| 4:38 am on Feb 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|so the problem was probably the failure to meet nexus requirements |
Which, to me, raises the question of Pool's ability to "catch" - i.e. register - the domain.
Which, in turn, raises the question of their ability to "transfer good and clear 'title'".
| 8:54 pm on Feb 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Video.us ended at Pool.com today at $18,500.
Bought by a Belgium company less than a year ago for $75,000 - the largest .us sale publicly reported.
| 9:02 pm on Feb 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
If I had $75K on the line I'd be sending in the marines, lawyers, guns and money to salvage the domain. In this case there's not much being reported about any effort to salvage that $75K investment. This is one that I don't quite understand "as is" - just a dropped domain - unless the "reported sale" was less than straight up and true.
Not sure what the lesson is here, except to not allow your expensive domain names to drop for wont of "what I don't know".
Still, it's a nice domain.
| 9:09 pm on Feb 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Most I've heard is that the email on Video.us WhoIs began bouncing and the .us registry was questioned about the Belgian company meeting the Nexus requirements. Because registry could not reach the owner to verify Nexus they canceld the registration and pool caught it.
| 11:19 pm on Feb 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Both are in Private auctions now at Pool.com with decent bids: |
|Video.us ended at Pool.com today at $18,500. |
(In addition to everything else), did the winning bid at Pool go down by $7,500?
| 12:59 am on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)|
That was a typo, video.us was 13.5 yesterday.
Shoppers.com is now up to $53k