- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 4
Ladies & Gentlemenâ¦
A group of us have come to the conclusion that the only fair resolution for this matter, is for an impartial legal court to decide what is right and fairâ¦And, so, we intend to file legal suit, very shortly, so that the matter can be resolved impartially
We believe its not only in the interests of individuals to have an impartial ruling on this - but that - in clearing up the uncertainty - we feel it is also in the best interests of the domain community to establish a clear precedent about online auction processes, in these kind of situations, for the future.
So...:
ALL ORIGINAL WINNERS FROM THE 1ST AUCTION (INCLUDING 2ND AUCTION WINNERS THAT ALSO WON NAMES IN THE 1ST AUCTION) â ARE INVITED TO JOIN OUR LAW SUIT - PLEASE CONTACT ME ASAP (by PM, or by email: [email protected])
We are a group of original winners (1st auction) that has secured the services of a top international lawyer - with domain law expertise - and, we have taken extensive legal advice on this matter. There have been extensive discussions with both Sedo & mTLD counsel in an attempt to settle this fairly, and amicably. Compromise proposals have been canvassed with mTLD - and rejected. Sedo/mTLD have changed their position on this several times (see below). The issues, and the legal position, are known.
THIS GROUP OF ORIGINAL WINNERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THE LEGAL CASE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RIGHT TO THE DOMAIN NAMES IS VERY STRONG.
In our view, Sedo/mTLD have managed matters so poorly, that - on their latest position - there are (and will) be no fewer than three groups of people that could be said to believe that they have a rightful claim to the same domain names:
(a) The original auction winners
(b) The 2nd auction winners
(c) And, now (possibly) theâ re-runâ auction winners.
We say this is unsatisfactory - and unfair - to all concerned.
The facts (in outline) - not in dispute - are these:
Sedo/mTLD:
(i) Closed the 1st auction, accepted the highest bids for the 1st auction - and declared & confirmed, in writing, the highest bidders as the winners;
(ii) Then, after they had declared the 1st auctions closed, they declared an âextensionâ of the 1st auction - some time later - and, re-opened the auctions they had already closed - and then proceeded to accept bids, during this âextendedâ auction, for the same names - and, ultimately, declared & confirmed, in writing, a second group of highest bidders as winners, for these same names;
(iii) Then, they - days later - declared both auctions that they had previously - separately - declared valid, and binding - to be somehow now void
â¦.Now, they say they will âre-runâ the auctions all over again, in January, 2008.
We believe that this state of affairs is not fair to ANY of these groups of people - And that the only really fair thing to do, would be to ask a court to decide the matter. This we intend to do.
We truly regret that it has come to this. We know many would prefer to just let it go - and, simply accept the latest of several different Sedo/mTLD 'decisions' on this, but we don't think that's fair.....As mentioned above, we have tried hard to resolve this amicably....But, we failed.....We believe its not only in the interests of individuals to have an impartial ruling on this - but that - in clearing up the uncertainty, its also is in the best interests of the domain community to establish a clear precedent about online auction processes, in these kind of situations, for the future.
We kindly ask that the domain community please respect our right to ask an impartial body (the court) to rule on thisâ¦.We believe that - this way - is the only fair way a resolution can be found that we can all accept - whatever that decision maybe.
ALL ORIGINAL WINNERS FROM THE 1ST AUCTION (INCLUDING 2ND AUCTION WINNERS, THAT ALSO WON NAMES IN THE 1ST AUCTION) - THAT WOULD LIKE TO JOIN THIS SUIT - PLEASE CONTACT ME ASAP (either by PM, or by email: [email protected])
Thank you.
.
A group of us have come to the conclusion that the only fair resolution for this matter, is for an impartial legal court to decide what is right and fairâ¦And, so, we intend to file legal suit, very shortly, so that the matter can be resolved impartially
We believe its not only in the interests of individuals to have an impartial ruling on this - but that - in clearing up the uncertainty - we feel it is also in the best interests of the domain community to establish a clear precedent about online auction processes, in these kind of situations, for the future.
So...:
ALL ORIGINAL WINNERS FROM THE 1ST AUCTION (INCLUDING 2ND AUCTION WINNERS THAT ALSO WON NAMES IN THE 1ST AUCTION) â ARE INVITED TO JOIN OUR LAW SUIT - PLEASE CONTACT ME ASAP (by PM, or by email: [email protected])
We are a group of original winners (1st auction) that has secured the services of a top international lawyer - with domain law expertise - and, we have taken extensive legal advice on this matter. There have been extensive discussions with both Sedo & mTLD counsel in an attempt to settle this fairly, and amicably. Compromise proposals have been canvassed with mTLD - and rejected. Sedo/mTLD have changed their position on this several times (see below). The issues, and the legal position, are known.
THIS GROUP OF ORIGINAL WINNERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THE LEGAL CASE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RIGHT TO THE DOMAIN NAMES IS VERY STRONG.
In our view, Sedo/mTLD have managed matters so poorly, that - on their latest position - there are (and will) be no fewer than three groups of people that could be said to believe that they have a rightful claim to the same domain names:
(a) The original auction winners
(b) The 2nd auction winners
(c) And, now (possibly) theâ re-runâ auction winners.
We say this is unsatisfactory - and unfair - to all concerned.
The facts (in outline) - not in dispute - are these:
Sedo/mTLD:
(i) Closed the 1st auction, accepted the highest bids for the 1st auction - and declared & confirmed, in writing, the highest bidders as the winners;
(ii) Then, after they had declared the 1st auctions closed, they declared an âextensionâ of the 1st auction - some time later - and, re-opened the auctions they had already closed - and then proceeded to accept bids, during this âextendedâ auction, for the same names - and, ultimately, declared & confirmed, in writing, a second group of highest bidders as winners, for these same names;
(iii) Then, they - days later - declared both auctions that they had previously - separately - declared valid, and binding - to be somehow now void
â¦.Now, they say they will âre-runâ the auctions all over again, in January, 2008.
We believe that this state of affairs is not fair to ANY of these groups of people - And that the only really fair thing to do, would be to ask a court to decide the matter. This we intend to do.
We truly regret that it has come to this. We know many would prefer to just let it go - and, simply accept the latest of several different Sedo/mTLD 'decisions' on this, but we don't think that's fair.....As mentioned above, we have tried hard to resolve this amicably....But, we failed.....We believe its not only in the interests of individuals to have an impartial ruling on this - but that - in clearing up the uncertainty, its also is in the best interests of the domain community to establish a clear precedent about online auction processes, in these kind of situations, for the future.
We kindly ask that the domain community please respect our right to ask an impartial body (the court) to rule on thisâ¦.We believe that - this way - is the only fair way a resolution can be found that we can all accept - whatever that decision maybe.
ALL ORIGINAL WINNERS FROM THE 1ST AUCTION (INCLUDING 2ND AUCTION WINNERS, THAT ALSO WON NAMES IN THE 1ST AUCTION) - THAT WOULD LIKE TO JOIN THIS SUIT - PLEASE CONTACT ME ASAP (either by PM, or by email: [email protected])
Thank you.
.
