GoDaddy Finally Nears The Finish Line

Finish LineIt has taken over two months and 4 separate blog posts to finally get GoDaddy near to completion on two sales (Aussie domains) they initiated on behalf of buyers using their Domain Buyer Service.

The last article I wrote on this was two weeks ago – “Godaddy – This Is A Dog’s Breakfast”.

Update On Domains In Question

The first one was GoDaddy didn’t sort this problem out – the buyer did. I emailed them a link to my article, and they organised the Change of Registrant. Whilst the way they did it wasn’t strictly legal in terms of auDA policy, at least it is now in their name. (Domain was still in my company name, but as they were registrant contact, they could do a COR to themselves via their new registrar Synergy Wholesale).

With regards the second domain – – yesterday, I received the following:


When I opened it, this was what I got (note how many pages there are down the bottom). Whilst completing and signing the form was fairly easy, I just can’t believe that in this day and age GoDaddy puts their customers through this torture. UniRegistry is an overseas registrar, and their Change of Registrant system for .au domains is streamlined and electronic. If they can do it, why can’t GoDaddy?



Ned O’Meara – 17th November 2016


10 thoughts on “GoDaddy Finally Nears The Finish Line

  • Avatar
    November 17, 2016 at 10:50 am


    We have companies here in Australia that use similar forms

    One local company even asks for a copy of your driver’s license

    Interestingly, when I refused to provide my driver’s license they processed the form anyway


    • Ned O'Meara
      November 17, 2016 at 11:03 am

      @Greg – yes I’m aware that certain dinosaur registrars still use paper (you showed me the example the other day).

      But progressive registrars have long moved to automated electronic transfers. It is obviously permitted under auDA policy.

      4.2 The registrar may use an automated process for handling registrant transfers, but they must be able to provide a copy of the transfer request and confirmation from the current registrant for inspection by auDA on demand.

  • Luke Summers
    November 17, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    What a nightmare!

    I’ve got some comments on the first scenario, but please correct me if I’m mistaken.

    I believe that it’s keeping within auDA policy to complete a CoR as the buyer, provided you’ve been authorised by the existing registrant to do so. Here’s an excerpt from the policy (emphasis is mine):

    “I am authorised to submit this form for or on behalf of the current registrant of the domain name”

    • Ned O'Meara
      November 17, 2016 at 2:28 pm

      @Luke – I believe you are mistaken! 😉

      My understanding from talking to auDA is that both parties must warrant and declare that they are eligible to undertake a Change of Registrant. I (on behalf of the registrant Domain Syndicates Pty Ltd) never authorised the new registrant to act on my / our behalf.

      That last sentence is applicable where you have an individual submitting form on behalf of corporate registrant; or where there is some other written authority between the parties.

      • Luke Summers
        November 17, 2016 at 2:47 pm

        Thanks Ned. I’m always open to being corrected by those with more expertise on the subject!

        To explore this further, do you think that an email between the parties, with the current registrant granting authority for the buyer to complete CoR, would be inline with the policy? Or would this still be outside of the policy requirements?

  • Avatar
    November 17, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    Relevant & not too far off topic (hopefully)

    I sold 2 domains and due to the casual nature of the negotiations I finally accepted 50% of what I thought was the agreed price, so when it came time to the COR’s I did not intervene and thought stuff it let the buyer pay

    Then, after the transaction was funded, I received a 5-page form from Melbourne IT for each name and signed it, returned it to the client and then he sent it to them with the $336 fee for each name

    The kicker is that today, 3-days later, the form has been rejected because it lists me as Principal not CEO

    • Ned O'Meara
      November 17, 2016 at 5:38 pm

      @Greg – I guess $336 pays for a few trees. Unbelievable.

  • Avatar
    November 17, 2016 at 11:25 pm

    Mostly unrelated, but I get so frustrated when I’m dealing with a company in (current year) that refuses to accept digital signatures on documents and demands print/sign.

    Fast way to lose my business.

Comments are closed.