Banner

Press Releases

Whizzbang (1) Whizzbang

Latest Comment

Saturday musings - f...
I had a similar experience with my kids. I was tea...
Proud to be a Domain...
Pitbullstew is a trademark laweyer or someone with...
China, Australia and...
Wow, that is really bad. Some really good points i...
Saturday Musings - W...
some of us are dealing with the tasks of survial a...
A Response to Snap N...
I Agree with u stevecheatham.
Downwind development...
Do you think the domain you chose for this site ha...
Domain Sale
here is the world of http://www.replica-bags-sa...
Episode 2 - The Snap...
Our law firm is investigating a claim against Snap...
A Response to Snap N...
Thank you all for your measured sage comments in r...
Saturday Musings –...
SnapNames Cart | Log In My Activity ...
Saturday Musings – Oversee.Net and Snap Names Fiasco PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 4
PoorBest 
Written by Whizzbang   
Sunday, 15 November 2009 07:28

For the past couple of weeks I’ve been reading about all of the incredible things happening at Oversee.Net and the Snap Names employee that bid up the auctions. When you think about it, the domain industry is less than transparent so this sort of event should have been expected by everyone. There is just too much money at stake.

snapnamesEmploying people is always fraught with potentially dangerous outcomes especially when an employee in a trusted position fails to live up to their CV encrusted character references. When you purchase a business, as is the case with Oversee’s fairly recent purchase of Snap Names you end up inheriting a lot skeletons in a lot of closets. In fact, when you think about it it’s not surprising that this event became public just after Halloween.

Due diligence is supposed to expose all of these less than savoury characters but sadly in many cases that involve deliberate employee cover-ups the due diligence team never end up seeing what really needs to be seen. What should not be forgotten is when you buy anything that the rule is “buyer beware”, especially when buying companies.

What has surprised me is about the Oversee.Net/Snap Names story is some of the negative comments regarding Oversee. A number of people have cried foul and pointed the finger directly at Oversee and screamed at the top of their lungs.

In some respects I can understand this reaction. It’s only natural to assume the worst about an organisation and that somehow all of the senior management were rubbing their hands together with glee as the additional revenue poured through the door. The problem I have is that this type of behaviour just doesn’t stack up from a business sense or because from the character of the senior managers involved in sorting the mess out.

The problem with deliberately running a “scam” means that you’ve shut the door on your potential exit and realisation of capital value. Something like this will always eventually come out via a disgruntled employee or a complete trade sale due diligence conducted more thoroughly by someone else. Not to mention the rigour that a private company is put through prior to an IPO.

The fact that Oversee has a large equity partner would suggest that if the senior management wasn’t clean as a whistle than they would have been marched out the door by a security card by now.

Next, I would like to believe that I know many of the senior managers at Oversee reasonably well and I could categorically declare that collectively they wouldn’t be involved in this sort of activity. Like I said before, you can’t cover something like this up forever so it would be committing career suicide to take part in it. Besides, none of the senior people have been fired as yet.

I have also heard a number of people suggesting that they are not going to deal with Oversee ever again and they will pull their domains out of Domain Sponsor straight away. Can I suggest that this could potentially be like a run on a bank for our industry and that it wouldn’t help anyone. Oversee is actually one of the shining lights of our industry and to have them pulled down due to this sort of activity would ultimately be terrible for everyone. In my opinion the recently announced class action isn't going to help anyone other than lawyers and screaming for the heads of the people that actually exposed the problem isn't very productive either.

Externally, looking across the Pacific ocean from Australia I see Oversee is endeavouring to make the best of a really bad situation for everyone. They have publicly declared the mess and provided a route for compensation that seems reasonable. The challenge will be if it subsequently comes out that the problem was a lot bigger than they are declaring. I hope that this is not the case (inadvertent or otherwise) as a lot of people are giving Oversee the benefit of the doubt.

So what I suggest is something novel. In the millisecond driven world in which we all do business decide to show a little restraint. Give Oversee the time to sort through the mess and let’s all be supportive of the management that are trying to deal with it. The last thing we all need to the valuations of our domains is for the Oversee/Snap Names stumble to become a fall.

Trackback(0)
Comments (6)Add Comment
0
...
written by anonymous, November 15, 2009
Oversee is actually one of the shining lights of our industry? are you freaking serious? its statements like these that make me wonder about the people at the high levels of this industry. i'll call cj lovik or frank schilling a shining example. oversee -- never.

ive lost all respect for this blog bec of this post.
0
...
written by Kevin M, November 15, 2009
""...The fact that Oversee has a large equity partner would suggest that if the senior management wasn’t clean as a whistle than they would have been marched out the door by a security card by now.
Next, I would like to believe that I know many of the senior managers at Oversee reasonably well and I could categorically declare that collectively they wouldn’t be involved in this sort of activity. Like I said before, you can’t cover something like this up forever so it would be committing career suicide...""


Mike, unfortunately if one were to substitute 'equity partner' with 'corporate owner', 'Oversee' with SnapNames', and 'career' with 'business', you'd have the same reasoning statement used (by many) to deny that the suspicions many 'had', could only be that! Then.. reality!!

And in all due respect, since you note - ""...provided a route for compensation that seems reasonable.."", did you read the terms in full? A few law types seem to think otherwise.

I do agree though that to jump on Oversee's case to accuse them of involvement is Mob Mentality shortsightness!

..we hope.
Whizzbang
Oversea compensation
written by Whizzbang, November 15, 2009
This is great! I must admit it that I really do like getting feedback on an article....either positive or negative so thank you for responding. Here's my take on things:
1. Regardless of our personal opinions on Oversee.Net much of our industry depends upon them for the value inherent in our domains. If they were to go down this would be bad for valuations....hence I don't like it.
2. Legal firms will ALWAYS disagree with an offer...that's what they are there for. Those people that purchased domains won the auction because they thought that it was good value at the higher price. The fact that they are about to be compensated is a complete bonus to their business model - this statement does not condone the actions of the shill bidder though.
3. Oversee's only way out of this mess is to get people to sign-off on the compensation. If they don't do this then it will be more in their interest to fight the court case to the bitter end.....which is never good. If your business model is to spend a few years in court then don't sigh....otherwise I'd sign and move on. This, of course all depends on how much you were impacted by the whole situation. For the majority of domainers I'd recommend sign and move on. Court is never a fun place for anyone.
4. On the people in Oversee.Net - Jeff, Steve, Pete, Sam, Don etc. I think that they are all stand-up guys that play business hard but fair. I personally have never found a reason to doubt their integrity. Have they done things that people have not like? Absolutely. Ultimately these are the sort of guys that ARE Oversee so when we criticise Oversee we are actually criticising them....so if we don't have actually facts of bad conduct for the actual people in an organisation then I would recommend being careful about generalising cristicism.
0
Craig Snyder
written by RobSequin, November 16, 2009
1. I like Oversee, have done business with them and think they are the victim here for overpaying based on fraudulently inflated revenues.

2. "screaming for the heads of the people that actually exposed the problem isn't very productive either."

I'm not screaming for the head of Craig Snyder but since he was CEO of iReit for three years while they bought domains from Nelson Brady, he needs to make a statement as to what he knew and when? If he did not know that his company was buying domains from Nelson Brady, why not?

This is not an allegation. I have examples of Halvarez domains that iReit bought directly from Halvarez while Snyder was CEO.

Going on the (common knowledge) assumption that Nelson Brady is \n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

------------

Domain: CineMagazine.com (auction price $1660)

Registrant as of January 19, 2006: original owner

Registrant as of March 7, 2006: Nelson Brady

Registrant as of November 30, 2006: iReit

------------

Domain Name: Tvizle.com (auction price $1650)

Registrant as of August 17, 2005: original owner

Registrant as of December 30, 2005: Nelson Brady

Registrant as of December 3, 2006: iReit

------------

Domain: ExtraWallpapers.com (auction price $1309)

Registrant as of December 7, 2004: original owner

Registrant as of August 17, 2006: Nelson Brady

Registrant as of February 4, 2008: iReit

Mr. Snyder, would you care to explain?
0
...
written by pitbullstew, November 24, 2009
Im shocked-SHOCKED!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gf8NK1WAOc
0
Yep...snapnames is trying alright, still trying to make money off halvarez!
written by pitbullstew, November 27, 2009
SnapNames Cart | Log In



My Activity
My Bids & Watched Domains Offers Made By Me Pending Orders
My Account
Registration History Registration Info Order History Seller Dashboards Account Info
Payment Center
Names Awaiting Payment Add Funds Financial History
Auction Lists Bulk Tools
Bulk Order Bulk Bid Bulk Delete
Help
Domain Names 101 Getting Started FAQs Contact Us About SnapNames
Advanced SearchSearch Types
suggestionsmatches exactlycontainsstarts withends with
TLDs
select all
.com.net.org.me.mobi.us.info.biz.co.uk.ca.pro.de.ac.aero.ag.ah.cn.am.asia.at.au.be.biz.pl.bj.cn.bz.cc.ch.club.tw.cm.cn.co.co.at.co.in.co.nz.com.ag.com.au.com.cn.com.es.com.ki.com.mu.com.mx.com.nf.com.pl.com.sc.com.sg.com.tw.com.vc.cq.cn.cx.dk.ebiz.tw.ec.es.eu.firm.in.fj.cn.fm.game.tw.gd.gd.cn.gen.in.gs.gs.cn.gx.cn.gz.cn.ha.cn.hb.cn.he.cn.hi.cn.hk.cn.hl.cn.hn.cn.idv.tw.im.in.ind.in.info.pl.io.it.jl.cn.jobs.jp.js.cn.jx.cn.ki.la.li.ln.cn.md.me.uk.mn.mo.cn.ms.mu.name.net.ag.net.au.net.cn.net.in.net.ki.net.mu.net.nf.net.nz.net.pl.net.sc.net.vc.nf.nl.nm.cn.nom.es.nu.nv.com.nx.cn.or.at.org.ag.org.au.org.cn.org.es.org.in.org.ki.org.mu.org.nz.org.pl.org.sc.org.tw.org.uk.org.vc.pl.qh.cn.ru.sc.sc.cn.sd.cn.se.sg.sh.sh.cn.sn.cn.sx.cn.tc.tel.tj.cn.tk.tl.tm.travel.tv.tw.tw.cn.us.com.vc.vg.ws.xj.cn.xz.cn.yn.cn
SearchHow does Search work?Advanced Search

Search Results - halvarez
View Cart3 domain names found.View My Bids & Watched Domains
Add To CartItems per page: 525100250500 Page 1 of 1
Export to Excel/CSV Domain Name Bidders Minimum Bid Order By Watch Status
halvarez.com - $59 - Backorder
halvarez.net - $59 - Backorder
halvarez.org - $59 - Backorder

Add To CartItems per page: 525100250500 Page 1 of 1
Export to Excel/CSV


Write comment

busy
Last Updated on Sunday, 15 November 2009 11:25