- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 320
- Reaction score
- 0
It isn't enough for the auction to be fair - it must be perceived as being fair. Pool may be 100% honest with the purest of intentions, but because of the way they do business, especially the recent two-phase auction procedure, a lot of people think they are crooks. An example of why people like me worry about Pool is that they set the domains they catch up on their name servers until the domains are sold. This means a Pool insider COULD know more about the domain traffic than I do. It doesn't mean they do, but they could. They COULD make traffic stats available to everyone, but they don't They COULD leave the domains inactive, but they don't. Why? They don't bother pointing them to a live web page, so why set up the DNS? It gives the impression that something fishy is going on.
Enom's public auctions, as mentioned previously, give the impression of eNom being greedy. Maybe they aren't. Maybe their intentions are something else entirely. Why should anyone who did not have the name in their club drop list before the drop have a shot at the name, even if the first high bidder is a deadbeat or fraud, if not to increase the final bid? It gives a bad impression.
I think as long as the auctions are being conducted by the owners of the goods being auctioned there will be suspicions of foul play. The more transparent the process is, the less suspicious people will be.
Personally I think the identities and bids of the active bidders should be visible to the other bidders in the auction. I think that would go a long way toward solving the fraudulent bidder problems. Make the information available and let the bidding community do the sleuthing. If the high bidder doesn't pay within a reasonable amount of time, remove his bids and reopen the bidding with the #2 bidder in the lead, not at his max proxy bid, but one increment above the #3 bidder. Send an email to all the potential bidders (the people who had the name in their drop list) letting them know the auction is back on. If there were only two bidders in the auction, no need to extend the auction, the #2 bidder gets the name. The only names that should go to public auction are the ones where the last remaining (or only) bidder doesn't pay.
I don't think deposits would work any better than the old monthly club drop fee. (I would rather pay the fee and compete with fewer bidders, but then, I don't care about eNom's bottom line!) Anything done to restrict participation in the auctions will tend to reduce the final bids. Accept all bids in good faith, and when a bidder defaults, disqualify him from future auctions and move on. It's unfortunate, but we'll all get over it.
Enom's public auctions, as mentioned previously, give the impression of eNom being greedy. Maybe they aren't. Maybe their intentions are something else entirely. Why should anyone who did not have the name in their club drop list before the drop have a shot at the name, even if the first high bidder is a deadbeat or fraud, if not to increase the final bid? It gives a bad impression.
I think as long as the auctions are being conducted by the owners of the goods being auctioned there will be suspicions of foul play. The more transparent the process is, the less suspicious people will be.
Personally I think the identities and bids of the active bidders should be visible to the other bidders in the auction. I think that would go a long way toward solving the fraudulent bidder problems. Make the information available and let the bidding community do the sleuthing. If the high bidder doesn't pay within a reasonable amount of time, remove his bids and reopen the bidding with the #2 bidder in the lead, not at his max proxy bid, but one increment above the #3 bidder. Send an email to all the potential bidders (the people who had the name in their drop list) letting them know the auction is back on. If there were only two bidders in the auction, no need to extend the auction, the #2 bidder gets the name. The only names that should go to public auction are the ones where the last remaining (or only) bidder doesn't pay.
I don't think deposits would work any better than the old monthly club drop fee. (I would rather pay the fee and compete with fewer bidders, but then, I don't care about eNom's bottom line!) Anything done to restrict participation in the auctions will tend to reduce the final bids. Accept all bids in good faith, and when a bidder defaults, disqualify him from future auctions and move on. It's unfortunate, but we'll all get over it.
