While plowing through the results, a few things came to mind when I reviewed this auction below:

Question #1

Should people be compensated by Snapnames when they lose the auction to Halverez? In other words, Halverez ends up with the domain name they were bidding on?

Snapnames has stated they ” will offer a rebate, with 5.22% interest” but that’s only to those whose bids were inflated by the fake auction bids.

Question #2

What is Snapnames going to do about domain names that are currently registered to Halverez? The current whois record for this name that I lost at auction, has known contact details for Halverez. The creation date matches up perfectly to the auction date.

Question #3

Who is receiving the revenue from domain names that Halverez “won” at auction? For example, the domain name I lost to Halverez above is currently parked:

Who has been making money from this domain? How many other domains are there like this? In terms of compensation, how do you put a price on lost opportunity cost, revenue from parking/development and revenue from domain sales?

This is starting to take shape now that there appears to be a Class Action Lawsuit filed.

Tell us what you think! Have you have lost to Halverez? What happened?

Unfortunately we may never REALLY know what went on. What is good, is that Snapnames had the guts (some could call it a moral obligation or duty of care) to admit they had a problem and are in the process of addressing it.

Can I suggest a few questions to be added to their FAQ:

Q1. Given all the noise (some could call it evidence) in the industry, why has it taken us 4 years and 8 months to identify this?

Q2. Given due diligence, accounting standards, segregation of duties etc.. how come we failed to identify this in the first place?

————-

• Bidding affected approximately five percent of total SnapNames auctions since 2005, most of which occurred between 2005 and 2007.
• The incremental revenue from the bidding represented approximately one percent of SnapNames’ auction revenue since 2005.

• Enhanced monitoring of bidding activity for suspect behavior
• Additional controls over financial transactions
• Specific domain name registration policies for employees

SnapNames, and all in the Oversee family of companies, are deeply disappointed with this incident.  Since its founding in 2000, SnapNames has been committed to the principles of fairness and trust; the company wants to assure customers—through both words and actions—that it remains committed to those principles.

It just so happens that in Melbourne, Victoria (where AusRegistry is based) its the running of the Melbourne Cup.

In February, 2009 auDA announced that it had extended its .au Registry Licence Agreement with AusRegistry until 2014. They have a few more Melbourne Cups to get it right.

What should concern every investor who buys .com.au are the comments that auDA made in relation to “unofficial drop lists”.

Here is the initial question posed by auDA back in August:

“What action (if any) auDA should take in relation to unofficial domain drop lists, and the domain-catching services being provided by some accredited registrars and other industry participants.”

Here is an extract from the “response to public comments“. I have highlighted particular areas of interest.

“Submissions that commented on this issue were roughly divided between those that argued for no action to be taken, and those that wanted to see this type of activity more directly managed or regulated by auDA.”

“In the latter category, 7 submissions supported the publication of an official domain drop list, and 3 submissions supported the introduction of a centrally managed domain release/auction process.”

auDA Response

“We note that many of the submissions that argued for no action to be taken on this issue came from people who currently provide or use domain-catching services. Other submissions pointed out that ordinary members of the public are not aware of, or do not have access to, these services and are therefore at a significant disadvantage. Our experience in handling complaints and inquiries from the public tends to support this view. We propose to publish an official, authoritative domain drop list. The list would be updated daily and would include the exact date and time that domain names will become available for registration. As with the previous issue, we believe this change would help to level the playing field. It would also help to avoid any confusion or uncertainty which may arise from unofficial drop lists.”

“We have given consideration to proposals that auDA take a more direct role in managing the release of expired and deleted domain names, for example through a centralised auction process. This would represent a major change to the Australian DNS which we do not believe is warranted at this time. Our expectation is that the publication of an official drop list will enable more registrars and other industry participants to offer drop-catching services, which will increase consumer awareness and choice.”

– ends –

So let me get this straight:

1. There were 35 submissions in total, and according to auDAs own statement, 7 supported the publication of a drop list. So the regulator is appearing to ignore the majority of submissions via public comment, and publish their own list anyway.

2. auDA says that “ordinary members of the public are not aware of, or do not have access to, these services and are therefore at a significant disadvantage.” How? Where is the evidence? Anyone can sign up to a drop catching service. How is this being significantly disadvantaged?

3. auDA claims that publishing their “official, authoritative domain drop list” would “help to level the playing field”. I personally believe that this will interfere with the operation of a free market.

4. As for auDA’s expectation that more registrars and other industry participants will “offer drop-catching services, which will increase consumer awareness and choice.” This statement clearly demonstrates complete ignorance of the .au marketplace and how it technically operates.

Looking into my crystal ball, I see:

* Registrars holding onto the domains registered (by users) with them;

* Other registrars (owned by the same company with multiple credentials) having a distinct advantage over the general public;

* Other companies getting into the drop catching business, thinking they can make a quick buck by promising to register a name at a particular time;

* The general public being under the illusion that they can hand register a .com.au that day at 3pm (or whenever the auDA decide the time is);

Its clear to me that we are seeing a bunch of bureaucrats desperately trying to keep themselves in a job, as opposed to letting a free market decide.

Check out the article for more details.

The company wanted $79.95 to renew a .com domain name! Of course, I had already renewed it for less than 10% of that price – with my REAL registrar.

Companies like this provide me with a constant source of entertainment. On their website under “How does it work?” you will find Step #2 in their instructions. It reads:

“We interact with your Internet Service Provider/ ISP to renew your domain name. In cases your ISP requires your login information we will contact you by mail and you will have to provide us with login information so we can preform a renewal.”

Ohhh… so I send you my credentials! Oh that makes sense…. here are mine for Network Solutions.

ID: newbiescammer

Password: latvia-ownz-my-domains

Please renew all my domains for me as they will expire soon. Wow…. that should take care of my portfolio. Now, back to outbidding Halvarez….

In order to vote, you must qualify under clause 16.1 of auDA’s constitution and your membership fee has to be paid.

You can read my candidate statement online; in summary, I stand for reform within auDA to increase transparency and the free-market commercialization of Australian namespace.

I know that some people think that having a Domainer on Board of auDA is unthinkable (and maybe an impossible task, in terms of getting elected). That’s why I’m asking for your help.

Please have a look through the auDA Members list and see if you know anyone in the Demand section. If you do, please contact them now and ask for them to vote for Simon Johnson. You can download my (already filled in) Proxy form here.

With your support, I’m hopeful that we can change the .au landscape for the better.

Kikabink News has covered the story, providing some interesting commentary: “Companies vary in their motivations for doing share buy-backs. It can be a sign of huge faith in the company or it can be for other reasons. I won’t speculate here, but if I was an investor in Tucows I sure would want to know…”

You can view the latest Tucows share price on the right hand side of the page.  This year its gone from 0.31 to 0.56. What are your thoughts on this?