Please recall that I briefly explained most of this in my first two posts in this thread:
Post 1 and
Post 2.
I'm going to respond to comments in this thread and then post a new thread that summarizes the important details, along with examples, for easy referencing.
Update:
Here it is.
What if you have a domain and auction it off at NP and Flippa at the same time - and the domain sells on both sites.
It is obvious there is a flaw with the system - and not with the seller's actions.
This is
against the rules and the seller would be held accountable. Depending on when we catch it, the auction will either be terminated or the seller will be required to provide the domain to the winning bidder on NamePros.
So DNBolt would post SchoolPanda.com sold but no one remembers it being in that auction thread.
If anyone even remotely suspects that, they can Report it to NamePros and we will be happy to tell them "yes" or "no" within a matter of seconds of reviewing the situation. There's no need to wonder; we can easily check.
Everyone can also use Google Cache, archive.org, etc. to investigate.
So it's a binding agreement except when a rare scenario occur
As I mentioned in a previous post, the only reason an exception is being made here is because Doron was misinformed by our moderators, and we take responsibility for that mistake. So we're doing everything we can to make sure everyone is treated fairly given the circumstances.
All that happens is a market violation that no one wants to enforce.
We will certainly enforce all violations on NamePros. First, we need to clarify everything.
Now I get $500 instead but I've now spent more money to get the name that I wanted?.... These clauses don't make sense. Do I not bid because the one name I want might sell?
Everyone needs to be on the same page with the same expectations in all possible scenarios, and then it is sensible and fair. For instance, if you don't like the terms of the auction set by the seller, then you shouldn't bid on it. If you really wanted to, you could even go buy the domain at full price. In that case, everything is transparent, clearly defined, and fair to everyone involved.
I said this when Judgemind had the capability to substitute an equivalent name and this whole portfolio nonsense started.
The only time this is allowed on NamePros is if it's established upfront exactly what names will be substituted in the event that one sells elsewhere, thereby providing full transparency for buyers to decide if they want to participate in the auction.
That's for the seller and buyers to decide. As long as the seller outlines all of the terms and the outcomes are transparent and specific, then it's up to the buyers to decide if they want to participate. If buyers don't participate, then the seller will have to rethink their terms to make them more appealing to bidders. That's one of the benefits of an open market.
Here are xx names from BB. If any name from the list is sold via BB PRIOR to close of this auction, the seller reserves the right to replace it with another BB listed name. Could even disclose the names that could serve as replacement.
This is only allowed if all of the replacement names are listed before the first bid and the seller has explained the exact order in which those replacement domains will replace sold ones. Again, everything has to be predictable and clear before bidding takes place.
Doron did have a disclaimer like that but was advised that it was invalid - hence he removed it a couple days after the auction commenced.
His disclaimer was invalid and not allowed. We'll go over it as an example, along with others, in the
summary thread.
The NP administration clearly indicated no violation has happened,
A violation did occur, but it would have been fixed in advance if we had better equipped our moderators with how these situations should be handled. Doron attempted to prepare for this scenario, but the approach he used was incorrect and invalid.
The post that we're working on will address this so that moving forward everything will be clear, and our moderators will be able to better advise in these types of situations.
All auctions on NP's must be exclusive to NP's
Correct; there must not be any other auction elsewhere for these domains. The rule is about auctions: domains being auctioned on NamePros must not be auctioned anywhere else at the same time.
The relevant rules in this particular scenario state that the auction cannot change after the first bid, and that the winning bidder must receive what they bid on, according to the terms the seller set at the beginning of the auction.
In this case, NP has interpreted its rule that delivering proceeds of the BB sale to buyer is equivalent to delivering the name.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. Please see my comments in this post.
Eric has ALWAYS stated that domains auctioned at NP's must be exclusive to NP's. As far as can tell, he is STILL stating that.
Correct, but that is about auctions taking place at multiple venues at the same time. This case is a bit different. I do see how it can be interpreted in more than one way and that's why we're working on
clarifying everything.
Eric basically condoned the whole thing.
If it happens again, so what? The same put-and-take wink-wink-nod-nod will serve as a solution to make NP happy.
This is not the case. Please see my comments in this post.
The names shouldn't have been in a NP auction if listed as BIN elsewhere. This is a rule known to domainers on most platforms as it's obviously potential for an issue, and here it happened.
Right, the only time domains should be auctioned while there is a possibility that they will be sold elsewhere is if it is clearly defined in the terms what will happen in that scenario. More on that
here.
Requiring a 'what if' scenario at the beginning of the auction is all that is needed. This avoids one-size-fits all rules that end up penalizing either the buyer or the seller.
To me, the best solution is to allow sellers to stipulate "If... then..." clauses from the get-go.
But if there is a good stipulation set out to start with, then everyone who is bidding knows exactly what scenarios might transpire and how they will be dealt with.
Exactly. That's how it's always been and that's how it still is today (details).
* Updated to include links to the summary.