Indiana - sold - $50k

[Nodnarb]

If DCG lost $50k in the transaction, why in the world would you settle for $5k or even $25k? WOW! I'd want the whole nut back!

As for Afternic, I am surprised and disappointed that the transaction isn't insured in some way. I thought part of the $60/10% fee was to make sure that buyers and sellers were dealing legitimately with eachother. That seems steep if its just a marketplace/advertising fee. If you can find a company to underwrite the transactions, it sounds like there's a demand for that additional level of service!

Sounds like DCG could use a little help with contacting US authorities. I'm surprised that Afternic hasn't assisted with that since they're in this country. It also sounds like there's a US attorney in here who might be able to assist DCG if it gets that far. Forget the $5k right now and just try to find the bad guys. Then chase down the $45k that they got, and then worry about the $5K fee.

This is just a weird story... I'm shocked for many different reasons!

 

[GT Web]

Afternic needs to step up to the plate...

How much business will Afternic lose because of this? With the biggest group of domainers now aware this problem, it will be financially beneficial for Afternic to admit they made a mistake, cut a check for at least $25,000 - if not the entire amount - and take steps to guarantee this sort of thing doesn't happen again. Otherwise, your business will decrease by an amount you can not imagine. Compensate Adam and get Afternic back into the column of online businesses that have integrity.

 

[jberryhill]

John, do you represent Adam?

Because, it sounds out of character that a lawyer would suggest to Roger to
just refund the fee without signing a "hold harmless" agreement.

No, I do not represent Adam. What sounds out of character was that Roger unconditionally promised to pay, and then reneged.

As for Afternic, I am surprised and disappointed that the transaction isn't insured in some way. I thought part of the $60/10% fee was to make sure that buyers and sellers were dealing legitimately with eachother.

Go read the terms of service. They are very clear. The point here is not about the terms of service, however. Afternic doesn't have the 50K, they sent that to the party they were instructed to send it to.

The point is about Roger keeping his word, which he posted here without conditions.

 

[WebCat]

The point here is not about the terms of service, however.

The point is about Roger keeping his word, which he posted here without conditions.

Well said, John!

I've been sitting here reading all this, and sadly shaking my head. :-(

With my calculator, I'm trying to compute the value to a domain professional of a reputation on the largest domain name forum on the internet, with an Alexa Traffic ranking of 3,216, a Google PR of 5, with 48,569 threads, 335,010 Posts, and 5791 active members........

As more time passes without a resolution, I fear the going rate might become...... $5,000.00?

WebCat
/\_/\
(0 0) Integrity?!
>^<
\__/

 

[Nodnarb]

If Afternic is going to zip a $5,000 check off, they better get a release from further liability in this whole process. Once the release is signed, they become witnesses, and not defendants. Right or wrong, we'd all do the same thing.

Even more disturbing than that is, over 6 months ago, $50,000 dollars was stolen from DCG and apparently there isn't any kind of report to the proper US authorities. I would think that Afternic knows the proper channels to help their customers with a bad situation like that.

What Afternic should do is help their customers as much as possible. How do you report a $50,000 theft, 6 months later, and expect to get some results from the authorities?

Obviously, there's more to this story than anyone can reveal. We can't blame them for that! Without knowing the intimate details of what transpired between DCG, and Afternic, I don't think any of us should be telling those guys what they owe the industry or how much money they should spend to make it right. That's between the two parties involved financially, and it's between them to decide what is acceptable.

Where we can fairly measure Afternic is on their response to a customer in distress. And I'm disappointed that the information we have been provided here, doesn't outline what Afternic has done to assist their customer in reporting this to the authorities and tracking down the criminal. That means more to me than $5 grand.

 

[puravida]

I can confirm as of today I have received no fees back from Afternic.

Still waiting and at this point I cannot recommend Afternic to anyone.

-=DCG=-

Man, this has all kinds of stink on it :'(

 

[jberryhill]

"If Afternic is going to zip a $5,000 check off, they better get a release from further liability in this whole process."

Afternic got a release when they wrote their user agreement. One can play all of the lawyer games one wants, but at the end of the day Roger publically and unconditionally posted that he was going to disgorge the money he made from this transaction. He didn't have to say that, but once he did say it, he should follow through. Period. He didn't say he was going to have his lawyer draft up a confusing document for Adam to sign - he said he would pay the 5K. Period. End of story.

Now, he didn't pay the 5K. That tells us a lot about Roger, and the value of anything he says.

 

[puravida]

It would appear to be very easy to trace the money to the recipient thru the final bank who paid out the money to him as all banks keep excellent details on that for large sums of money. I am sure the mney did not fall into a Black Hole. Is there perhaps more to the story than it seems?

If the money was wired out of the US, it might have gone to a blackhole. Organized crime overseas can easily get a bank account set up with fake ID's and the like. Once the money is withdrawn in cash... it's miller time (or whatever they drink) for those bastard thieves.

And, I have to say that I am stunned that $50 G's is such a big deal to Afternic.
I had thought Afternic was a large business.
I at least figured they were profiting by at least a million per year.

I guess they are small time after all? --just tons of domains listed and no sales. Because, if they earn over $1 Million annually, I would think $50 G's would be a no-brainer for reputation and customer loyalty.
*this is not to mention that DCG is not asking for anywhere near $50 G's

This is especially true when the customer currently owns one of the largest domainer forums on the planet!

I chuckled when DCG mentioned that an angry customer tells 30... in this case, more like 300+.

I don't know how many times this year I've had to tell people "just do the right thing..." I think Internet crime/fraud is at an all-time high or something.

Good luck, DCG

Wesley

 

[proproject]

Nodnarb, I think your comments are especially insightful and fair about this situation. But I can correct your assumption about there being more to the story. Not much. It is all pretty well said right here.

Unfortunately, we at Afternic do not have good contacts in law enforcement to pursue allegedly stolen domains. The only contact we've had with the FBI has been in regard to a "scam spam" case. We are eager to help as much as possible, but we don't have the standing to do it alone.

We have spent a lot of time trying to help Adam, but with little success. We did try to reverse the transaction (an international wire transfer) after the closing, but that did not work. We did try to contact FBI to help the buyer, but could not find anyone there to help. We also tried to advocate for our buyer with the registrar. I confess we are very inexperienced in such issues. Stolen domains are extremely rare on Afternic. I do not recall hearing about one since about the time that this happened to Indiana.com.

Regarding PR value, I think the most important thing for us to do is continue to be open, fair and honest in our dealings with members. That is my goal here, not to buy PR and possibly mislead members about the risks they take when they purchase domain names.

Lastly, I have to simply disagree with anyone who objects to our requirement that an agreement be signed before a check is sent. If I said I would sell you my car for $5,000, you would not complain if I insisted that we document the deal in writing. That's just due diligence in business.

 

[TopNames.com]

I confess we are very inexperienced in such issues.

That's not an excuse as you are running a site that collects a fee for a successful transaction. A refund of the transaction fee should be normal procedure. Based on this thread, I think you lost more than $5,000 in future business from Adam alone, not to mention all of us. It might easily end up being 10x that amount.

Stolen domains are extremely rare on Afternic. I do not recall hearing about one since about the time that this happened to Indiana.com.

I remember KS.com being sold on Afternic and it endud up being stolen and removed from Toho's account as well. I have also heard of a few more and this is the main reason I stopped using Afternic.

 

[GiantDomains]

Lastly, I have to simply disagree with anyone who objects to our requirement that an agreement be signed before a check is sent. If I said I would sell you my car for $5,000, you would not complain if I insisted that we document the deal in writing. That's just due diligence in business.

Why, it's a refund, not a settlement. You still have not "refunded" the fee that he paid you. Even if he decides he wants to try to get the 50K from you, you still owe the refund, and now you are going against your word by blackmailing him into signing a settlement agreement in order to get his due refund!

 

[sasquatch]

Afternic is a shitty pretentious "wannabe big player" company anyway. One look at their hideous (early 90's style) website full of all sorts of software bugs, and I know exactly who I am dealing with.

Cheap company, cheap service, cheap attitude = "cheap" experience.

 

[proproject]

Our position is that Afternic does not "owe" anything. We fulfilled our contractual obligations completely. Someone wrote here what other services (escrow.com) does in such cases: nothing. We're going above and beyond that by offering to pay money - money not owed - to help Adam recover some of his claimed losses. In addition, we offer to assist in action/investigation against the alleged thief. I'm glad we are small enough to be that flexible. Giant's misunderstanding about the nature of the payment is a good example of why it is good to put such things in writing.

 

[jberryhill]

"Lastly, I have to simply disagree with anyone who objects to our requirement that an agreement be signed before a check is sent."

You either do what you said you were going to do, or you don't. That is just business, and it is how businesses are judged.

As far as "due diligence" is concerned, I have seen dozens and dozens of situations dealt with by honorable people on the basis of the simple proposition that trustworthy people keep their word. Your word here was not a "requirement that an agreement be signed", it was a promise to send the 5K. Anyone with eyes and a brain can read what you wrote.

You obtained consent to the terms of your user agreement. That is one thing, and it should be sufficient. But what you did in this forum was to unconditionally state you were sending Adam 5K. GiantDomains is absolutely correct that what you are asking for now is a settlement, and that is orthogonal to what you promised to do.

If you believe your user agreement is defective, then you should go fix it before you make promises that you do not perform.

And, finally, if you want to sell me your car for $5,000, I can guarantee you that you will not get a release from me for all claims relating to the sale or the car. There are, in fact, laws relating to car sales that expressly prevent that sort of practice.

Another area of "due diligence" you might want to catch up on is revealed in your statement about not having heard about stolen domains on Afternic. One can't imagine what you've been listening to.

Google: "1,270 for afternic stolen."

You don't remember being sued by Rick Schwarz in 2001? I am sure Howard Neu can remind us all of that incident.

http://forum.icann.org/nsi2001/3AC75D7900000305.html
Afternic seems very cavalier in trafficking in stolen domains.

That was in 2001. One might have thought Afternic would be less "inexperienced" by now.

The domainers in these forums are quite good at identifying stolen domains. Perhaps you might enlighten us as to why Afternic eliminated its own discussion forums after too many people were identifying stolen domain names on those forums as well.

 

[GiantDomains]

Our position is that Afternic does not "owe" anything. .

Wow. Remind me to stay away from afternic!

 

[jberryhill]

Are there two persons named Roger at Afternic, or did you come here to argue with yourself?

Our position is that Afternic does not "owe" anything

.

I just wanted to say that we will indeed pay the sales fee to Adam, as he said we should (at least) do.

So are you going to "pay the sales fee to Adam, as he said we should" or not?

Did Adam say you should send him a settlement document going beyond simply refunding the sales fee? No.

So you are not going to pay the sales fee to Adam "as he said we should." What you are doing now is commonly called "backpedaling" or "weaseling out", among other terms known in the vernacular.

The first quote above, though, is masterful. Who are you quoting with the word "owe"? You sure as shooting aren't quoting me. People have suggested all sorts of things that would demonstrate "class" or be otherwise nice gratuitous things to do. I am simply shocked that you have a hard time doing what you said you would do. That's not about "owing" anyone anything, and there is a lot more to life, and the moral fabric of a person, than what the law would require.

 

[proproject]

Part of all of us wishes that always somebody else - anybody else - we don't care - will just step in and take care of all our problems when bad things happen. Nothing wrong with that unless you let it cloud your judgement about companies operating in the real world.

Wow. Remind me to stay away from afternic!

One might infer from this that there is a better place to go. No domain name exchange or escrow service guarantees the domains their sellers sell. eBay doesn't do it. escrow.com doesn't do it. My statement about "not owing" is a statement of fact based on standard business processes and explicit agreements that assigned risks.

I think all opinions and facts are well understood. Adam understands our offer clearly. I'll try to exit the discussion now to avoid beating a dead horse.

 

[GiantDomains]

You pocketed 5K from a stolen domain transaction .. and offered to return the 5K to Adam, not as a settlement, but as a refund. Step up to the plate and repair your reputation.

 

[JuniperPark]

I think all opinions and facts are well understood.

Sure are, and there is a lot I didn't know before. Afternic seems to have a history of trafficing stolen names and profiting from the transaction.

If this were a regulated industry, such as real estate, you would be facing a jail term right now.

 

[jberryhill]

No domain name exchange or escrow service guarantees the domains their sellers sell. eBay doesn't do it. escrow.com doesn't do it.

And I, for one, haven't said you did guarantee them.

But you don't even stand behind your own word. You are deliberating engaging in misdirection to weasel out of what you said you would do. So, you can saddle up your strawman on his dead horse with Adam's 5K in your pocket and ride off into the sunset.

Do you, Roger, guarantee your own personal promises?