[ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNames stats

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Thanks George for the helpful answers.  I added a few comments below.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:gkirikos@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 10:07 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: ga@dnso.org; discuss-list@opensrs.org
> Subject: RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNames
> stats
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
> > Are you opposed to VeriSign Registry making a profit?
> 
> No, not at all. I don't believe it should be taking over an existing
> industry, one with numerous business models and competitors, 
> to offer a
> system that makes me and many others worse off. Those others *include*
> many registrars who are happy with things the way they are now.
>  
> > How would this put existing market participants out of business? 
> 
> Under this proposed regime, are you saying that I can continue to
> contract with NameWinner to try to catch an expiring premium 
> name (such
> as Cheerleaders.com or Beijing.com or Compare.com), even if someone
> else has the WLS slot on that name? Will NameWinner still be in
> business?

Yes, you could still contract with NameWinner because I would assume
that there will be lots of names that are never wait listed on the WLS.
But I also recognize that it is likely that the most desirable names
would proably be taken, so it might make good sense for you to also
participate in the WLS to more effectively compete for those names.  I
cannot speak for NameWinner but I can tell you that the methods being
used now by many organizations going after deleted names create
unreasonable demands on our systems.

> 
> > What
> > would prevent you from participating in this?
> 
> Under a current system such as NameWinner, or private systems, I only
> pay for a name if I get it. They're able to make a profit 
> charging only
> $25 RETAIL on many names they catch, yet Verisign's minimum price will
> be $46 WHOLESALE (although, a competitive retail market will probably
> end up being $1 or $2 above WHOLESALE -- great profits for the other
> registrars that have been forced out of their business models). 
> 
> Are you open to Dotster/NameWinner or other market participants making
> a counterproposal to your offer to registrars? If they wish to make a
> proposal, what consensus/conditions do you believe constitute
> "acceptance" of their proposal, that will satisfy you that you should
> abandon your WLS proposal?

These kind of decisions would have to be made by our business people.
And as you probably already know, in order to be able to most accurately
provide a proposal with cost information, we already entered into an
agreement with SnapNames.

> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: George Kirikos [mailto:gkirikos@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 9:36 PM
> > > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > > Cc: ga@dnso.org; discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > > Subject: RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some 
> SnapNames
> > > stats
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
> > > > George,
> > > > 
> > > > VeriSign profit is totally irrelevant as to the competitive
> > market.
> > > > Please help me understand what is noncompetitive?  Every
> > registrar
> > > > would
> > > > have equal opportunity to participate or not participate, their
> > > > individual choice.  It is your perogorative to be opposed 
> > > to VeriSign
> > > > Registry making a profit, but please don't use that as an
> > argument
> > > > related to competitiveness.
> > > 
> > > I'm not opposed to Verisign registrar making a profit, if it
> > offered a
> > > Drop Service that operated at the registrar level, similar to
> > existing
> > > market participants such as Snapnames, eNom, NameWinner, 
> etc. (I've
> > > sent a list in a prior message). My problem is leveraging the
> > monopoly
> > > power of the registry, to enter a "new business", which puts
> > existing
> > > market participants out of business (surely all existing market
> > > participants would not be able to continue in their business with
> > the
> > > proposed regime, but would be forced to only resell WLS
> > subscriptions,
> > > or exit the business entirely. That's anti-competitive, 
> and removes
> > > opportunities for innovation.
> > > 
> > > Sincerely,
> > > 
> > > George Kirikos
> > > http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
>

smime.p7s