“I think we all share that sick feeling in the pit of our stomach. I think even a King and Pope can agree on that part.”

Absolutely. Which is why I haven’t had much of an appetite for participating in the discussion, and genuinely think I ought to have kept with that feeling.

But you know, and I only raise this for “think of the other guy” reasons here. A few years ago, a criminal fraudster wheedled his way into the domain community and managed to ensnare several others in his scheme. His indictment was filed under seal, and persons involved in the investigation were told not to talk about it. That criminal indictment is, of course, now unsealed. The first date of criminal activity mentioned in it is dated August 30. The sealed indictment was filed September 29, and the arrest was made October 3.

Now, that particular prosecution had a pointed urgency to it, and involved a relatively straightforward crime. The situation here with Oversee has a lot of moving parts, went on for a long time, and there are probably a lot of potential avenues of investigation.

It would not surprise me if people WITHIN Oversee can’t talk to each other for the time being, let alone get a coherent message out to the public.

But, in that prior event a few years ago, it must have been very frustrating for persons connected to the investigation to have to keep a lid on that sick feeling in the pit of the stomach. I felt badly for those folks then, and I feel badly for anyone who is going to be unjustly tainted by this.

“On point 1, I admit complete ignorance of criminal procedure in California or Oregon. In my state, I can make a complaint to a relevant LE authority, and that’s the end of my involvement. They will typically ask me not to discuss the matter while they investigate”"

I agree.

All they need to say is they filed a complaint and can’t discuss it

“”If my offered payout is $10K, I’m not going to litigate over a few grand. That’s just me. “”

For me its the principal of the matter.

If some amount was offered just to acknowledge that we were damaged by the bidding even when Brady didn’t wind up in 2nd place, , yes even 10%, I would feel much better about this whole deal.

Its not the money, its the principal.

Yes I am trying to plead for a change in policy by Oversee that would make settlement an acceptable solution for everyone.

“”heading up the parade of torches and pitchforks”"

I think I’m about the only blogger trying to support Oversee in much of this.

After all the whole point of this post, was after days and days of uncompensated research and analysis, I believe there was no other shill bidder ID’s at use.

This means in my opinion based on the numbers I have, Halvarez was the only bidder ID used for shill bidding

If that isn’t the best news snapnames.com read all week, I don’t know what was.

On point 1, I admit complete ignorance of criminal procedure in California or Oregon. In my state, I can make a complaint to a relevant LE authority, and that’s the end of my involvement. They will typically ask me not to discuss the matter while they investigate.

On points 2 and 3, my question is what has been Oversee’s response to these proposals? I ask that rhetorically, of course, because I don’t see anyone proposing to actually attempt to negotiate with Oversee in the midst of calling for heads on pikes.

Narrowing the scope of the release makes sense. I’m skeptical of an arbitrary percentage for unrecoverable damages, but one can certainly ask. Again, this comes down to a question of practicality. If my offered payout is $10K, I’m not going to litigate over a few grand. That’s just me. Holding out hope that a court is going to award attorney fees and punitive damages if it turns out the “lone gunman” theory is correct, in order to cover the cost of litigation over a few grand is a rosy view of the world. If you aren’t paying for the legal cost up front, then discount whatever you get by the 40% your contingent fee lawyer is going to take. Or you can take a ride on the class action bus and get your coupon for a free Happy Meal by the time it’s over.

“In your example, where you and I have a car accident, in the release between us I shouldn’t be expected to waive any rights I had against you for any case you handled for me as an attorney, as it had nothing to do with the car accident.”

While I hear you, my reaction to that would be, “Well, Mike, just what else were you thinking of suing me for?” Suspicions can be a two way street. I don’t know what Oversee is “expecting”, or if they considered what nefarious motives could be read into fairly mundane general liability release language.

I like to ski, but if you’ve ever actually read the terms of your lift ticket you’d wonder just what it is they were planning to do to you out there. I read the liability waiver on a concert ticket at a local arena once, and it made it sound as if I was going to be the victim of utter mayhem.

So, coming back and saying, “Okay, this is good, but I want to reserve the right to sue you for ten other things” changes the dynamic to one of “why should we offer a release of any kind in the first place?”

There’s room for a constructive dialog on the topic, but heading up the parade of torches and pitchforks is not a posture that says we’d like to help straighten this out.

It does strike me as funny that the only reason I commented on this clusterf— in the first place was the suggestion elsewhere here that there was a nefarious reason I hadn’t commented (despite two trips abroad for WIPO and ICANN at different places on the globe in three weeks). Then, having expressed a view, I’ve been accused of shilling for Oversee and told to “quit while [I'm] behind”.

So, if you believe there is anything one can do to make everyone happy here, I admire your optimism.

Not sure about this … but somebody mentioned at a forum that a small exodus out of moniker has started , perhaps somebody has handy data that can prove that rigth or wrong.

I’ll bite on on this one:

“”Hypothetically, what would you do, right now, if you were Oversee, that would make everyone in the world happy over this crappy situation?”"

1. File criminal charges against Brady and announce that you have done so.

We are big boys and girls here and realize how the world works. Once Oversee files criminal charges its out of their hands and up to the law enforcement agency to decide whether to pursue it or not.

Also once you file charges we all know that Oversee would be the “victim” in a criminal proceeding and could comment no further.

However the failure of Oversee to file criminal charges and make that public that it has done so, is causing many in the domainer community to think there is much more to the story (which there may or may not be)

2. Offer some compensation for the bidding of Brady where he did not finish in 2nd but actively bid (more than just the opening bid). Let’s say by offering a 25% premium to the amount already offered.

You and I have been back and forth on what damage was caused by Brady’s bidding in cases where he wasn’t the second highest bid, but bid substantial amounts.

As we have discussed, and we both agree, there is no way of knowing what would have happened in an auction like clash.com where Brady bid $22,500, $25,000 and $27,500 and wound up as the third highest bidder in an auction ending at $30K.

One things for sure, Brady’s bidding did not make the ending price cheaper for the buyer.

What is the actual damage Brady caused by bidding but not finishing second?

We have no way of determining an exact figure, but the damage is certainly higher than zero, which is what Oversee is currently offering for such situations.

3. Limit the release to the issue at hand, Brady/Halvarez bidding.

In your example, where you and I have a car accident, in the release between us I shouldn’t be expected to waive any rights I had against you for any case you handled for me as an attorney, as it had nothing to do with the car accident.

By signing the modified release I’m suggesting, Domainers would give up their rights to seek and additional damages for actions related to Halvarez’ bidding in exchange for the settlement amount.

Fair enough.

If other shill bidding unrelated to Halvarez is found to exist or other improprieties in accounting or other issues unrelated to Halvarez’s bidding is found we would expect to be made whole for these situations in the same way compensation is being now offered.

The whole idea of this process should be for Oversee to get a substantial number of domainers receiving this settlement agreement to accept it.

4. Oversee should hiring a true third party forensic accounting firm to go through all 1,000,000 auctions like I did, which formed the subject of this post, with a date certain that those results will be announced.

That I think would put this process back on track and satisfy most.