An important message from Snapnames

[EffectiveNames.com]

This is the part i don't understand...why are they giving people one year? Seems like an awfully long time if their goal is to move on from this situation quickly.

Why aren't they putting the pressure on domainers?

Pressure is actually a bad strategy when you are relying on people's inertia - you've got to gently push the illusion that this is a fair, decent offer, based upon independent assessments. A crude attempt to hustle people into a quick decision would undermine that, the money on the table will make most people act plenty quick anyway.

 

[FormerDnForumer]

This is the point: For once, you don't have to accept the f%cking.

We all know what goes on but, for one of the first times ever, a company has actually been caught red-handed and, because of their own interests in clawing back the $25m they paid, the parent company have gone public, believing that the vast majority of domainers will be too stupid or too lazy to push for anything more than a ridiculously limited settlement, and that Oversee will come out ahead.

This is the bottom line. Too many domainers have set up this get-a-settlement versus get nothing idea, when in fact this should be handled as a class action suit where the formula for the settlements is based on the might of all domainers and not on cleanup company atomizing individual settlements.

There are so many implications to this fraud, in every direction, that is crazy for domainers to go it alone. I have no money in this fight, as I've seen too much to ever trust any auctions under any circumstances, but there's no way I'd settle individually.

Pressure is actually a bad strategy when you are relying on people's inertia - you've got to gently push the illusion that this is a fair, decent offer, based upon independent assessments. A crude attempt to hustle people into a quick decision would undermine that, the money on the table will make most people act plenty quick anyway.

Or put more simply, they have no leverage right now. None. Only the leverage of "take this settlement or get nothing" which is false.

 

[Mike Cruz]

I dedicate this to good ol' Nelson....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adjNEcbzOOA

 

[Gerry]

Still, no email.

Can someone post the phone numbers again?

 

[EffectiveNames.com]

What you're saying perfectly makes sense but it depends on the stakes. If snapnames says they owe you $100 as a result of halvarez rigging and you think it should be $300 it doesn't make sense at all to sue...

For the big spenders it's different because the disputed amounts are much higher.

Actually, the big players will get a sweetheart deal, much sweeter than their cases warrant, to prevent them becoming a focus of action for all the smaller domainers.

If they are offering you $100 and you think you are owed $300 but no other obvious options are available, you will take the $100. If, however, one of the Godzillas, such as Ham or Schilling, turn up on this forum and say, look, I'm bank-rolling an action and you are all welcome to jump on board for, say, $59 each and 10% of your eventual settlement, I think we would all say yes.

Clearly, this is a risk mitigation exercise and a pretty good one, but what else do you expect ?

Agreed, I would play it exactly the same way, I'm just alarmed that anyone is dumb enough to think that this is in any way a good deal.

 

[Poohnix]

Though I have to say, I find it rather amusing when halvarez and I were the only two people bidding on certain domains, yet my trademark was in them.

If that was the case, why did you bid against him, and not go after the TM after he got the domain? (Ok, Ok, that would have been more expensive, probably, but more fun...) :cheesy:

 

[EffectiveNames.com]

Or put more simply, they have no leverage right now. None. Only the leverage of "take this settlement or get nothing" which is false.

Absolutely right - how many times in our lives are we going to be in a situation in which a corporation so clearly, and by their own admission, mugged us?

There is a strong possibility that we could all get a big payout on this - forget the derisory amount they are offering you, this rigged house distorted the entire market, wasted a considerable time amount of your precious time (how much of your young live have you wasted pouring over page after page of domains?) and money that you were actively investing during one of the biggest booms in world history, money that an average entrepreneur could reasonably have been expected to have doubled many times over all those years.

If you get offer $100, $1000 or even $10,000, consider that to be the price of your lottery ticket, the actual money at stake here is far larger.

 

[Theo]

There you go, Doc.

Snapnames: 866.690.6279
Rust Consulting: 888.413.5338

Rust Consulting mentioned 80% of the emails to be sent went out today.
For both Snapnames & Rust Consulting be prepared to provide your Snapnames username/bid alias & additional info: name, email and postal address.

 

[EffectiveNames.com]

If that was the case, why did you bid against him, and not go after the TM after he got the domain? (Ok, Ok, that would have been more expensive, probably, but more fun...) :cheesy:

WOW!

That is really big! Snapnames have always claimed complete neutrality with regard to TMs, in this case the VP was actually threatening to take it from you, forcing you into an auction you that should never have happened.

Right there, on it's own, you have a great case.

 

[Theo]

Call them both although all that Rust Consulting does at this point is to take your info & claim of non-receipt of notice and forward it to Snapnames. I wonder if we end up in a loop here.

 

[Gerry]

There you go, Doc.

Snapnames: 866.690.6279
Rust Consulting: 888.413.5338

Rust Consulting mentioned 80% of the emails to be sent went out today.
For both Snapnames & Rust Consulting be prepared to provide your Snapnames username/bid alias & additional info: name, email and postal address.

Thanks!

Rather than bug them, I'll wait for the remaining emails to be sent.

 

[JMJ]

On 1 account within a *edit (actually spreads over 1 year time frame) 45 names affected. Appears to be nearly every name that was bid on during that time frame. Appears to have been just two bidders in each circumstance based on the settlement offer. (can't see the history as others have stated.)

 

[Theo]

JMJ - My Account > Order History > Click on the "You!" under Who won the auction. It will pop up a window with the bidding history. However, you're only able to view domains auctioned in the last 2 years.

 

[JMJ]

JMJ - My Account > Order History > Click on the "You!" under Who won the auction. It will pop up a window with the bidding history. However, you're only able to view domains auctioned in the last 2 years.

Yeah these are prior to 2 years. Which seems odd. Going to have to look into this much closer.

 

[Theo]

Either Snapnames support wasn't ready to the full extent of inquiries, or they were advised to give basic responses to inquiries. I had to explicitly state that while Order History goes back to 2007, my account was opened in 2005 and I have won several more domains between 2005-2007.

 

[JMJ]

All of these are '05 and '06. Prior to and '07 is going to need further inspection. Different account for '08 which I don't think was affected. Based on the numbers I've seen this could very well put them in BK. May be best to take the offer and run.. Dunno. I imagine they are having to cover even the commission split with the registrars.

 

[FormerDnForumer]

...this rigged house distorted the entire market,

This is a very interesting point, beyond the dollars and sense of a settlement . The entire public domain market is a distortion, I would argue but this situation especially alters, to a degree anyway, how money flows in other parts of the market.

There was also, a not-so-subtle bidding mentality that many who bid at auctions engaged in, which is "hey, I'm only a grand or two over the next bidder in line, which means I'm only out a few grand if I had second thoughts and wanted to unload the name." It drives a lot of bidding.

 

[Mike Cruz]

 

[ydnaemsti]

You guys are fools by taking the refund. First you have 365 days. Who knows what will happen. You always complain about companies robbing you. Want to know why? Because you allow them to.

I did not lose much, but I have interesting evidence against 4 employees at SnapNames. Sometimes it's better to lose $500, but have a shot at wiping out a company that stole millions from all of us.

I prepared my own wolf strategy how to get back at them and I'll be super patient here since I have the upper hand. Again the over bidding is the least of the problem.
There is other fraud that interest me where the damages are bigger than that difference you get. You guys did not know maybe, but officers of a foreign company have no rights in US court. They will negotiate big.

One more hint, I spoke with Craig Snyder and he told me if my refund is not good enought I can have full refund for domains. Just wait. Do not concentrate on that $500. Scew the money for once.

 

[JMJ]

You guys are fools by taking the refund. First you have 365 days. Who knows what will happen. You always complain about companies robbing you. Want to know why? Because you allow them to.

I did not lose much, but I have interesting evidence against 4 employees at SnapNames. Sometimes it's better to lose $500, but have a shot at wiping out a company that stole millions from all of us.

I prepared my own wolf strategy how to get back at them and I'll be super patient here since I have upper hand. Again the over bidding is the least of the problem. There is other fraud that interest me where the damages are bigger than that difference you get.

One more hint, I spoke with Craig Snyder and he told me if my refund is not good enought I can have full refund for domains. Just wait. Do not concentrate on that $500. Scew the money for once.

I know what you mean but if they file bankruptcy you get nada.