Yes we definatly know who NOT to do business with if we dont want to be ripped off / screwed over dont we.
put up a one page 'Client hasnt paid his bills, please contact accounts'. That usually gets them jumping instantly. That is, if the website is any part of his business.
lol. your right about the auto-renew. i normally keep it on for my clients THAT PAY. more to protect myself from forgetting. but i removed it right before it expired. regardless. i wasnt trying to steal the domain or i would have done that with out asking. i have never screwed anyone over in my life. i wanted to know my options, i wanted ADVICE. i got it. so shut your mouth now. im good. obviously i won some fans here. and i even found some of the most perfect people i have ever met. its been an honor. thanks for the advice and the attitude. and i actually mean that to some of you. *unsubscribed*
All's well that ends well A man is known by the company he keeps. Now, i think it as a worst situation and well and good if you call that domain owner for further proceedings
Can I say that I have a certain amount of sympathy for the OP - even though his story has changed over time - because the we've had a similar thing happen in the past with domain names. We have a reseller account with a couple of the big domain sellers. When a customer purchases a domain through us they select the domain, add their own details (ownership, billing etc), pay through our billing for the domain, and the domain is purchased in their name; all automatically. Seems simple enough, but the true details of this transaction are slightly different. When the domain purchaser pays us for the domain the money goes into our own account and the domain owner pay us. However, when the domain is purchased from the domain registrar (e.g. Enom) the domain is paid for using the amount of money we have in credit with the domain registrar. We have to maintain a healthy balance of money with our registrars to ensure we have funds to cover the purchase/renewal of domains. It's done this way so we pay the domain registrar our "reseller" price, and we charge the domain purchaser our price - slightly higher - which includes a small profit. That's usually fine for new domains, but it has to be pointed out that if the original purchaser does a charge back we lose the money the paid, plus processing costs, PLUS the money we paid to the registrar. When someone purchases a domain from us they have the option to automatically renew - or not. Our default setting is to automatically renew the domain which is what the majority of domain purchasers want. When it comes near to renewal time we send reminders out to the domain owner 60 days, 30 days, 14 days, 7 days, 3 days, 2 days, and 1 day before the domain is due for renewal if it hasn't been paid for in that time. If the domain is on auto-renew with the registrar, but the client doesn't pay, and we don't cancel the auto-renew, the domain is auto-renewed by the domain registrar using our funds. So, we effectively pay for the domain to be renewed even when the original domain purchaser hasn't paid us. It's all very well to say that we should pay more attention to this (we try) but you can sometimes miss the occassional domain when you have thousands of them - it takes time when you're busy with other things. While we don't consider the domain that has been renewed automatically by the registrar using our funds as belonging to us, it does raise the issue of who, exactly, it does belong to. The original purchaser of the domain has not paid for the domain (which is "leased" from the registrar for a period of time) so has no legal right to claim ownership, whereas we have paid for the domain from our own funds because that's the way the reseller account works with the registrar. I've not explored it further than that, and it hasn't happened often, so it's not a big issue for us. However, it does show that a domain can legitimately be renewed by a third party using their own funds, because this is how a reseller account with a domain registrar works. If the original purchaser doesn't pay for the domain to be renewed then the situation becomes clouded as to who has legal entitlement to it - the company who paid for the renewal or the original purchaser? The purchase of a domain is effectively a lease for the exclusive rights to use that domain for the lease period - i.e. the domain does not "belong" to that company, just the rights to use it for a period of time. The right to continue to use that domain ends when the period of lease ends. If the original purchaser doesn't re-new the lease then their rights to use it end then too. I can see a strong case for the company who did pay to renew the lease as having every right to retain the use of that domain. As I've already said, I haven't explored this further, but I don't think it's fair to the OP to call him a crook or inside trader because the process of acting as a domain reseller does blur the distinction of who pays who for what, and the auto-renew process can cause a 3rd party to pay for domain renewal when the original purchaser does not pay for the renewal, and such an act is completely bereft of any duplicitous or malicious behaviour by the person paying for the renewal.
I can pay to add another year to lots of domain names I do not own. It gives me no rights to the domain name. You are missing the key element, only the owner has the right to renew. The fact you paid the renewal just means you did so on the current owner's behalf. You gain no ownership rights by making a payment on a domain still owned by someone else. The only way the owner of a registered domain changes is if the current owner authorizes it. So, please explain again how YOUR name ends up as the registrant on a domain? It does not happen in the process of paying for it. You have to go in and CHANGE the owner from someone else to YOU. You know what to do when a client does not pay for a domain? Let it expire. If you automatically renewed it - too bad. Your recourse is to try to collect the money from your client. You may not simply help yourself to their domain name. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about these things.
I must have missed that part out. Didn't realize that was the case. Are you absolutely sure about that? There's the moral argument which I would agree with, but what matters is the legal arguement and I'm not so sure what side it would come down upon. If you renewed the domain keeping the clients details then it could be argued you showed intent to renew the domain for the client if the client then decided that they wanted to maintain the domain - although I guess that would have to happen within a reasonable period of time for it to stand. If the client let the domain expire past the period they paid for - despite numerous reminders - then their actions showed they no longer had an interest in retaining any rights to use the domain. In that case, renewing the domain in your own name, while morally questionable, wouldn't be illegal. Just because you didn't wait for a un-specified period of time - a time that would be considered "fair" (one weeks, two weeks, a month?) - doesn't make it any different. Why would something be legal after 2 months but not after 24 hours when they both use the same arguement...the domain expired, the client didn't renew, they lost their right to claim use of that domain. I'm only speculating. I don't know of any case law supporting or not supporting the arguement. It's just an opinion. While I don't agree with doing that on moral grounds, I'm not so certain of any illegality. I'm not sure that is the case because it happens all the time. Companies renew on behalf of their client - just as we do, just as you do. We don't need their specific permission to renew a domain that was ordered by them in the first instance. Asking them to pay for it if they don't want it is another matter. No-one gains ownership rights when a domain is paid for. A domain isn't a physical property or something that is ever actually owned. You just purchase the rights to use that domain for the period the domain is paid for with "first dibs" on renewing/extending your use of that domain on or before that right expires. If we just look at this from a hypothetical perspective. What do you do if a domain is set up to auto-renew, but the client doesn't pay in time yet the registrar renews the domain using the hosting company's funds? Does the original client have a right to do what they want with that domain when they haven't paid for it? If your answer is that you don't let them use it until they have paid then that suggests that you, the company who paid for the auto-renew, is able to control that domain until the client pays for it. Isn't that level of control the same as "owning" the domain (in the broadest sense of the word) until the client pays? If you suggest that the hosting company just give the domain over to the client without them having to pay for it, then I don't believe that is what you would really do or that you would really mean that - and I doubt there are any examples of that actually happening. In an ideal world but sometimes it can be overlooked that a domain is on auto-renew with the registrar but the client hasn't paid. The simple solution to that is to switch off auto-renew but that would annoy more of our clients than the small hit we take by occassionaly paying to renew a domain when the client evnetually doesn't. Clients forget to pay for their domains for all sorts of reasons - no matter how much time in advance, and how many reminders you send them. They can be a forgetful lot! On the whole we renew them anyway, particularly if the client has been a client for a long time or used the domain for a long time, and then get the payment later. Clients are grateful and we don't have to spend more of our time trying to renew expired domains for clients and the work that this can sometimes take than it would have cost us to renew them in the first instance. There's no one-answer-fits-all scenario's. We try to manage it, but some domains are renewed (paid) by us when the client doesn't pay for them. Maybe claiming ownership of the domain for yourself is a step too far - morally - but is it illegal? I've already asked that and I'm not so sure when the client clearly hasn't paid for the domain, and the domain expires...and they still haven't paid. Claiming ownership when the client does want the domain and has paid for renewal before/at expiry is certainly wrong but taking ownership when the client lets the domain expire????? I'm not defending the action because I have no legal opinion. The domain had expired. The OP hasn't mentioned whether the client has come back and asked for the domain (I'm assuming this hasn't happened) so it's clear the client didn't want to renew the domain. Now that a week has passed would it NOW be OK for him to purchase in his own name? Why does one week (or month, or year) make it any more right that doing it when he did? The domain had expired, the client hadn't paid, the domain was "available" for anyone who wanted to purchase it. OK, it wasn't yet available on the general market yet but the OP was in the privileged position of being able to purchase that domain before another company could, but that wasn't illegal. It's been 10 days since the OPs original post. If he paid to renew the domain and put his own details on it now - today - would he have got the same reception? I don't think so. The client has clearly let the domain expire. They haven't paid to renew it and haven't expressed any interest in doing so. Since he has paid for the renewal then why shouldn't he retain use of the domain for period he has paid for and then renew it as he sees fit in the future? The client has abandoned any rights to continue to use the domain. If you agree it is a reasonable action to take now, then why was it unreasonable before when the deciding factor at all times was the fact that the domain had expired and the customer had not exercised their right to renew the domain themselves before the expiry date. I'm not really looking for an arguement, just the basis upon why he was so wrong - from a legal perspective - in doing what he did. My personal opinion is that morally he should have waited a week or two to give the client a chance to pay, but I doubt that has any legal basis.