you're completely misunderstanding me. Either way, I'll not bother with your threads on the matter anymore.

Brujah is right.

This has been going on six months and the list was posted for all to see many moons ago. (Not just a few days ago). Do your homework people---like some already have...



To properly report false Whois information, use the following form:

http://www.internic.net/cgi/rpt_whois/rpt.cgi

 

[beatz]

Well i reported the 3 mentioned to internic.
Seems i can't find that list mentioned by RacerX - maybe somebody can help me out ?
That way i could check the whois of all those names and include the ones with fake data in my fax.

 

[Beachie]

Beatz,

As I pointed out in the other thread there were many domains stolen using DotRegister, including:

estates.com
shoppers.com
sheriff.com
friendship.com
advice.com
odyssey.com
athlete.com
grapevine.com
golfclubs.com

There were others stolen, which I wouldn't even pay $6.95 registration for, so it's not a small case.

You are wasting your time trying to get these released. Verisign are not going to release six-figure domains that are owned by someone. Especially when it's well published that they were stolen. ICANN aren't going to make Verisign drop them, incorrect contact details or not.

Even if they are released, you have sod-all chance of catching them yourself.

 

[avs162]

actually they may have to release them but think anyone but the top catchers and the snap holders have a shot

good luck

 

[Beachie]

Originally posted by avs162
actually they may have to release them but think anyone but the top catchers and the snap holders have a shot

good luck

OK, I'll bite: Why would they "have to" release them?

 

[avs162]

if they cannot validate the proper whois within the 15 day or 5 day allowed time upon regestered complaint which beats has allready filed not that it does him any good.

read the ican registar whois policy think the final was last month

and check out the article on icanwatch regarding same

they dont want to drop but to much attention and have limited time

and buy agreement cant sell

just my thoughts could be wrong

 

[Beachie]

Originally posted by avs162
if they cannot validate the proper whois within the 15 day or 5 day allowed time upon regestered complaint which beats has allready filed not that it does him any good.

read the ican registar whois policy think the final was last month

and check out the article on icanwatch regarding same

they dont want to drop but to much attention and have limited time

and buy agreement cant sell

just my thoughts could be wrong

BTW, There are two N's in ICANN..

Too much attention?? From where? There was a lot of attention over the theft of the domains, but as for having "invalid" contact details I don't think I've seen any publicity at all.

Actually, the contact details aren't even invalid. They have the original owners contact information, just no email address (which isn't required).

Do you think Verisign cares about ICANN policy anyway?

 

[avs162]

spell this

http://icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=948

 

[RacerX]

Originally posted by Beachie


Actually, the contact details aren't even invalid. They have the original owners contact information, just no email address (which isn't required).

Wrong. Most of them indeed have incorrect and phony contact information beyond just the false admin email address.

 

[Beachie]

Originally posted by avs162
spell this

http://icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=948

So what? These domains were stolen, and are in the process of being returned to their owners. They won't drop, so stop kidding yourselves.

Beatz might as well be banging his head against a wall for all the difference his fax will make.

Beatz, RacerX and avs162 - let us know when these domains are dropping and I'll bow down to your superior knowledge. Until then I'm laughing my ass off at you.

 

[beatz]

Originally posted by Beachie

BTW, There are two N's in ICANN..


Actually, the contact details aren't even invalid. They have the original owners contact information, just no email address (which isn't required).

See, i investigated about every detail for those 3 mentioned names - not ONE of these company names are valid. 2 of 3 addresses don't even exist and so on.
You may wanna do some research yourself.
And why is it you constantly ignore the fact that the VS executive already confirmed to me the names DO get released to the public if they can't find the true whois data?!

 

[Beachie]

Originally posted by beatz


See, i investigated about every detail for those 3 mentioned names -

I hope it didn't take you long.

not ONE of these company names are valid. 2 of 3 addresses don't even exist and so on.
You may wanna do some research yourself.
And why is it you constantly ignore the fact that the VS executive already confirmed to me the names DO get released to the public if they can't find the true whois data?!

Proof of the pudding is in the eating. I'll be watching these domains closely now, so lets see who's right.

Out of interest, the original contact details for soul.com are:
Datafarm
71 Brookhollow Drive
Wimberley, TX 78676 US
Tel: +1 512 847 5650
Fax: +1 281 447 5425

Lotto.com:
11801 Rockville Pike #1511
Rockville, MD 20852 US
Tel: +1 212 725 6550
Fax: +1 410 995 0495

URL.com:
URL Inc
PO Box O
Stanford, CA 94309 US
Tel: +1 415 592 8499
Email: [email protected]

Like I've been saying, the info you are seeing in whois has been "made up" by one of your Verisign "executives" until they're able to find the correct details.

 

[Sheva]

Originally posted by Beachie
Beatz,

As I pointed out in the other thread there were many domains stolen using DotRegister, including:

estates.com
shoppers.com
sheriff.com
friendship.com
advice.com
odyssey.com
athlete.com
grapevine.com
golfclubs.com

There were others stolen, which I wouldn't even pay $6.95 registration for, so it's not a small case.

You are wasting your time trying to get these released. Verisign are not going to release six-figure domains that are owned by someone. Especially when it's well published that they were stolen. ICANN aren't going to make Verisign drop them, incorrect contact details or not.

Even if they are released, you have sod-all chance of catching them yourself.

Mary.com too