CDRP funny business
Every once in a while, I'll read up on CDRP decisions. Check out this one:
Supposed facts listed by the arbitrator/service provider in the beginning of the decision are:
3. The Domain Name at issue is dressbarn.ca (the “Domain Name”).
4. The Registrar of the Domain Name is Go Daddy Domains Canada, Inc.
5. The Domain Name was created on August 26, 2005.
6. The registration of the Domain Name lapsed on August 26, 2013.
7. The Registrant registered the Domain Name on or after August 26, 2013.
This says that the domain lapsed, supposedly meaning that it expired on Aug 26, 2013, and was re-registered by the registrant on or after that same date.
However, whois says that domain was registered on 2005-08-26, 8 years prior, and to the day - which matches the date the complainant said they originally registered it.
My records don't show the domain ever being picked up in TBR from 2006 onward, however, my records don't go back that far in 2005. I also don't have a complete listing of all expiring domains from that time-frame, just the domains that were re-registered.
So, what is quite curious is, how the hell does this scenario happen where a domain is claimed to have expired and been re-registered, but then magically has a current registration date pre-dating the supposed expiry & re-registration dates??
I can only see a few explanations:
1. The domain expired, but rather than letting the domain go to TBR, the registrar kept it for themselves.
2. The domain expired, but the registrar sold/pushed/transferred the domain to the new registrant rather than letting the domain go to TBR.
3. The domain expiry facts presented in the case are fabricated and the complainant _never_ owned the domain to begin with, explaining why the registration date never changed.
4. The facts presented in the case were accurate, but when transferring the domain to the complainant, CIRA strangely felt the need to backdate the domain to the original registration date, even though there would be no real need to do so.
I would hope it wouldn't be #1 or #2, because that would show impropriety at the Registrar level. I would hope it wouldn't be #3 because then someone was outright lying and an arbitrator couldn't be bothered to verify basic facts and simply accepted what the complainant said. I would hope it wouldn't be #4 because CIRA arbitrarily changing a registration date for a registrant would seem to also be an impropriety.
Unfortunately the registrant didn't file a response - otherwise there might have been some additional explanation there...
Anyone else have a different theory? Anyone seen this kinda thing happen before? Anyone want to guess as to which theory is correct?