the dotasia-complot

July 7th,2008: Answers from Edmon Chung - Dotasia

From: e d m o n @ r e g i s t r y . a s i a (Edmon Chung)
Date: 07.07.2008, 00:47:15
Subject: RE: Auction rescheduling / Auction platform change

2 more things:

1. You have still not responded to my question. If I may make it more straight forward:

Is there any way a person can win an auction over you unless s/he places a bid higher than your maximum bid? If the answer is no, then my argument stands. I.e. there is no way anyone can gain an advantage.

2. Please do not mischaracterize my words. Allow me to reiterate: DotAsia is committed to facilitating a fair platform for everyone to compete for domains, not only do we have (a) designed a process to allow for the most equitable auction structure such that people have time to react and in no way could one win an auction without placing the highest bid; (b) conflict of interest policies in place; but also (c) we have not received any evidence any bidder have had any information about the maximum bid of another bidder. Above all (d), we have even offered to host the auction on a separate platform, which should immediately remove any of your client's concerns. The situation where your client is unwilling to proceed confuses me as to the intent of your client.

Looking forward to hear more from you and your client and moving forward to really make use of these valuable .Asia domain names.



From: e d m o n @ r e g i s t r y . a s i a (Edmon Chung)
Date: 07.07.2008, 15:56:41
Subject: RE: Auction rescheduling / Auction platform change

> I think, you do not want to understand the problem: If they have
> did any manipulations? That is not the point! Nobody else than
> Mr. Robert Hall and

I disagree. We take the matter seriously, and have reviewed the records available.

> Schreier are able to know all these details actualy. We are not
> able to look on their 
computers and servers. We are not able to
> make an indeep-investigation in their
systems, selecting on
> their databases and scan their internal emails, memos and
so else. ........

There has been no evidence to warrant DotAsia proceeding with this based on information we have received from all parties. If you or your client wish to launch a law suit there is nothing we can do to stop it, but it would be an unfortunate event, because we have been trying hard to resolve the issue in the last few months with you and him but have not heard anything.

> Mr. Robert Hall and Mr. Schreier (in their function as a bidder)
> have had possibilities, which other bidders did not have. They
> knew (in their function as
auctioneer) the maximum bids of all
> bidders, they have had manipulating possibilities in the process
> of notification of auctions and bids to the bidders.
That is unfair,
> and in my point of view it is a criminal act.

Based on the records we have audited, there is no reason to believe there has been any manipulations. Can you provide me with information about the manipulations alleged? The information on your client's site is misleading. Many of the named domains had only one application in Sunrise. Each application is verified by Deloitte a big-four professional firm, and by highly qualified professionals. The characterization that the integrity of those verifications are in any way jeopardized is without ground.

> I think it is a great idea of Mr. Rucker to involve the MOFCOM, 
> we will see, what 
they think about this kind of father-to-son-
> auctions. Is there any way a person can win an auction over
> you unless s/he places a 
bid higher than your maximum bid?
> If the answer is no, then my argument stands. I.e. there is
> no way anyone can gain an advantage.
> The answer is absolutly clear: YES.


So you are saying, a party who is willing to bid to $1000 can actually lose to someone who is willing to bid for say $500. How? Can you please explain the actual process of doing that. This way I can address and improve our systems.

> With the position of Mr.Schreier and Mr.Hall as bidders (Drake)
> and auctioneer
(pool) in one involved person, they have had
> possiblities which others did not 
have. It is not only that they
> probably have seen the maximum bids. This is only
one of their
> advantages (and this advantage is actualy in the focus of our
> customer, because it is the one everybody can understand
> best). Of course there 
are other ways to manipulate auctions
> and get advantages. For example they can
delay or drop
> important auction-mails, they can produce effects which
> seems to be
bugs but which are artificially to get advantages
> and so else. I want not say that 
they did so, but I want to say,
> that they have the technical knowhow and they were 
able to do
> this. Other bidders were not able to work and bid on this level

If you have that worry, would not using a separate platform resolve your concern?

> And there are some details which still need explanation, which
> are going in this 
direction. For example: The auctions were
> absolutly fast interrupted - they said 
there was bid-rigging (Mr.
> Schreier repeated this in a public discussion board).
> Why they are lying and telling this false story of "bid-rigging" ?

We have received emails from bidders suggesting collusion, and therefore had taken steps to ensure the integrity of the process. We then hear from your client as well, and therefore have kept the auctions suspended until we find a resolution. I believe I have heard both sides of the story and have acted equitably on the issues. We are now offering to reopen the auctions on a separate platform (not on Pool). That shows our commitment to resolve the issue and also that we treat both complaints from your client and complaints from others seriously and fairly.

> Second example: Our customer get only snippy reactions as he
> asked for the reason why the auctions are interrupted.
>  Withholding support und information is 
also a way to get an
>  advantage around an auction. They can use this to get an
> advantage - and for our customer it seems that they have made
> use of this.

We have suspended the auctions. We have not withheld any information. Please be specific what you want to know. As I have explained, the auctions where suspended due to allegations of invitations to bid rigging (collusion) or settlement out of band. Subsequently, we have also received complaints from your client about the auctions that there has been manipulation. Both of these were reasons why we have suspended the auctions. We are now waiting on your client to agree to move the auction to a separate  platform (not on Pool) to reopen the auctions. What other information do you need?

> There are other indications and other possiblities what you as
>  platform-provider 
can do to get advantages. We can not verify
>  all of them, because we have no 
access to the auction systems.
>  This is the reason why an auctioneer naturally is 
not allowed to
>  bid on his own plattform - and this is the reason why Mr. Hll and
> Mr. 
Scheier created and used their dummy companies starting
> from barbardos and why they are lied about their ownership
>  about: To hide their insider trading, to hide 
their activities.

We also have conflict of interest policies in place as I have repeatedly explained. We have just also posted a special advisory about it so the public can be better aware:

> your own rules, what to do with these kind of bidders.

But we are saying to conducting the auction on a separate platform NOT at Pool. How does that still not resolve the issue? Please explain.

> By the way, Mr.Schreier and his lawyer has said, that their is no
> ownership or 
ownership interests between pool and drake. With
> the new documents our customer Mr. Rucker has proofed, that
> the chairman of pool Mr Robert Hall is the 
director of drake.
> Why did Mr Schreier lied about? Seems that dotasia has no
problem with this lies.

Because I am not a lawyer, I do not think I am qualified to comment on Richard's statement. DotAsia is however committed to the integrity of our own registry system and processes. That I can speak to. In that regard, myself and my team have been working hard to maintain the integrity of our processes, and there is no evidence that the integrity is compromised for the alleged domains and auctions.

What I have observed however are highly misleading information and mischaracterization of my personal integrity and the .Asia Sunrise process propagated.

> Our customer Mr Rucker has told me, that there is not any step
> forward, .....

Could you give me his email so I can respond directly. At DotAsia, I and our team is very confident that we have maintained the integrity of the DotAsia registry with the processes we have put in place. Personally I have worked very hard to explain our processes and design them in ways that can address these issues. We have worked very hard for a long time to make this work. So far, the reluctance is from your client to understand and work with the process, which has been developed publicly.

Also, I am more than happy to speak with you and/or your client at anytime. Please feel free to call me: +852 ..............