Important Changes to our Auction format

[neddy]

So will netfleet need to change their stationery to "domain tenders" ?

Now that is genuinely funny.

 

[neddy]

Netfleet is that an iceberg I see ahead?

No you fool; it's a lighthouse.

 

[Ashman]

No you fool; it's a lighthouse.

Neddy, I love your stories. Maybe Netfleet should review the Lighthouse Principle again.

 

[Data Glasses]

why do netfleet insist on changing everything, guess what .... you may be wrong

 

[Chris.C]

Ned and Tim, I respect your opinions but I just think there is a bit too much fearmongering going on.

Call me an optimist, and I know it's hard to see right now, but I really think this will play out well for all of us over time.

But of course, we are all just going to have to wait and see what the future holds.

It's just consumer reaction to unnecessary change.

I get that it seems unnecessary from your perspective, but from NetFleet's perspective it's probably very necessary especially now that they have a few more mouths to feed...

Ask yourself why are NF doing this?

Is it to benefit the enduser who hasn't put in a high enough proxy? No. That's codswallop.

Of course I understand that NetFleet is serving itself first - I just don't hate them for trying to remain economically viable and I'm just a believer that a profitable and innovating NetFleet will lead to good things for the entire industry...

I cringe to think how much harder it would be to buy/sell domains without them...

In simple terms, NF see the proxy bids we put in - and often these are much higher than what the domains actually sell for. So they see all this money "left on the table", and are trying to find a way to grab it.

Are they not entitled to go after it?

It's their system after all - it's not like they are obliged to auction any of these domains off... they could just be registering them for themselves and putting them into their own catalogue.

We could just be grateful that they even allow us to bid?

And let's not forget when you place a proxy bid - you are basically saying "I will happily pay anything up to and including this price for this domain" it's just that now you will just be getting your happiness from simply winning the auction - rather than winning it for less than you were willing to pay.

But it won't happen for the reasons that Shane said. If they change the system, most people will change their bidding habits. Some won't bid at all.

You are right that some will change their bidding habits... and I suspect I too will be a little more hesitant on my bids (I'll probably take off 10 - 20%)...

But at the end of the day its going to come down to a simple maths equations for NetFleet - do they make more money with this method?

If the answer is yes - they will keep it - if the answer is no they will revert back to the old method.

So there is no need to get all bent out of shape - just let the experiment play out and see what comes of it. You may be right and it will be a complete failure...

As for no one bidding - I find that hard to believe - NetFleet still catches 95% of domains - they still hold all the cards.

We are paying their game until a competitor offers a genuine alternative. So I'll still be bidding...

Sure some will probably walk away but they have hundreds of willing participants in their auctions - losing a couple won't be the end of the world to them especially if the results they are producing are much better.

And let's not forget there may very well be people out there that prefer this "tender" system. Turning up at 1pm everyday does suck - you end up wasting 30 minutes of your day trying not to forget.

And I'd be surprised if the AMA is re-incarnated anytime soon (based on various comments).

I have no idea what their plans are for the AMA, obviously I hope they bring it back, but I suspect the decision on whether the AMA is brought back will be a simple economic equation - will the AMA make NetFleet money.

I've stated this before, but I think the problem with the AMA always was that the results it achieved were normally about 15% - 25% of the catalogue results.

This was far from the sort of compelling result that was going inspire domainers to list hundreds of domains for sale.

However if this new system does produce better results - ie 40% - 50% of catalogue results then I suspect thousands of domains would be listed on the AMA.

I know I would be willing to list hundreds of domains if I was confident of these results.



And if NetFleet knew they were going to get hundreds of AMA sales every month I suspect they would be happy to bring back the AMA.

Any comment on this NetFleet?

 

[Chris.C]

If you feel so strongly about the proposed changes by Netfleet, lodge a formal complaint with auDA and point out the fact those upcoming amendments to Netfleet's auction platform constitute a possible breach of the auDA constitution with regards to the following policy:

REALLY...



We all got to deal with headache buyers making baseless accusations all the time and now we are going to do it to our own...

Disappointed.

 

[findtim]

http://screencast.com/t/SPQ6dorspPpp

 

[johno69]

they could just be registering them for themselves and putting them into their own catalogue.

My understanding is doing that would be a direct breech of policy. Can't remember which one, I'll look it up later.

I have stopped buying these days and this change means I care even less about competing for domains.

 

[neddy]

Ask yourself why are NF doing this?

Is it to benefit the enduser who hasn't put in a high enough proxy? No. That's codswallop.

In simple terms, NF see the proxy bids we put in - and often these are much higher than what the domains actually sell for. So they see all this money "left on the table", and are trying to find a way to grab it.

Here are some facts and figures to back this up. I screenshot every auction, so it was easy to compile.

Four day period - 1st October to 4th October 2013

• Total of 31 domains that I bid for on Netfleet
  
  
• Total of my proxy bids = $6353 excl GST
  
  
• Total of my winning bids = $4240 excl GST
  
  
• Total "money left on the table" = $2123 excl GST

Disclaimer: Of the 31 domains that I bid on, some were won by Drop. But the principle still remains - heaps of money left on the table.

Just remember that NF sees everyone's proxy bids! This is why they want to try "one off sealed bids" and "Buy It Now's".

They want to capture the "money left on the table" which somehow they figure should be theirs by right.

Since yesterday, I've had private feedback from six people who are all regular bidders. Without exception, everyone of them has said that they would no longer put high proxy bids in.

And on a separate topic, I haven't even started on the transparency issues at stake here .......

 

[Ashman]

We all got to deal with headache buyers making baseless accusations all the time and now we are going to do it to our own...Disappointed.

Chris, If my accusations are baseless please support your reasoning. Would love to hear your rebuttal. Here is my statement:

"auDA will enhance the benefits to Internet users through:

Adopting open and transparent procedures which are inclusive of all parties having an interest in use of the domain name system in Australia.

Netfleet's proposed changes clearly breach this policy and are without regard to the National Interest objective of the domain name system."

Chris your a smart guy, are Netfleet's changes constitutional by way of being TRANSPARENT ?

 

[neddy]

Ned and Tim, I respect your opinions but I just think there is a bit too much fearmongering going on.

Call me an optimist, and I know it's hard to see right now, but I really think this will play out well for all of us over time.

Chris, do you ever write short concise posts?

You are entitled to your opinion - as are we on the other side of the argument. I think by your own admission you have stated you're not much of a buyer these days? Many of us are big and regular buyers, so we are directly affected.

As far as the many mouths to feed are concerned, they have actually cut back on costs as Fleur no longer works for NF.

As I've stated before, it is their business, and they can run it anyway they want. But they've kicked some disastrous "own goals" in recent times with their "marketing initiatives" - and then been forced to reverse them later.

I can see it happening again. Imho.

 

[Karter34]

Chris, If my accusations are baseless please support your reasoning. Would love to hear your rebuttal. Here is my statement:

"auDA will enhance the benefits to Internet users through:

Adopting open and transparent procedures which are inclusive of all parties having an interest in use of the domain name system in Australia.

Netfleet's proposed changes clearly breach this policy and are without regard to the National Interest objective of the domain name system."

Chris your a smart guy, are Netfleet's changes constitutional by way of being TRANSPARENT ?

How is this a breach ? It's a very fair format as you only bid / pay the amount of money u feel comfortable paying . Everyone gets a chance at buying a name for what they feels it is worth . If u happen to purchase a name for $10.00 or $10000.00 it was obviously worth it in the buyers.

 

[johno69]

It has no transparency at all.

Was bad enough when you (nf) were bidding on behalf of end users with the added knowledge of everyone's proxy bids.

God only knows what under the table moves could be played when everyone's bids are made in secret to all other bidders, and the house could still be taking part in the auction.

They could just hand the domain to anyone they choose and we'd be none the wiser.

 

[findtim]

oh look ! blabla3@netfleet.com.au WINS again !

tim

 

[Shane]

Chris, If my accusations are baseless please support your reasoning. Would love to hear your rebuttal. Here is my statement:

"auDA will enhance the benefits to Internet users through:

Adopting open and transparent procedures which are inclusive of all parties having an interest in use of the domain name system in Australia.

Netfleet's proposed changes clearly breach this policy and are without regard to the National Interest objective of the domain name system."

Chris your a smart guy, are Netfleet's changes constitutional by way of being TRANSPARENT ?

You're reading this whole thing wrong Ashman.

The only group that must abide by the auDA constitution is auDA itself.

auDA have committed to having open and transparent procedures, but no one else is obliged to do the same.

Netfleet only have to worry about the code of practice set by auDA for registrars, which contains no mention of the word 'transparent'.

Whilst I'm against Netfleet's latest change, it's a bit silly to be accusing them of breaching something that they are not even subject to.

 

[Ashman]

You're reading this whole thing wrong Ashman.

The only group that must abide by the auDA constitution is auDA itself.

auDA have committed to having open and transparent procedures, but no one else is obliged to do the same.

Netfleet only have to worry about the code of practice set by auDA for registrars, which contains no mention of the word 'transparent'.

Whilst I'm against Netfleet's latest change, it's a bit silly to be accusing them of breaching something that they are not even subject to.

"Which are inclusive of all parties having an interest in use of the domain name system in Australia."

auDA must enforce the TRANSPARENCY policy extending to all parties (Netfleet) using the domain name system for the benefit and in the interests of the general community.

I don't think I'm reading it wrong at all.

Let's hear from auDA Director and a Solicitor Erhan from Coopers Mills. If he says I'm reading it wrong I will shut up once and for all.

 

[Ashman]

It is like a citizen saying that they don't have to follow Commonwealth or State Law because they were born a sovereign being. As we know this is not the case.

Netfleet are not a sovereign entity to do as they want. Netfleet are bound to auDA governance through the registrars' agreement and auDA are bound to follow the constitution.

Therefore, Netfleet are bound to the auDA constitution in so far as that it applies to them.

 

[neddy]

Who said this?

Who said the following - and what was it about; and when was it said? (Bolding is mine).

By providing a public auction the "Drop catching service" providers are producing
a level playing field for the Consumer.

Ok, ok - I'll save you searching.

The author of this comment was one Anthony Peake of Netfleet.

Made on the 1st of June 2011, it was part of a submission he made on behalf of Netfleet in response to the auDA Secondary Market Working Group (of which I was a panel member).

http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/netfleet2.txt

Would love to hear "the spin" as to why he no longer believes that "a public auction provides a level playing field for the consumer".

 

[Karter34]

It has no transparency at all.

Was bad enough when you (nf) were bidding on behalf of end users with the added knowledge of everyone's proxy bids.

God only knows what under the table moves could be played when everyone's bids are made in secret to all other bidders, and the house could still be taking part in the auction.

They could just hand the domain to anyone they choose and we'd be none the wiser.

Your comments are bordering on defamation , when we sell to a retail user we do as you guys do and sell with the intent to sell at a retail price not a wholesale price . I am not aware of netfleet ever using proxies to help achieve such a result .
You will also find that if you use the new system and bid what u want to pay and if that is the highest bid you will win the domain name . If you do not bid high enough you won't win . Can't be much more transparent than that .
We do not buy names for ourselves so the only people that can win the names are our customers that have paid the most . We have no alliances with any customers who would benefit from information we have to hand be it highest bids.
What you are suggesting is unethical and there is no room in our business for such practices .

 

[neddy]

Karter34 - given that you state you have an interest in Netfleet, could you please introduce yourself properly - rather than use a pseudonym.

In the interests of transparency of course.

We know Mark Lye, David Lye, Anthony Peake - and the shareholders / Directors of Netregistry. They have made themselves known.

Much appreciated.