Acro.net – Technology Rants & Raves by Acroplex®

While everyone is awaiting the next wave of the Nelson “Halvarez” Brady tsunami to hit the domain shores, the lingering question is obvious: will there be more transparency in the future?

Oversee is currently rushing to wrap up the Snapnames shill bidding scandal in a manner that does not instill confidence. The forensics company that was hired by Oversee to investigate the scandal is most likely driving the specifics of the “rebate” that was announced. However, this is clearly a method by Oversee to minimize any collateral damage, while giving the impression that the Augean stables would be clean.

But is this the case?

Snapnames has removed and currently does not provide access to crucial historical data older than 2 years, related to the exchange of bids per auction performed. The ousted former employee, Nelson Brady – a VP of Engineering no less – was allegedly driving a shill bidding process under the handle of “halvarez”, participating in thousands of auctions over the course of several years.

Transparency is a key element here, and Oversee does not seem to fully understand that they are not exactly doing what they should be doing: reassuring the Snapnames customers that their losses will be compensated, by providing access to historical data that is currently unavailable.

Due diligence must be performed independently by each person that has a reason to challenge the upcoming outcome of the forensics company’s research.

This is the first major wave that paints the domain industry in a rather unflattering light; it’s the first of several that – unless transparency is established – will severely hammer the domain coast. Because currently, there is no transparency in the PPC sector; there is no transparency in the drop-catching business and there is no transparency in the way domains are handled, transferred, secured and resold.

So while many – myself included – got upset with the TechCrunch article which called the domain industry “dirty”, perhaps that will be a stepping stone in order to begin the process of instilling transparency in every aspect of this Wild West called “domaining”.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who watches the watchmen? When a vice president of a corporation who is supposed to be in charge of security processes violates the trust of clients, who is watching upon him?

Nelson “Halvarez” Brady is not necessarily a bad person. In fact, most people who met him or otherwise engaged in business relationships with him, paint him in the best light possible; they speak of a pleasant, non-arrogant guy who listens and attempts to establish long-standing business relationships.

In August of 2005, I exchanged a handful of emails with Nelson Brady, after I discovered a security hole in the way Snapnames managed the newly caught domains. Brady was grateful for my contribution and the issue was fixed. Little did I know that at a month earlier, Nelson Brady was emptying my wallet as “Halvarez” by driving up a Snapnames auction to the $2,300 I had to pay for that particular domain.

Nelson Brady violated the trust of others and engaged in activities that now appear to be causing an aftershock tsunami that is far from slowing down. When the waves hit the domain shores, the impact will be tremendous to an industry that for years now is deemed as the Wild West; unregulated and an open field to entrepreneurs and investors.

At the same time, the domain industry is wide open to those that exploit its vulnerabilities in a manner that is unethical, unlawful and provoking.

So who is watching the watchmen?

Half-measures require full responses.

When Oversee announced today that a former employee of Snapnames was defrauding thousands of customers via means of shill bidding at domain auctions, they promised that the ongoing investigation would end with issuing refunds plus interest.

There is no doubt that Oversee is striving to clear the Augean stables that the Snapnames employee piled up with tons of manure; by issuing rebates, they obviously attempt to compensate the losses of thousands of people that participated in domain auctions, mainly between 2005 and 2007.

But is this a fair method of compensation to winners and losers of allegedly as many as 50,000 auctions that Nelson Brady – known as “Halvarez” – participated in?

Oversee must reinstate the auction history per account immediately. Such information would help determine the amount of fraud that Halvarez enagaged in. Currently, there is no such information per account that displays bid succession as it was removed several months ago.

Personally, I can only recall from memory one such incident where Halvarez bid me up to $2,300 for a domain I won back in 2005. So how am I supposed to cross-check all the auctions I won, if I can’t view their bidding history any more?

There are more issues at stake than plain damages; Oversee is a high profile auctioneer of domains and owns the Moniker & DomainSponsor business platforms. If Oversee fails to promote transparency with this Snapnames incident, the downfall of other companies under its umbrella will be unavoidable. Customer fidelity depends a lot on business integrity.

Oversee: reinstate all Snapnames auction history immediately!