A reader has just pointed out that Netfleet has posted a response to the allegations recently raised by Domainer.com.au. (Thank you Nathan!)
They posted a link to their blog article on their Facebook page last night. They didn’t chose to respond here, so I have posted a copy of it below.
I think that the statement has many positive attributes about it, and certainly they are on the right track. They’ve “sort of” adopted the “Volkswagen” approach we recommended!
What do you think?
P.S. Sincere thanks to Greg and Jonathan for doing the right thing and exposing this situation. You did many of your fellow domain investors a great service.
I am taking bids on whether the responses will be moderated
Sorry guys, poor odds on the affirmative!
@ Greg
Not on our platform they won’t be! 😉
Obvious some arse kicking was done yesterday. That presser has got MelbIT all over it.
I think they put their heads together and came up with the second best option.
It seems that almost everyone who was upset by this simply wanted blind bidding to go away. It must be a really important to them to keep it around.
Blind bidding is fair enough, just like a tender really.
Except if someone with inside knowledge has told someone what they need to pay if they want to win the domain.
That’s the whole point.
Of course @ Ned, all bets are off when there is corruption or perceived corruption, I was simply stating that where a platform has integrity I see nothing wrong with blind bidding.
At a guess I would say that they want to keep blind bidding around because it makes them considerably more money than the old open proxy bids system…
Blind bidding, tenders etc are fine
But what happens when the bids are opened before the closing time and then disclosed to associated businesses or other prospective bidders
This is not soccer & these practices brings the whole industry into disrepute!
isolated incident? pigs arse.
Yes, they have a long way to go while they still try to push that message
I don’t believe it either. I’d like to see every domain sale above $1,000 since blind bidding began examined.
There are certainly some encouraging points in their response, but as they say “the proof is in the pudding” – so I’ll wait and see.
My hope is that we’ll see a new approach going forward. I think transparency and communication will be the key. Jonathan has shown that he’s prepared to engage with customers, which I think is a good sign. Transparency will also be critical though, because many quite rightly feel that there has been a breach of trust. For a blind bidding system to work effectively, the customers have to trust the platform.
As someone who has publicly criticized several domain market places, I’ve seen all sorts of responses – from the companies, from their sponsored bloggers (some of whom retaliate while others with the same sponsor foster open discussion), and from the domainer community.
I get it. This incident represents a serious breach of trust. That’s a given. Like everybody who else who sticks his neck out placing “sealed” bids, I want my bids to be well and truly sealed.
That said, NetFleet’s response is commendable compared to what I’ve witnessed from other companies. Yes, the behavior was inexcusable. Yes, I’m cynical enough to wonder how isolated the incident really was. But when a scandal breaks and we demand a response, we have to pause to consider what we’d ideally want that response to say.
Here are a few good points:
(1) No answer from NetFleet could undo the problem that occurred. But they might have denied the allegations or procrastinated pending an “internal investigation”. They didn’t. Good.
(2) Admitting wrongdoing often goes no further than saying, “mistakes were made”. Instead, NetFleet offered an explanation of how the incident took place. Rather than being vague, they were specific. Good.
(3) NetFleet might have blamed the telemarketer. Instead, they admitted that access to bidding records was a system-wide issue. It was their own fault. Good.
(4) Companies often refrain from admitting culpability by saying “some customers feel this was wrong”, but Netfleet effectively stated point-blank: “This IS wrong”. Explicitly: “removing all access to the auction database … should always have been the case”. They screwed up and say so. Good.
(5) Lawyers will often pressure execs to avoid implying damage to customers, since such statements can later be used in lawsuits against them. Yet NetFleet has done the honorable thing by conceding that “this disadvantaged the existing high bidder”. Period. Not “arguably might have” – but DID. Ignoring your lawyers’ warnings takes guts. Good.
(6) Companies might say sorry. They might promise never to misbehave again. But they seldom make clear-cut statements of fact about past behavior. Why be answerable for past misconduct? Why make specific claims when they put the company at risk of being refuted? But NetFleet has taken that risk by stating very precisely and emphatically: “An existing bid has never been used to influence a new bid from a prospective buyer before or since”. If that’s false, then their feet will be held to the fire. Still, we do want very specific claims that we can investigate rather than vague mumbling. NetFleet didn’t sidestep the issue of past conduct. Good.
(7) Companies don’t always explain how they will fix the problem or fix it right away. Frequently, they’ll “look into” solutions. But NetFleet says they have plugged the leak. Good.
(8) Companies will often downplay the problem. They’ll implement 1 small change and wipe their hands of it. Having now barred database access to its telemarketers, NetFleet might pretend that’s sufficient. But they do not. Beyond that measure, NetFleet discusses engaging an independent auditor to police their auctions using random sampling. What? Voluntarily submitting their claims to scientific scrutiny? Not usual. Good.
(9) Inviting public comment and suggestions? Lip service perhaps; but if comments are censored there, then that will be reported here. Certainly, we’d want an invitation to speak our minds rather than stonewalling. Good.
As I see it, NetFleet’s response was commendable in a great many ways. Am I suspicious about the past? Who wouldn’t be? But NetFleet has now said many of the right things.
Be grateful for small favors. The domain industry remains largely unregulated. Compare NetFleet’s response to Flippa’s after I wrote about shill bidding. Would Flippa ever voluntarily allow an independent auditor to review bidding records at random from their past auctions? When hell freezes over! Flippa has made some good changes; I don’t want to downplay that. But they’re still hemming and hawing about implementing transparent bidder IDs rather than making that quick fix or saying simply that they don’t want to and won’t. In comparison, NetFleet’s response is far more salutary.
All very valid points – and an indication of a culture change at Netfleet.
A great comment. Netfleet’s response has been good. Domainers should bear in mind that one alternative to Netfleet dominating the drops could be auDA controlling the drops, which could mean heftier prices, more stringent policy enforcement and a situation where the administrator of the .au space has more timely and accurate information about portfolio movements. Every dog has its fleas.
@ Joseph – what an excellent, detailed response. Thank you.
Like you, I am still “cynical enough to wonder how isolated the incident really was”. And imo there is going to have to be some “hurt money” paid to people like Greg to show that they are genuinely remorseful and willing to be accountable. Greg lost what was potentially a $5k to $10k domain because of these actions. I know of many others including myself who feel that they may have been similarly gazumped in the past.
But hey, this response is straight out of the new paradigm “Corporate Responsibility 101” – and for that we are to be grateful.
I genuinely wish Jonathan Gleeson the very best for the future ahead. He has a big task ahead of him – but it looks like he is definitely on the right track given their response.
A telemarketer in his first week? Who employed him? Who gave him sales training and a list of who to call and what to say? Is he still employed?
It’d be strange if they weren’t on a bonus for sales remuneration too. The fact that they had access to the live bidding system is incredibly stupid for a clean and above board system. If this “new guy” could access it who is to say it hasn’t been all along?
how secure is a system that allows a guy with all of 7 days tenure to hack into it
not comforting at all
7-days?
“a telemarketer in his first week with net fleet inadvertently”
lolololo
an inadvertant hack
“Single incident that has never before occurred”. Have a look at patterns of bidding. One buyer stands out recently – Cobra Car Alarms. They got fleet.com.au. Did Cobra get inside info? Or was it legit?
@Sammie – interesting you should mention them. They have beaten me on some nice domains this year (and normally I’m a high bidder).
But if Netfleet say that they have checked all other bids out, then I guess they must be fine. Well here’s hoping anyway. 🙂
Ned
The patterns of bidding, the contradictions in the public records and the way the domain names this company has acquired through the auctions are held all deserve a thorough review by those responsible for corporate governance at NetFleet & even aUDA
@Greg – agree with you on bidding pattern. After the last “incident”, the fact is a lot of us are still very suspicious. But maybe we are just jumping at shadows.
Not sure what you mean by public records though?
WhoIs on fleet.com.au shows registrant as cobra car ALARMS (VIC) PTY LTD. Google “Cobra Car Alarms Vic” and you get this True Local listing: http://www.truelocal.com.au/business/cobra-car-alarms/melbourne . Click on “Visit Website” and you get to a parking page cobracaralarms.com.au. Do a WhoIs on this and you’ll see why i ask the question if bid on fleet.com.au was legit. It might be, but I wonder.
OMG Sammie!
However, it could just be a coincidence. I will ask Jonathan Gleeson to check it out tomorrow.
I thought related entities couldn’t buy domains via in house drop catching services?
Might be time for some corporate governance? Hello MelbourneIT.
Guys, I’ve had a number of comments made regarding Sammie’s post which I’ve decided not to publish at this stage (as they may potentially be defamatory).
The similarity of names could just be purely coincidental, so let’s just wait for a proper investigation. I’ve also been given other information which I shall pass on to Jonathan Gleeson and Melbourne IT.
If there is something to it, I shall do a brand new post and you can comment then.
Re Sammie’s post. As I said previously, “the similarity of names could just be purely coincidental, so let’s just wait for a proper investigation”.
I’ve done some homework myself, and am satisfied that it is a coincidence. Two separate entities. I guess it is fair to say though (given recent events) that it is an unfortunate coincidence having a company name and a domain name the same. Particulary where one of the entities has or had an “ownership” connection with Netfleet.
Given recent revelations about telemarketing activities, I’m still worried about bidding patterns though – but once again, that could just be jumping at shadows.
I guess one way to fix customer confidence is to return to a transparent bidding platform. Solves a lot of issues imho.
Re comments on posts – if you choose to make a post with a non-resolving email address, then it won’t be published.
Happy for you to be anonymous if you choose to be (choice of username), but your email address needs to be valid. This is visible only to us as publishers, and will never be disclosed to anyone (unless required by law).
The response from NetFleet is weak at best.
There should be an investigation either by ACCC or AUDA or both that includes:
1. Any and all communications via email and sms from NetFleet to clients since inception of blind auction.
2. Full disclosure of ALL companies that have directors and/or employees that have had ANY ACCESS to the platform.
3. Full disclosure of ALL companies that have or have had directors and/or employees and/or family members that have partcipated on the NetFleet platform and standard listing portal and sales or acquisitions of those parties.
I would be surprised if a class action lawsuit does not come about with all of this information. It saddens me to read these posts about this apparent lack of integrity and I applaud Ned for bringing it to the forefront of the domain community.
Keep It Simple Stupid
Optimistic post KISS. 🙂
I think there is more chance of Collingwood winning the Grand Final next year.
I have published the post that I pulled down on the 29th September – complete with cached image of “spiked” iTWire story.
Given that Netfleet acknowledged formally that there was an issue, I’m surprised that iTWire didn’t run with their story.
http://www.domainer.com.au/domain-trading-ouch/
Firstly, congratulations on the new baby Robert! 🙂 Wonderful news.
As for your post, you make some excellent points. However I fear that Jonathan Gleeson has “gone to ground”, and is hoping that this will all blow over.
I’m sure he’s going to try and change the culture, but what I and many others are concerned about is accountability for the past.
I am never ever going to believe that what happened was a single incident. It defies all the laws of probability.
These issues have now been covered on DNW in an excellent article by Joseph Peterson:
http://domainnamewire.com/2015/10/19/australian-domain-market-up-in-arms-over-netfleet-bidding-scandal/
Thanks Luke. Yeh I just read the post by Joseph and it’s an interesting issue. I placed a comment there on DNW.
Thanks Ned for speaking on this very important issue. I hope there is some clarification very soon and a resolution can be reached by NetFleet and their customer base.
I wonder if there is a way to discover if this is truly an isolated incident? From reading the comments here, I feel that it is not and I also wonder if Melbourne IT push their hand and restructure the directors and roles within the organisation?
JW
James, you’ve absolutely hit the nail on the head with your point about clarification. Lots of people, me included want some answers.
Your question as to whether this is an isolated incident is one that many are asking. A number of people believe this is not a ‘one-off case’ and there are many red flags around previous occasions.
Hopefully we’ll hear more from Jonathan Gleeson soon: http://www.domainer.com.au/questions-for-netfleet/
Thanks for commenting.
Luke