Bidding on your own names at NameJet...?

[webquest]

Once in awhile I see people bidding on their own domains at NJ. I would think it would be frowned upon.

Today's seems more obvious than normal. Or am I missing something here?

Airlinejobs.com owned by Andy Booth at Booth.com and high bidder is BQDNcom (James Booth).

3 bids down we see Boothcom as a bidder.

Same thing with MovieZone.com. Owned by Andy Booth in which he currently appears to be the high bidder.

High Bid: $2,475 USD by boothcom

They actually won their own domain airplanesforsale.com. Im guessing it didnt get as high as they wanted so needed to protect it.

Bidder Amount Date
bqdncom $2,001 7/17/2017 12:23 PM
boothcom $1,950 7/17/2017 12:23 PM

 

[tonyk2000]

As a curiosity, I checked one (randomly selected) domain more seriously - AirlineJobs.com.

AirlineJobs.com is parked (with Bodis). Every parking account now has a google id associated with it. It is never visible anywhere in account settings, but can be easily obtained by checking html/frame codes AND, most notably, http headers. This parking id is the same for all domains parked through the same parking account. For airlinejobs.com, at the time if this writing, it is:

as-drid-oo-1445161623019818

(one needs to look for an entry drid=as-drid ... in codes and headers of any parked domain to find that id).

Any other bodis-parked domain that shares the same google id (as-drid) is DEFINITELY at the same bodis account.

Now, the question. What, if any, other domains are currently parked with the same google id? I performed a number of ggl/yahoo searches and found just one, 2diyer.com - it has non-private whois with the owner located somewhere in China.

Accordinly, it is likely that unrealted (to our story) domain name 2diyer.com and related domain AirlineJobs.com are currently owned or at least controlled by the same person, as one and the same person definitely entered both domains into their bodis account. Moreover, for me it seems unlikely that Booth brothers would register/acquire such a specific domain (2diyer.com), or that they will use chinese proxy registrant for any purpose. Accordingly, it may well be that the domain I checked (AirlineJobs.com) is indeed not legally or technically owned by Booth brothers at the time of this writing, but is owned or controlled by the same Chinese guy or gal ( Registrant Name: nan chen ) who owns 2diyer.com. Why whois shows something else is still a puzzle though.

I did not check other related domains, if somebody is interested - please also post your findings

P.S. any firefox extension to view http headers will help to do the job, together with checking parked page code

 

[tld_org]

First off, you are absolutely correct that since it is against Namejet TOS then the simple answer is that bidding on your own domain is wrong. But again, I'm not debating that. What I'm trying to debate is whether or not this should be changed.

You are NOT deceiving anyone in an open auction with no reserve by bidding on your own name. Nobody is being fooled. The owner is bidding for a domain no different and with equal chance like everyone else. This is a fact. It is not debatable. If he wins he buys the domain for (ex) $10,000. If he loses someone else buys the domain for $10,000. If the losing party thought the domain was worth more they would have placed another bid. That is the beauty of free market capitalism and market pricing.

When Tucows buys back their own stock from the market they are essentially doing the exact same thing. They have more information than the average investor in the market. They feel good about the future prospects of the business relative to the current share price and so they buy back shares for the benefit of existing shareholders. If they did NOT feel good about the future relative to the current share price than they would not buy those shares.

If I put xyz.com in auction on Namejet with NO RESERVE and the auction is about to close at $20,000 but I think this domain has a good chance of selling someday for $100,000 then why shouldn't I be able to buy it back for more than the current bid? If the high bidder also thinks it is worth more than they will outbid me (again). And again and again. At the end one party values the asset higher than the others and they win the auction and pay the price.

Who got fooled?

It is all about trust in the process. If I don't trust that the process is fair then I am not going to be a part of it. I'm not going to bid against someone who has no honest interest in the domain but whose sole goal is to drive up the price because they are profiting. Shill bidding is banned by every respectable auction house because they know if people lose trust in the process then there will be no bidders at their auctions.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

As a curiosity, I checked one (randomly selected) domain more seriously - AirlineJobs.com.

AirlineJobs.com is parked (with Bodis). Every parking account now has a google id associated with it. It is never visible anywhere in account settings, but can be easily obtained by checking html/frame codes AND, most notably, http headers. This parking id is the same for all domains parked through the same parking account. For airlinejobs.com, at the time if this writing, it is:

as-drid-oo-1445161623019818

(one needs to look for an entry drid=as-drid ... in codes and headers of any parked domain to find that id).

Any other bodis-parked domain that shares the same google id (as-drid) is DEFINITELY at the same bodis account.

Now, the question. What, if any, other domains are currently parked with the same google id? I performed a number of ggl/yahoo searches and found just one, 2diyer.com - it has non-private whois with the owner located somewhere in China.

Accordinly, it is likely that unrealted (to our story) domain name 2diyer.com and related domain AirlineJobs.com are currently owned or at least controlled by the same person, as one and the same person definitely entered both domains into their bodis account. Moreover, for me it seems unlikely that Booth brothers would register/acquire such a specific domain (2diyer.com), or that they will use chinese proxy registrant for any purpose. Accordingly, it may well be that the domain I checked (AirlineJobs.com) is indeed not legally or technically owned by Booth brothers at the time of this writing, but is owned or controlled by the same Chinese guy or gal ( Registrant Name: nan chen ) who owns 2diyer.com. Why whois shows something else is still a puzzle though.

I did not check other related domains, if somebody is interested - please also post your findings

P.S. any firefox extension to view http headers will help to do the job, together with checking parked page code

From the start of post to now WHOIS has changed for this domain.

WHOIS is now under eNom privacy. (Perhaps escrow or...?)

EDIT: I'm inexperienced in this but found the ID's to have history with below .RU domains.

 

[SuperBrander]

Yet another one of NamePros' wacky threads. Should have made popcorn before I started reading.

I think the Booths are in the clear if the names were indeed sold already. No harm in trying to get back names that you don't own anymore for cheap.

As for the other issue- I can understand some of the points Andrew is making, but I think the last thing this industry needs is to allow people to bid on their own domains. If I bid on something, I don't want the owner involved. He had a chance to place a reserve. If he didn't- he should step away. Even if the whole thing was transparent and I knew he was allowed to bid on his own domains... it would turn many auctions into a game of Chicken with the owner. The whole point of entering auctions is the prospect of possibly getting the name for cheap or at least with enough potential margin to make profit in the future. Allowing a person with a clear interest to jack up the price participate in the auction just doesn't seem right.

So... regardless of other industries where this kind of thing may be the norm... I'm not a fan.

 

[xn--v4h.com]

As a curiosity, I checked one (randomly selected) domain more seriously - AirlineJobs.com.

AirlineJobs.com is parked (with Bodis). Every parking account now has a google id associated with it. It is never visible anywhere in account settings, but can be easily obtained by checking html/frame codes AND, most notably, http headers. This parking id is the same for all domains parked through the same parking account. For airlinejobs.com, at the time if this writing, it is:

as-drid-oo-1445161623019818

(one needs to look for an entry drid=as-drid ... in codes and headers of any parked domain to find that id).

Any other bodis-parked domain that shares the same google id (as-drid) is DEFINITELY at the same bodis account.

Now, the question. What, if any, other domains are currently parked with the same google id? I performed a number of ggl/yahoo searches and found just one, 2diyer.com - it has non-private whois with the owner located somewhere in China.

Accordinly, it is likely that unrealted (to our story) domain name 2diyer.com and related domain AirlineJobs.com are currently owned or at least controlled by the same person, as one and the same person definitely entered both domains into their bodis account. Moreover, for me it seems unlikely that Booth brothers would register/acquire such a specific domain (2diyer.com), or that they will use chinese proxy registrant for any purpose. Accordingly, it may well be that the domain I checked (AirlineJobs.com) is indeed not legally or technically owned by Booth brothers at the time of this writing, but is owned or controlled by the same Chinese guy or gal ( Registrant Name: nan chen ) who owns 2diyer.com. Why whois shows something else is still a puzzle though.

I did not check other related domains, if somebody is interested - please also post your findings

P.S. any firefox extension to view http headers will help to do the job, together with checking parked page code

From the start of post to now WHOIS has changed for this domain.

WHOIS is now under eNom privacy. (Perhaps escrow or...?)

EDIT: I'm inexperienced in this but found the ID's to have history with below .RU domains.

Show attachment 64548

I hope you guys are right in that those domains are probably not theirs.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

I hope you guys are right in that those domains are probably not theirs.

I have other intel that suggests the domains were always owned by the Booths. (Edit: or just Booth singular)

Which is why I'm interested in finding some hard evidence that these domains were at some point, pushed or sold, out of Booth's possession.

 

[Internet.Domains]

REPUTABLE auction houses only allow owners to bid on their items in a "RESERVE AUCTION"....Legislation has already been passed saying, "when an owner bids on their property they are, in effect, setting a reserve."....So it is illegal to bid on a "NON RESERVE" auction as the owner. Doing so is fraudulent and criminal.

 

[mad409]

I have a NJ auction I'd like to check who was the previous owner. It's a .xyz domain is that possible, if so link? Thanks..

 

[Ategy]

Ummm .. moral "opinions" on either side aside .. just for the argument's sake .. is there anything in the rules that prevents James Booth from bidding on a domain *IF* it were owned by @andyboothsi (and vice versa)?

This is one reason why what @MediaOptions said is valid. Because now where do we draw the line of who can/can't bid .. and more importantly .. how do you prove what the person's intentions were.

Obviously we have the right to suspect a brother's role in an auction .. but what if he genuinely wants the domain .. and his brother legitimately wants to get maximum value ... we also can't conveniently overlook the fact that there are plenty of other people very connected to each other in the domain industry .. this sort of thing is impossible to police except in very rare instances like this one (which might not even turn out to be justified I should stress).

The opposite also holds true .. people often team up to buy a domain .. when in fact that act in itself removes potential bidders and technically could be seen as cheating the buyer out of getting the maxing market-value for his domain. Nobody seems to have a problem with this is seems, even if it could have just as marked an effect on the end result.

That's why I said there are shades of grey in this .. what makes it worse is that the domain community is relatively small .. and aside from a few domain super-categories, there actually isn't much liquidity for 95% of domains owned by non 6-figure+ domainers.

Am I allowed to tell an acquaintance about my auction knowing he will want the domain and will bid and effectively drive the price up .. but not actually be able to afford what will likely be the final price? To some that could be considered "manipulation" or shill bidding .. when it clearly isn't to others.


Anyhow .. it would be really nice if @NameJetGM would give us the details as to how they know it wasn't owned by Andy .. so that we could indeed move past this and actually discuss domain auction theory without feeling guilty about getting too off-topic .. lol

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Ummm .. moral "opinions" on either side aside .. just for the argument's sake .. is there anything in the rules that prevents James Booth from bidding on a domain *IF* it were owned by Andy (and vice versa)?

My concern is Brokers. If any of these big name brokers who do well on NJ, are asked to broker somebody else's domain (ie sell it on NameJet for them) what's to stop the domain owner from shill bidding in their own auction?

 

[anantj]

As an official statement from NameJet – our policy is clear that sellers cannot bid on their own domains, period. The integrity of our platform is of utmost importance to us and we do not condone shill bidding of any kind. From an ethical standpoint, it is unfair to the other participants, and from a practical standpoint, a few extra dollars on a few sales is simply not worth the potential damage to our reputation and business. Again, our stance is clear and we take immediate action whenever we have any reason to believe that there is inappropriate activity occurring on the platform. Bottom line – we take these matters very seriously!

With that said, it is my understanding that Andy and James Booth are not the sellers or current owners of the domains at issue. Andy did own them recently, but per him (both to me privately and in this thread) the domains are no longer his to sell, and he was interested in reacquiring them at what he felt were good prices. However, the WHOIS still reflects Andy as the registrant and that has made this whole thing confusing and problematic.

And while I have no reason to dispute Andy’s claims, we will cancel the remaining auctions involving these domains. To put things in perspective, there are not many domains involved, so it is not some large coordinated campaign to improperly inflate auction values. And it looks like they won nearly all of those domains auctioned, which further speaks to their legitimate interest in them – and for anyone negatively impacted we will look to address that.

Moreover, we will take steps to further outline and clarify our rules around this over the next few weeks to help eliminate any ongoing confusion. In the meantime, we will continue to investigate and monitor this issue (as well as any others brought to our attention) to determine if any further action is necessary.

Thanks everyone and have a good evening.

-Jonathan
GM, NameJet

Can you also explain why, if the domain was sold so recently that the whois still hadn't changed, was the domain allowed to be auctioned while being transfer locked? It is my understanding that the domain would, most likely, be still transfer locked and NJ does not allow domains on transfer locks to be auctioned.

 

[Ategy]

My concern is Brokers. If any of these big name brokers who do well on NJ, are asked to broker somebody else's domain (ie sell it on NameJet for them) what's to stop the domain owner from shill bidding in their own auction?

That's exactly my point .. it's virtually impossible to stop someone who really wanted to do this. It's too easy ... the only actual real thing stopping someone is the risk of paying commission if they actually end up winning the auction by mistake.

Which at the end of the day puts us exactly where @MediaOptions described .. it might be beneficial to simply allow it openly so at least we're all aware of it .. because realistically there is no way of stopping people from doing this if they really wanted to.


That being said ... I certainly do agree that in this case we should not be looking at theory .. but at the ACTUAL NJ auction rules. I'm just asking if those rules actually preclude James from bidding on Andy's domains? I'm assuming that if they actually work together at the same brokerage then that would be flagrant .. but if they are both officially independent then why should they be discriminated against simply because they are brothers when there are plenty other close affiliations in the industry we would need to be equally weary of.

Note that I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be allowed .. I'm just asking whether there actually is a clearly defined line in the first place?

 

[Hemanttilotia]

I am not straying off topic, but NameJet surely needs someone like @Eric Lyon and other NP team members to set their house straight.

 

[Recons.Com]

Hi all,

Sorry if I wasn't clear - they are definitely not the seller of the domains. It is 100% a different seller.

Thanks,

-Jonathan

How did you verify that "a different seller" own the names even to accept them for auctioning? Don't you check that the seller info and the domain info are the same?

Obviously, there is a conflict of interest here with NJ too, as shill bidding is good for your business, until it is uncovered. Higher prices = higher commission.

Please disclose a) who the seller is; b) if you have seen any proof of purchase by seller and what kind of confirmation of ownership had you used to accept names from him.

 

[Recons.Com]

Anyone finds it unusual, weird, unnatural etc. that Booth Bros bid against each other on a domain they want? This would never happen, you'd think in normal life.

To me this is another indirect proof of the shill bidding.

I would also investigate "seek" and hemant24, as I find it also highly unusual that they absolutely share the same taste for domains as Booth Bros.

I'd argue that either they are colluding or are related parties. If I were NJ, I'd look into it, but then again NJ doesn't seem too eager to get to the truth.

 

[Recons.Com]

Another "fishy" point.

Who pays end user prices to Booth Bros (I assume this guys don't trade for "reseller prices) for "brandables" which normally don't fetch even 1/50-1/200 of their end user price at reseller auctions, and then turns around and puts them all for no reserve auctions?

Let's say the guy bought them for $3K average, was he really expecting to sell them at $3.7K+ each to make a quick flip in few days??

Are any of you buying this story? Please please share this guy's details, I'd love to deal with him. Man, this is such a B.S.!

 

[3sixty]

Which at the end of the day puts us exactly where @MediaOptions described .. it might be beneficial to simply allow it openly so at least we're all aware of it .. because realistically there is no way of stopping people from doing this if they really wanted to.

So can the auction house themselves bid on the domains? Can their employees? In a free market (an oxymoron in itself) surely they should have that right.

The domain seller intention is to make as much as possible from the auction while the buyer as low a price as possible. When the seller can also take part in the auction at the liability of 15% his sole intent is to artificially drive up the price up to his risk point seeking profit gain. It is not an organic auction process.

It is clearly for me opening the door to market manipulation on the assets at hand.

Alternatively, let's for the sake of argument take it to the extreme and say that the auction platform has a commission rate of 0% (perhaps their motto is that they want to democratise the domain auction process). In this example, Domain owners can bid on their domains. Would any of you think differently in this example. The variables are exactly the same, just the liable % has changed.

But yes, all of the above is theory and as I said better for another topic. What is clear from the Booth topic on hand is clear answers are needed from both sides for the integrity of the domainers and NJ.

 

[lambo.com]

Gather around boys and girls. I want to tell you a story. My last sale was arabica.org. It went to auction with NO reserve. The last bidder won it after 24 hours with a bid of only $55. $55! Let's just say I bought it for MUCH more than that. If I believed that bidding on my domain was OK to do, then I could have bid it up to $100 and likely got it back no problem. BUT I did not. And of course I still wouldn't do it now or in the future. I took the risk in the hopes of the reward of more bidders. That's business. I'm not going to sacrifice the integrity of how I conduct my business, period!

Who cares? $55 or $100. IRRELEVANT and too small time to mention and try and MILK.

 

[domainventure]

The best auction system is the Name.com Dutch Auction. There can be no collusion whatsoever. It's time all auction platforms moved to that. You want the domain badly enough, get it right away. You wait you lose!!

 

[wwwweb]

I don't think namejet would protect these guys over their own reputation, they have more to lose than gain, but they need to be more transparent as domainers make up a majority of their business.

Vagueness does not help anybody at this point. I am not sure how they can even list an auction when they cannot match the whois, with the sellers account details?

I don't think these guys are stupid enough to bid on auctions they own, so something is out of wack here. The older Booth has been in the business along time, this is a rookie mistake, can't see them making it.

Maybe he sold a chunk of his portfolio to a Chinese domainer, who thought he could flip it on namejet, or the domain market was not what he thought it was, and wanted out.

The seller could quickly fix the issue by placing an ICANN whois complaint forcing an update, or just contacting someone at enom, I am sure they have some contacts. Having the domains go to Privacy just seems weird, if anything these domains have gotten alot of free advertising.

I used to see Homer, and Bart Simpson in the same auction all the time at Namejet, not sure if that was related or what?

 

[Hemanttilotia]

Anyone finds it unusual, weird, unnatural etc. that Booth Bros bid against each other on a domain they want? This would never happen, you'd think in normal life.

To me this is another indirect proof of the shill bidding.

I would also investigate "seek" and hemant24, as I find it also highly unusual that they absolutely share the same taste for domains as Booth Bros.

I'd argue that either they are colluding or are related parties. If I were NJ, I'd look into it, but then again NJ doesn't seem too eager to get to the truth.

Hahaha...read my posts here on this thread. I am the one who's 'disappointed' by all this.
I saw this thread, saw the names, names were good and going cheap.
So I bid on both of them, and strangely booth brothers didn't counter bid.
I got one but then got counter bid by user 411 for LACollege. I thought he might be a related party to booth brothers who's bidding on their behalf, then searched him on Google. I saw that he's a regular buyer on NameJet, saw big buying done by him, through data shared by GoldDomains dot com, so I was pretty sure that he's not related to booth brothers. So I tried to win LACollege, but it soon went out of budget, and I didn't persue it, and 411 got the domain.

 

[domainscot]

A wee bit of gossip and the sweetie wifes are out on force.
If you want to bid on yor own names then thats your personal choice. Its a ethics question
If you see someone bidding on there own domains you have the choice to walkaway and not bid.
People have different standards its upto you to make your own choice on the matter.

What you also have to understand is people from different parts of the world have culture that bidding on your own names is allowed and some say its not. All goes back to the big ethics question.

The booth brothers are good guys in this Industry and like brothers I can imagine they have a competitive streak to beat each other in buying domains. Trust me its a brothers thing I totally get it. The youngest brother always wins.

Personally if you know the two guys that your all shouting about you should know they are good guys. So less of the witch hunt let the admin do its job lets hope this can be put to rest and you all move on.

Let the rest of the swettiewifes keep posting.

 

[equity78]

A wee bit of gossip and the sweetie wifes are out on force.
If you want to bid on yor own names then thats your personal choice. Its a ethics question
If you see someone bidding on there own domains you have the choice to walkaway and not bid.
People have different standards its upto you to make your own choice on the matter.

What you also have to understand is people from different parts of the world have culture that bidding on your own names is allowed and some say its not. All goes back to the big ethics question.

The booth brothers are good guys in this Industry and like brothers I can imagine they have a competitive streak to beat each other in buying domains. Trust me its a brothers thing I totally get it. The youngest brother always wins.

Personally if you know the two guys that your all shouting about you should know they are good guys. So less of the witch hunt let the admin do its job lets hope this can be put to rest and you all move on.

Let the rest of the swettiewifes keep posting.

Your statement is actually inaccurate, "If you want to bid on yor own names then thats your personal choice. Its a ethics question"

We are talking about NameJet and personal ethics do not factor in, on NameJet it's against their TOS.

 

[wwwweb]

I can't see two brothers bidding against each other, that is the stupid part, why would they force each other to pay more it makes no sense. You pick up the phone, and hash it out if you are brothers, you don't just keep bidding against each other, well common sense of course.

I think I have seen them do mutual buys together recently, so they do work in partnership at times, so they are not totally one sided against each other.

 

[Messiah]

The booth brothers are good guys in this Industry

Good guys? People used to say the same thing for Adam Dicker, Shane Bellone until curtain fell...