GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers

[Rob J]

From Slashdot: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/29/0625249

"A GoDaddy Vice President has been caught bidding against customers in their own domain name auctions. The employee Adam Dicker isn't just any GoDaddy employee; he's head of the GoDaddy subsidiary that controls the auctions. Dicker won some of the domains he bid for, and pushed up the bid price on auctions he didn't win. The conflict of interest is unethical, but could this practice also be illegal? Said a representative for a competitor, 'Even if controlled, that practice has bad news written all over it.' This comes hot on the heels of news that despite earlier promises to ICANN to end their 60-Day ban on transfers, GoDaddy quietly circumvented it by forcing customers to agree to the ban anyway. ICANN doesn't appear to be investigating or asking follow-up questions about this. What can be done to force ICANN to police the registrars for which it is responsible?"

 

[AussieDomainer]

I think it is unfair to presume he was shill bidding. This is more than likely not true. He was most likely legitimately bidding on domains he wished to purchase as he is a large domainer. However I totally agree that this should not be allowed as it creates a conflict of interest and will always leave questions in people's minds if allowed. Glad it has now been banned.

 

[fonzie_007]

Does anyone know if some of Dicker's compensation or performance assessment from GoDaddy is based on the performance of TDNAM auctions.

 

[CHILLY]

I don't see what the big deal is, auctioneers bid all the time in antique auctions. although the nature of it is a little different, the names are in public view. Now if he is able to see what people are bidding, traffic and inside information like that, then that's a different story but it's hard not to believe that he would not be privy to that info as he runs that department. I think that's the only problem with it.
He also had a name I saw for sale there too, braids dot com, (at least from what i was able to gather that was his, correct me if I'm wrong) I remember seeing it listed at $250.00 which I thought was a BIN, I was getting ready to jump on it but I though perhaps it was a scam and then a few days past and it was up in the mid XXXX range. If he was seen to be bidding in on that name also, then that would be a problem of shill bidding....

 

[equity78]

I think you would have to ask GoDaddy Fonzie, I doubt that is public info, his employment contract. As a .us investor Fonzie are you glad to see someone like him buying .us ? I think it good for the extension. Now does he have US business to meet the Nexus requirement ?

 

[labrocca]

I think it is unfair to presume he was shill bidding. This is more than likely not true. He was most likely legitimately bidding on domains he wished to purchase as he is a large domainer. However I totally agree that this should not be allowed as it creates a conflict of interest and will always leave questions in people's minds if allowed. Glad it has now been banned.

Ugh..if he lost even ONE auction it's shill bidding imho. He is an employee of the company who should NOT have been bidding and raising prices. Often states have strict auction laws.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/nov/nov8a_04.html

Unless properly investigated we shouldn't just take Godaddy's word for it.

 

[verbster]

Unless properly investigated we shouldn't just take Godaddy's word for it.

Trouble is, who would you trust to conduct a fair, objective investigation? And since there was no in-house policy at the time, who could demand a penalty and enforce it?

 

[Ronald Regging]

Trouble is, who would you trust to conduct a fair, objective investigation? And since there was no in-house policy at the time, who could demand a penalty and enforce it?

State and Federal laws don't give a damn about in-house policy. If it's the law, it's the law.... Now, admittedly, the only thing I know about "insider" activity is when it comes to stocks. I don't really know the laws on this type of situation.

However, I find it hard to believe that he was not bidding on auctions while on company time, since the majority of the auctions would end during that time. And if he is bidding on domains while on company time, I think that would be considered as shill bidding (if he lost any auctions).

Now I am not saying that he used insider information, who knows, I can't draw conclusions.... But he should have known better.

 

[Dave_Z]

Often states have strict auction laws.

Hmm, can't seem to find one online for Arizona. But mebbe these guys will do?

http://www.azauctioneers.org/index.php

 

[labrocca]

Trouble is, who would you trust to conduct a fair, objective investigation?

A federal prosecutor.

 

[buckshotdots]

I am, but are the "cops" monitoring the thread ?

I don't know about 'cops' but I hear a couple 'tucson' newspapers might be checking out this thread.

g-