Archive | March, 2008

On a Vacation — Experience My Trip!

Posted on 21 March 2008 by Lord Brar

I am on a 10 Days vacation to my state of Punjab. You can see my photos from the trip on my flickr page. More when I am back!

Comments (3) Sold For 1.25 Million USD

Posted on 17 March 2008 by Lord Brar

This is Just In — the domain that has been on everyone’s wish list has finally been sold to the team at for US$1.25 million dollars.

Jeff Geaney from said the two character .com has unlimited uses in the enormous media field of the Internet and has yet to say what the domain will be used for.

The domain is currently being held in until the transaction and transfer is completed.

Source | Yikes, this is NOT good.

Comments (3)

Future of Domaining Industry + Message to Domainers – Tim Schumacher, CEO, Sedo

Posted on 11 March 2008 by Lord Brar

Interview Texts of Tim and Trey’s Interview are Coming Soon.

Comments (3)

More Scams and Drama on DNForum

Posted on 08 March 2008 by Lord Brar

Scams and Drama on DNf

Two of the most recent scam-attempts at DNForum —

Scam #1 – Member claiming to be a woman who had a tough childhood and struggling to raise her kids, posted a thread about how she lost her two-year old. She asks members to support her during this tough time and buy her domains.

Emotions and condolences start to flow — so do red-flags. Discussions take emotional turn and all of sudden it turns out the member is a 51 Year Old man. You can read the more dramatic version of this incident here on Acro’s blog.

Lesson – Never Take Things at Face Value.

Scam #2 – More stolen domains for sale and again the involvement of member 9MM — who also had been also trying to act as he was playing the investigator by having a contact with the scammers when the scammers claimed him to be part of the play.

I can’t say that 9MM is guilty but his activities are VERY suspicious. How can someone buy all the high-profile names costing big-bucks when he claims to be a kid of parents who are so poor that he and they are not even able to afford a phone. Something just doesn’t add-up. Investigation is on.

You can read about this story here.

Why can’t these low-lives put in their creative brains to positive use rather than try to find ways to scam people and steal the things people have put in so much effort to earn in forst place?

Comments (3)

If it is NOT Legal in US, Make Sure Your Domain is NOT in US.

Posted on 07 March 2008 by Lord Brar

In case you have not heard of it already, US Government has ordered the deletion of a domain name because the company using the name was dealing with Cuba.

And how could it do so? Because the company had registered the name through a US registrar Enom. You can read about the whole story here.

Does anyone remember that BoDog also lost its names just because they were registered with Enom. (DNf Discussion)

The lessons is, if you are using your name for something that is not very legal in USA, use a registrar like Joker or which are not under US jurisdiction.

Comments (9)

What?!?! You Don’t Have an Instant Messenger?

Posted on 06 March 2008 by Lord Brar

Something interesting happened to me yesterday — I came across four different people who don’t have any instant messenger. I say interesting because I am not so habitual of this happening to me daily — not just one but four different people.

Saying words like AIM, Skype, GTalk, MSN Messenger and Yahoo Messeger did ring some bells — however, that is not the point.

The point is — IMs are no longer the tool to chat up with random strangers in the other parts of the world — the days of ICQ and chat-rooms are long gone except. Today IMs are a killer and highly profitable business-utility and an excellent way to build relationships with people. I know I have done it!

Instant Messenger = Perfect Blend of Phone + eMail

Remember the time when you had to write letters on paper and wait for weeks, if not months before you could get a reply to it.

Then came telephone. It was a smashing success because people to get a reply instantly. But still phone had one flaw — you could not multi-task with phone, which meant that you had to give your full attention to the person on the other end.

After phone, there came email. You could get your message delivered instantly AND you could multi-task, meaning you could take your own time to respond to the other person. I don’t think I need to even mention the popularity and utility of this killer-app.

Instant Messengers were next and they can be considered a perfect blend of phone and email. You get the speed of phone in interaction and the utility of multi-tasking of email when you are using instant messengers.

When it comes to domaining, instant messengers are the killer-app which let you network with fellow domainers, sell more domains, learn from others and build long-term relationships with others.

One opposition that you may hear about IMs is that they are a waste of time and they lower your productivity. Sure, you have to spend some time when you are talking to people. However, I prefer to consider it an investment into myself and my business.

I can spend thousands of dollars going to conventions to build contacts with people so why can’t I spend a few more thousand in time-value to make the most of those and other contacts. Heck, I have made thousands and thousands of dollars because of IMs.

So, what are you waiting for? Grab a copy of Trillian and Skype and make your accounts with Skype, AIM, GTalk, MSN and Yahoo.

Once you have done that, add me as a friend —

Skype – lord_brar
AIM – lordbrar
GTalk – lord [at] *
MSN – lord [at] *
Yahoo – lord_brar

* replace [at] with @.

Catch you on IM. Rock on!

Comments (20)


Sign The Petition Against Snowe Bill – NOW!

Posted on 04 March 2008 by Lord Brar

Snowe Bill

Domaining Industry is facing a Crisis! Olympia Snow has introduced a bill which, if passed, will be a disaster for the domaining industry. Here’s the summary of the bill —

Summary of the Legislation
Notwithstanding its title, the proposed legislation goes far beyond targeting “phishing” – the criminal misuse of e-mail and websites to falsely solicit financial information for fraudulent purposes – an activity that is already illegal and subject to enforcement under a variety of state and federal laws. It also establishes a parallel trademark-like infringement enforcement system that goes far beyond the provisions of ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) arbitration procedures as well as the U.S. Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA).

The proposed law would make it illegal for any person to use a website in violation of the anti-dilution provisions of U.S. Trademark law to solicit any information facilitating the purchase of goods and services by use of false or fraudulent pretenses or “misleading representations” that the solicitation was being made by or on behalf of a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entity.

It would also make it unlawful for any person to use a domain name in connection with the display of a webpage or an advertisement on a webpage if—

  • The domain name was identical or confusingly similar to the name or brand name of a government office, nonprofit organization, business or other entity.
  • The person had actual or implied knowledge that the domain name would likely mislead a computer user about any material fact regarding the webpage or advertisement.

In determining whether the person had actual or implied knowledge of likely misleading effect the courts could look to a variety of factors, including the person’s “intent to divert consumers from the brand name or trademark owner’s online location…that could harm the goodwill…by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website.” Another factor would be whether the person had offered to sell the domain name to any third party “without having used…the domain name in the bona fide offering of goods and services”, a provision that appears to be aimed directly at “parked” websites consisting solely of advertising links.

Again, despite the bill’s title, none of these trademark-related provisions contain any requirement that the domain name and website had actually been utilized to facilitate a criminal “phishing” scheme. They address essentially the same harms for which the UDRP and ACPA already provide remedies, but in a more expansive manner with the registrant at greater legal disadvantage and subject to harsher penalties.

Enforcement of the APCPA could be undertaken by –

  • A state attorney general or any other official of a state
  • The Federal Trade Commission (and any violation of the APCPA would be considered to be a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair and deceptive trade practice, and subject to its additional penalties and remedies)
  • Federal banking and securities agencies, state insurance commissioners, and the Federal Communications Commission
  • Interactive computer services (e.g., ISPs)
  • Trademark owners

All of these parties could seek injunctions, enforcement, and recovery of actual monetary damages. In addition, interactive computer services and trademark owners could seek punitive damages for willful and knowing violations – the private right of action granted to these parties in a bill ostensibly aimed at criminal activity is highly questionable. In cases filed by the FTC, FCC, and state officials, cease and desist orders and injunctions could be obtained without any requirement to allege, much less prove, that the domain name registrant had actual or implied knowledge of likely misleading effect.

In actions brought by a state attorney general or other state official monetary damages could be sought in the amount of actual monetary losses or, in the alternative, statutory damages of $250 per violation up to a maximum of $2 million. However, a court could triple the statutory damages award, up to a maximum of $6 million, if it found that the defendant had willfully and knowingly violated the Act or if the unlawful activity included the use of a domain name in violation of the anti-dilution provisions of the Trademark Act. The court could also award attorney fees where a successful suit was brought by a state attorney general or other state official.

Sign a petition against this draconian bill — Click Here.

– Discussion on DNForum : Thread 1, Thread 2, Thread 3

Internet Commerce Association Story

Story Developing. Stay Tuned for Updates.

Comments (6)

Tags: , , ,

Another NetSol Blooper!

Posted on 02 March 2008 by Lord Brar

bdjuf posted a thread on DNForum about how Network Solutions is giving him trouble with a Stolen Domain even though Robert had called them up to investigate the issue. Here’s his side of the story —

Hey everyone

so many months back I bought a for 10,000$, from a domain broker who now I know is a thief. The funny thing is, this thief was actually the whois email of a very good (a company), so I had no idea trusting the seller at the time.

I went through, sent the payment, and when it came time for transfer (at netsol), the domain was under a “temporary lock”.

I called netsol to see whats up with the domain, ask if it’s stolen, and the rep assured me that everything was fine with the domain, and the lock was there simply because of protection for the account. The rep then offered to merge the account in which the was and my account, and then she did.

So now I have the domain name in my netsol account.

Many weeks after I purchased the name, Netsol calls me up telling me that the domain I have is stolen, and the previous owner wants it back. I immediately tell them that as I would be more than happy to return this (25k+) as long as I get my 10,000$ back. (fair enough, right?) I also assured netsol that I won’t be transfering the domain out, and that I am there for their full cooperation if they needed my help for anything. I forwarded them all emails and did everything they asked.

So now, NetSol is calling me up telling me how I am partially to blame because I did not investigate this locked status (me calling and explicitly making sure everything is fine with the domain name wasn’t enough obviously). They also tell me to speak to Escrow to see how I can get my money back.

Turns out Escrow can’t get my money back without the bank owner’s (the hijacker’s) consent, which we all know we aren’t getting.

Now the situation is that Netsol called the FBI about the situation, and the FBI will contact escrow asking for the bank information of the hijacker.

I would never keep any of my precious names at a registrar like Network Solutions but rather transfer them to someone more secure like Moniker the moment I can.

But that’s not the point. The point is that how much is NetSol to be blamed when their representative said everything was okay.

Follow the discussion on DNForum.

Comments (4)