July 5th 2008: My mail to dotasia.
From: info@dotasia-complot.org (Madunia GmbH)
Date: 04.07.2008, 19:00:01
Subject: Your mail to my Provider
Dear Mr.Chung,
My provider forwarded me an other email from you. I want to clarify some points myself:
You did not say any word to our documents, you did not say any word to the role of Mr. Schreier, you did not say any word to the newly detected involvement of Mr. Hall, no word to all the evidences and so else.
You or Leona said to my provider, you have talked to pool - nobody knows what was the content and result from this voice-meetings.
All in all your reaction is not adequate. We are speaking about insider-trading.
Drake had bids in the auction which now is still interrupted.
Also in an english style auction system insiders like drake/pool/momentous have a significant advantage over other bidders: They knows the maximum bid from all the other auction participants. If the auction is automaticly extended by 24h or not, plays absolutly no role. If one party can see the maximum bids and the others can not, the integrity of the whole platform is not given.
If seeing the maximum bids is no problem, than this have to be given to every participants. But explicit this is not implemented this way, no participants can see the maximum bids. Only an insider can see this. And there are very good reasons, why the maximum bidding price is hidden and why it is implemented as it is done.
If you see the maximum bids from the others and they do not vice versa, you have an advantage over the others. Because you can act different than they can, this is what you describe a "fair process" ? Are you serious?
The auction-process and platform itself is fine, but nobody in the process may get an advantage. All parties must have the same pices of information, this is an essential and important point for the integrity of the auction-process.
You will not find an 100 % perfect auction process and platform. And on every plattform there will be someone who try to cheat. But with this awareness it is important, that cheater will not be tollerated from you as registry. But this is what you are doing.
The brisans off the whole story we lay out is, that the cheater here is very near positioned to the auctioneer itself and people in leading positions are involved.
My suggestion is simple and effective: Do not tollerate cheaters, insider trading and bid-rigging. Exlude them from their applicants. This would be a clear signal to everybody and to the community too.
Sure you can disqualifying cheaters. You and pool bring out an "Advisory on Auction Tampering". I am wondering why I have to put your finger to your own text:
"If you have been contacted by another auction participant soliciting your collusion in a bid rigging scheme, we request that you notify Pool.com and DotAsia immediately. If we determine that an auction participant has attempted to engage in bid rigging or any other inappropriate behaviour (<- !!!!!), we reserve the right to remove the participant from current auctions and ban the participant from future auctions (<-!!!!!). If we determine that a completed auction has been affected by bid rigging, appropriate actions will be taken, which may include but are not limited to invalidating the auction, rescinding (<-!!!) of the domain and re-auction of the domain. If we suspect any bid rigging activity during or before an auction commences, we may suspend an auction."
What is the difference between bid-rigging and insider-tradings ? Why you think you can disqualifying a bid-rigging cheater, but an insider-trading-cheater not ? In the document you a speaking about an "criminal act". Insider Trading is a "criminal act" too.
We have provided a lot of facts. When do you want to start engage with this materials ? When do you want to take consequences ?
After publising the dotasia-complot-website they changed the whois of the domain drakedomainscorp.com, so Mr. Schreier is not visible in the whois anymore as domain-owner. We used the domain to show the proximity between the pool and Drake. This was more an indication.
But please note the new documents we provide. You can clearly see, that Mr. Robert Hall, ceo of momentous (owner of your auctioneer) and chairman of pool (your auctioneer) is the president of the drake-connection starting from barbardos. This fact they can not change so easily.
I think also, they become completely discredited in their statement, Drake is "just" a customer from pool. A customer, where the ceo is Mr. Robert Hall.
I not agree with your solution to restart the auctions without disqualification of Drake.
I did not get any answer and any statement from Mr. Schreier or from Mr. Hall to my mail from last friday about the new documents from Barbardos. Because of this, I will go public with the new evidences. I also will sent the documents and all the information to the Discipline Inspection Commission of MOFCOM, Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, No. 2 Dong, Chang An Street, Beijing, P.R. China.
I hope the facts and evidence are now somewhat clearer. I hope Dotasia will now deal with the facts and finally role out the necessary consequences, so that the introduction of the asia-domains can be continue. Hope to hear from you.
Regars from germany,
T.Ruecker, Madunia Modellbau GmbH