Help me understand this: (2.Viewing)

I was thinking the same

Robert tried option 1, and if that didn't work, he would have gone with UDRP (Suggestion made by John Berryhill). The buyer would have lost the domain either way.

silentg said:

Robert tried option 1, and if that didn't work, he would have gone with UDRP (Suggestion made by John Berryhill). The buyer would have lost the domain either way.

Click to expand...

Paul really overstepped his bounds here, as it was a a valid expiry due to user error and a definite case for the UDRP, not a guy who's now in charge of domains at a registrar.

And the potential odds on a legal outcome doesn't matter, as the process should never have happened this way.

DomainRecap said:

Paul really overstepped his bounds here, as it was a a valid expiry due to user error and a definite case for the UDRP, not a guy who's now in charge of domains at a registrar.

And the potential odds on a legal outcome doesn't matter, as the process should never have happened this way.

Click to expand...

I thought I was alone in that opinion.

Yes, the domain was bought legitimately, someone won the auction.

It is now between the new domain owner and the old owner who can file a UDRP. Paul certainly did overstep the process and it makes you feel like the rules are not applied evenly across the board.

As far as the UDRP goes, one could argue a legitimate use is harvesting back links on a domain that has been dropped. It is a valid business motto and the UDRP could go 50/50 depending on who you use to help you legally.

This was a no-win situation for GoDaddy and Paul. If they intervened, GoDaddy would get roasted. If they did not intervene, ditto. I actually think Paul made the right call here, but the optics still look problematic.

MaiTaiMan said:

This was a no-win situation for GoDaddy and Paul. If they intervened, GoDaddy would get roasted. If they did not intervene, ditto. I actually think Paul made the right call here, but the optics still look problematic.

Click to expand...

I disagree, as this was a clear violation of the standard ICANN and UDRP regulations, and it's easy to see when you compare it to an everyday, leasable good.

Let's say a car dealer leases a vehicle to Scobleizer Inc and through corporate stupidity, the company defaults on the monthly payments, ignores all emails requesting payment, and does not remit payment for however many months it takes for the lease agreement to be voided and the car repossessed.

This car is then sold to Person X for $27,000, but then the nitwits at Scobleizer suddenly realize their car is gone and call the dealership who tells them it's been sold to another person. After threatening legal action and posting about the issue on various social media (and somehow making the dealership look like the bad guy), the leaser tells the current owner they are taking it back due to a 30-day waiver in the TOS, then refunds his $27K, and gives the vehicle back to Scobleizer Inc.

In your opinion, do you think the above is the "right call" to make?