$XX,XXX Potential Sale

[dcristo]

The domain I'm buying appears on Yahoo but not Google or MSN. Is there a simple way to figure out if the name is blacklisted on these search engines?

It could just be that the domain doesn't have very many links pointing to it, so it's not indexed yet.

 

[EM @MAJ.com]

The search engine is crawling domain names or websites because of contents, links, etc.

 

[MinionDH]

It could just be that the domain doesn't have very many links pointing to it, so it's not indexed yet.

I think you're right because the site isn't active and there are no links pointing to it.

 

[dcristo]

I think you're right because the site isn't active and there are no links pointing to it.

There you go that's the reason. It is very rare for a domain to be blacklisted.

 

[VirtualT]

Go with an escrow service that actually takes control of the name such as Moniker.
Also I can check the history for you if you have not already done so

BR's

 

[MinionDH]

There you go that's the reason. It is very rare for a domain to be blacklisted.

Excellent. That's what I was thinking as well

Also I can check the history for you if you have not already done soBR's

Thanks for the offer but I've already checked. Everything looks fine

 

[Domagon]

Escrow.com is fine, especially since you are buying. The risk, though very small, is more on the seller than buyer when using escrow.com.

Moniker is not as safe as many believe. Moniker reserves the right (and they have acknowledged this publicly!) to take back the domain after the "escrow" closes, if later there are payment problems ... ie. the buyer used a stolen credit card, etc... this totally defeats the purpose of escrow - Moniker's so-called escrow is a misnomer, since it's somewhat different than true escrow, which could potentially leave both buyer and seller out of luck in some instances; escrow.com despite its flaws truly understands how escrow works in the real world. Don't misunderstand me - I like Moniker, but escrow, in my view, is not their forte - there are better choices.

Getting back to your situation - feel free to PM and/or email me for free assistance.

[email protected]

Ron

 

[MinionDH]

Escrow.com is fine, especially since you are buying. The risk, though very small, is more on the seller than buyer when using escrow.com.

Thanks Ron. After reading your post and looking back on this thread I'm definately going with Escrow.com

 

[BostonDomainer]

I personally use sedo when selling my names and have never had any problems with them . But with buying anything past the high x,xxx range I go with Moniker, Monty and his crew are known for safety and security in the industry and they are very proactive should anything for some odd reason go wrong. Their customer service is impecable. I had a big buy once that was starting to get complicated- I asked for Monty and thats who I got on the line. If it's a big sell, use Moniker Escrow if its a big buy use Moniker Escrow. Its comforting when you can get the big cheese on the line without any crap.

 

[Domagon]

A follow-up regarding escrow ...

This may be obvious, but will mention it anyways...

Escrow does NOT guarantee "title" ... what I mean by that is if the domain has an ownership problem (ie. is stolen), TM issues, etc no escrow service, that I know of, protects against that.

It's always important to feel comfortable with its history / parties involved before completing a transaction regardless of using escrow or not.

Good luck with the purchase

Ron

 

[checknme]

Moniker reserves the right (and they have acknowledged this publicly!) to take back the domain after the "escrow" closes, if later there are payment problems ... ie. the buyer used a stolen credit card, etc... this totally defeats the purpose of escrow.

Point of Escrow = increased security for all right?

But please do explain this to me why the Moniker scenario is bad?

If you are the seller and the buyer uses a stolen CC to pay, you will get your name back.

If you are the buyer and you pay with a stolen CC, you deserve to have the name taken from you anyway.

With Escrow, just use a loophole and you have a shot at getting away with it (so I have experienced!).

Is the problem just semantic?

 

[maroulis]

agree - moniker is safer than escrow.com - I believe monte locks domain @ moniker for certain period after monies exchanged and domain pushed

the loopwhole @ Escrow.com re: reversing whois info to seller after buyer receives domain is a major problem with the system.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

But please do explain this to me why the Moniker scenario is bad?

because they accept a payment type that may be disputed weeks later after the transaction is completed. It should be bank wire transfer so the cash is in hand when the domain transfer is made.

 

[checknme]

Inconvenience at worst. Better knowing someone tried to rip you off two weeks later and still get your name back - than not. Maybe I am just jaded :/

I do agree thought that in this case (buyer), it does not matter much. I should have said that in my first post.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

Inconvenience at worst. Better knowing someone tried to rip you off two weeks later and still get your name back - than not. Maybe I am just jaded :/

I do agree thought that in this case (buyer), it does not matter much. I should have said that in my first post.

Someone can sell the domain to another party. Then when the dispute comes in the domain could be taken from this other party. If the guy filing the dipute waited until the end of the 60 credit card dispute period this would give time for the domain to transferred to another registrar.

 

[Domagon]

60 days from payment date is what Moniker first says, but when pressed, they indicate they may go beyond that timeframe, since credit card disputes can go way beyond 60 days; the reason PayPal, etc uses 6 months as a guideline for "holds".

Transferring out may not protect a buyer either in such an instance - Moniker has publicly stated they would attempt to convince the receiving registrar to transfer it back; undo the registrar-transfer.

A true escrow deals only with non-revocable, secured funds ... totally assumes the risk, if choosing to accept revocable funds.

Undoing transactions after closing is way outside the function of escrow ... and make no mistake, such actions can put both buyer and seller at risk.

For people who seek escrow of both the funds and domain, Sedo is a better choice ... key differences with Sedo is they will assume the risk with revocable funds, and also they are not a registrar and thus not in a position to "take" it back after closing even if they wanted to.

I harp on this topic whenever it comes up because the way Moniker implements escrow is bad for the domain market - people need to have confidence that when using an escrow service that when a transaction closes, it closes ... no undoing it, no taking it back, etc nonsense.

Ron

 

[Deleted member 5660]

Transferring out may not protect a buyer either in such an instance - Moniker has publicly stated they would attempt to convince the receiving registrar to transfer it back; undo the registrar-transfer.

This is crazy. They need to secure the funds in the first place.

I got one one those letters of a registrar trying to convince my registrar to transfer over a domain. The letter was from someone who is heavily involved in ICANN and it claimed they had "proof" that a domain (which I purchased on here) was stolen. If was more than 6 months after I bought the domain and I had transferred to another registrar. While the letter went on and on, apparently the only "proof" they had was that the whois was changed. Well, no kidding, the domain was sold.

Because I use Tucows they sent the letter directly to me so I could respond. I asked for copies of the "proof" as well as the police report of the theft. I never heard back again. This kind of thing goes on all the time where registrars try to make backdoor deals and resolve these disputes the way they think it should be resolved (usually the decision is based on registrar's liability rather than anything else).

 

[checknme]

I guess it comes down to what you are looking for.

As a buyer I know I am not going to use a stolen CC.

As a seller, I know if someone uses a stolen CC I get my name back.

Still seems better than Escrow.com to me. Sedo - I agree has a nice offering too.

I understand the points made above, but because something differs from the norm does not inherently make it bad. I would say it's a point of differentiation for them.

It's good to get all of the "facts" out there though in terms of the Escrow services available. I am sure we all just want to make sure our purchases/sales go through smoothly and nobody gets burned.

Good discussion guys

 

[Deleted member 5660]

As a seller, I know if someone uses a stolen CC I get my name back.

maybe, maybe not. Just don't accept credit card payments and you should be fine.

 

[checknme]

Still, I would rather have the Moniker scenario then the Escrow.com one.