Today Bill Sweetman, the General Manager, Domain Portfolio of Tucows responded to our post of the other day regarding ethics in drop auctions.
Basically Mr. Sweetman repeated much of what he posted the other day on our blog, in response to our initial post.
The domains Tucows took back, were owned by Tucows.
Tucows released the domains into their own auction by mistake and when they realized the mistake they exercised their rights as a registrant and redeemed the domains.
Here’s the new information we got from today’s post:
There were actually 25 winning bidders who got one or more of the 260 domains that were released.
I said in my initial post, I highly doubted that we were the only ones effected by the action of Tucows and now this has been confirmed.
There were 24 more domainers and 237 additional domains which were taken back by Tuccows (we had 23).
Now here is why the Tucows response is not good enough.
I am probably just like you.
I am a very reasonable guy.
I’m not a prick.
Had Mr. Sweetman done the right thing and called me or sent me a personal e-mail saying something like:
Hey Mike we really screwed up and let some domains go into the auction that we owned and I can’t let them go, what can we do to resolve this; I would have, just like you, worked something out with the guy.
I have no desire to kick someone when there down.
If someone makes a honest mistake, comes correct, mans up, admits to it, and tries to find a solution, I am going to work with him.
Just like you.
But this is not what happened.
I got no phone call.
I got no e-mail.
The only way I knew it was Tucows own domains that they redeemed, is by researching there history on DomainTools.com
If I did not take the initiative and do the research I would never have know they were Tucows own domains.
According to Mr. Sweetman’s own post, only 3 of the 25 winning bidders even contacted him about the issue, meaning the other 22 were clueless as to what happened to the domains they had won at auction.
Is this a way for a public company to act?
Is this the way you want to do business?
I say no.
I say Tucows response to, not just post but to the domain community, is not good enough.
Mr Sweetman needed to contact each of the 25 domainers effected by Tucows mistake, admit the mistake and come to a satisfactory resolution with each, before Tucows unilaterally redeemed the domains.
That’s what you do if you want to built and keep customers.
That’s how you conduct business.
Mr. Sweetman concludes his post by saying”
“”””I’m sure you’d understand that we have a duty to our shareholders, as a publicly traded company, to protect the value of the assets contained in the Tucows Domain Portfolio.””””
Well Mr. Sweetman you do have a duty as a public company to protect the assets of the company.
However you failed to see that the most valuable asset of any company is its reputation; its credibility in the industry; and it’s customers.
Instead Tucows chose to protect 260 domains out of hundreds of thousands they own.