Harold,
Speaking for myself, I appreciate knowing your
position on this issue -- which is to maintain the status quo, as it
favors your current methods -- even if your input here and in other forums
is caustic. Though I don't recall the RC inviting professional
speculators to this icann-delete listserv, if that is the intent, I
don't object but would ask that others be invited in order to
provide balanced perspectives.
Many speculators are in favor of the WLS, but are
unwilling to post their sentiments publicly because, here and in other private forums
(under your "cartoonz" screen alias, for example) you are
infamous for less-than-professional attacks on such postings,
and you have to do business with one another. I understand that. However, we've been bcc'd
on supportive e-mails sent to ICANN and ICANN constituents over the
past few days, and of course many of our own customers have contacted us to
express their support and hope that the WLS is approved as proposed. Though it's unfortunate that some
are not yet comfortable voicing their support, we have learned that MANY, on
all sides of the industry, view 100% efficacy as being far more important
than the price of the subscription, since their upside is so significant.
I can't directly answer your question of how many of
our customers are speculators because it is difficult to determine who they
are. Yes, there are some that are
quickly identifiable by the number of names they
backorder in a single transaction, but others (large companies, law
firms, etc.) do this as well.
If you forced me to guess, I'd say about half our business
today is from speculators. For our competitors who cater specifically to
this customer segment, of course the percentage is typically 100%. In
terms of our daily site traffic, approximately 95% is generated by
registrars sending through mainstream customers. Of our 74,000 active customers, by far
and away the majority are mainstream users.
To be clear, the WLS deals with names that have already
been dropped by their current registrants, and there is NOTHING inherent within
the WLS system or proposal that in any way interacts with an existing registrant
and somehow encourages abandonment of domain names. Your allegations on this point are moot.
I have not edited your comments in this string. They
appear to me to be 100% intact.
So, since you're unwilling to disclose your true
agenda and true identity to this listserv of registrars and registries, I'm
pasting in below some postings that have been forwarded to me by fellow members
of your private forum that don't necessarily agree with your position or
tactics. There are mentions herein
from "toonz" (you), "drewbert" and some of your other colleagues, and I've
even included one at the end that is a rare balanced perspective, just to be
fair. After reading through this
there should no longer be a question in anybody's mind as to your true
views towards fairness, intellectual property rights, mainstream users rights,
etc.
- Ron
================================================================
>>After
March 20th there will be no one grabbing names with scripts and no registrars
selling names out the back door.
Eh? What did I miss? "No registrars selling names out the back door"?
That is EXACTLY what will start happening more and more.
Wicked, get a clue.
cartoonz, http:///
Sat Jan 5 20:05:53
2002 - 64.30.193.201 - message #43526
=================================================================
>>>Surely
since domain names have to be registered in the central REGISTRY, back-door
REGISTRAR deals can be eliminated by automatically deleting domain names from
the central REGISTRY the same day they expire.
Edwin, get a clue.
Names cannot be simply "deleted" from the central registry "the
day they expire"... even with a 45 day window now, mistakes still happen.
There is nothing stopping a registrar from either allowing the current
registrant to renew (which is what this time is for) or to actually find a new
registrant (which is unethical, dirty, sleazy business - but it will be done
more and more if this goes through).
Confusing the real issues with "in my perfect world, things would work
like this..." is not really addressing the problem, however entertaining
it may be.
cartoonz, http:///
Sat Jan 5 20:24:11
2002 - 64.30.193.201 - message #43531
================================================================
=======================================================
>Bob
Craig-Wood, business development manager of Easyspace,
>for one, sees a silver lining in the decline.
>"I think it's healthy overall," said
Craig-Wood. "People are
>buying domains for legitimate use rather than for resale at a
>later date."
Where the [EXPLETIVE DELETED] to they dredge these people up from?
Since when has resale been illegitmate?
You'd think Proctor and Gamble would be upset about his statement.
Verisign and Snap probably have a list of yesmen at the bottom of every press
release that the monkey journalists can contact for positive affirmation.
Drewbert, http:///
Sat Jan 5 13:06:51
2002 - 200.64.243.2 - message #43485
=======================================================
>Understand
that the 'new' Harley crowd is very computer savvy and online.
Understand also that their main TM rep is active in the ICANN IP constituency
and she has a nazi-like view of the eclipsing (sp?) of domain names by TM's.
Drewbert, http:///
Sat Jan 5 13:14:26
2002 - 200.64.243.2 - message #43487
========================================================
Heh heh heh.
There is talk on the Registrar list of registrars teaming up and offering their
own reservation system (where names never get deleted and thus don't get
involved in Verisign and Snapnames little backroom
deal).
Wouldn't that be a laugh. Snapnames
boys are rubbing their hands with glee at their 100% guaranteed cash register,
but in the end it'll only be NSI names that they get their grubby little mitts
on.
I can see this blowing up in VeriSnap's faces in the
next few days. After the disaster of ICANN letting Verisign retain its
registrar AND the perpetual rights to .com, I can't see this little scam
getting through. Too many people will be ready to fight it after that last
cock-up.
Boy, is this gonna be fun!
=========================================================
Drewbert, http:///
Sat Jan 5 14:33:22 2002 -
200.64.243.2 - message #43492
>Registrars
seem to be under the delusion that just because a name is
>registered with them, that gives them some sort of right to resell
it. The
>names DONT belong to them, they DONT have any rights to them and their
not
>going to GET any rights to them. I for one enjoy watching them squirm and
>scheme while it all gets taken away from them. Now maybe they will
get back to
>the business of running registrars instead of scheming up
underhanded ways to
>get something for nothing.
I entirely agree. But I don't see why you think the REGISTRY or the registry in
cahoots with SNapNames has any rights either.
>You'll find a lot of sympathy with people who are running scripts, but as far
>as getting a groundswell of support together it wont amount to a
fart in a
>windstorm.
I think you'll have to wait and see about that.
>Getting names with scripts was a glitch people have been complaining about for
>years.
Bull[Expletive Deleted]. It's not a glitch, and who's
been complaining?
>It was bound to come to an end sooner or later.
I don't quite follow you. You don't mind everyone's rights being trampled on,
as long as it stops "scripts"???
>Just be thankfull it lasted as long as it did.
Speaking for all those guys you
>did'nt want to share your secrets with, we
dont give a [Expletive Deleted] if you starve to
>death.
Hmmm. I reserve the right to not give away my
intellectual capital to a bunch of moaning lazy intellectuals
midgets, and you get upset?
>Go build some websites like we do.
Go [Expletive Deleted] yourself. I do build websites.
Drewbert, http:///
Sat Jan 5 17:49:02
2002 - 200.64.243.2 - message #43509
=========================================================
>Just sick and tired of people screaming about being robbed of something they
>dont own.
We're screaming for the RIGHTS of domain registrants. You'll change your tune
when you want to get a decent domain name for one of your precious websites,
and find that there's nothing left and all the good ones are reserved for the
next year.
>Moving it to another board is a wonderful idea.
This is a board ABOUT domains. Look at the [Expletive Deleted]ing title of the window.
>After March 20th there will be no one grabbing names with scripts and no
>registrars selling names out the back door.
Ha ha ha. The big boys will
be RESERVING names with scripts. And registrars will STILL be selling out the
back door.
>All that suites me just fine.
Your attitiude amazes me. Just because you don't go
after names (obviously beyond your abilities) you want the rest of us to move
the discussion elsewhere, and you care not that the monopoly registry is making
moves that infringe the rights of domain owners (including yourself).
How would you feel if when the SE's decided to ban all your pages (for some
arbitrary reason), we all just said "suits me just fine" instead of
joining with you to fight them?
>If anyone figures VeriSign is going to make a huge windfall, they are a
public >company, go buy stock.
I'll buy stock in that thieving pack of bastards the day I buy stock in Microsoft.
Dwewbert:
>What Intellectual property? did'nt
you say the heathens ruined "you're"
>business by giving away the drop secrets?
The "secrets" what took most of us a while (using our own noggins) to
figure out how the system worked. We wouldn't be in this mess today if one
idiot - who liked seeing his name in print - hadn't outlined the entire system
in an article. That's when the system went into overload.
Drewbert, http:///
Sat Jan 5 20:02:27
2002 - 200.64.243.2 - message #43525
========================================================
>Surely
since domain names have to be registered in the central REGISTRY, back-
>door REGISTRAR deals can be eliminated by automatically deleting domain names
>from the central REGISTRY the same day they expire.
Nope. Instead of sending the delete command to the Registry (which is the job
of the Registrar to do), they'll simply hang on to the name and go off and find
a buyer for it.
Remember - the Registry AUTOMATICALLY plonks another
year on the domain when it expires and charges the Registrar $6 (a requirement
of the contract/SRS) - the $6 gets refunded when the Registrar sends the delete
command.
That's what OpenSRS tried recently - they transfered ownershop of names across to a 3rd party instead of doing
the delete. They stopped when OpenSRS resellers revolted. Major resellers
threatened to vote with their feet and transfer their business to a different
registrar. I'm not entirely sure if the top guys at OpenSRS really knew what
was going on. They were defending the system for a long time - denying it was
doing what people said it was - then suddenly there was apology from the head
honcho and it was switched off.
Drewbert, http:///
Sat Jan 5 20:24:23
2002 - 200.64.243.2 - message #43532
=======================================================
>Who's
going to force that? ICANN has never shown any teeth and the registrars
>are not likely to slap the hand that feeds them. Who else is there
besides us
>(the dreaded resistance) and the FTC (who could take forever to
act)? How's it
>gonna happen?
I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you afterwards.
Oh alright. DoC.
Drewbert, http:///
Tue Jan 8 13:25:16
2002 - 200.64.243.2 - message #43830
=================================================================
Hello Cartoonz
Nice to see another Central Coast Member (I am in SLO County just north of Morro Bay on HWY 1 in Cayucos)
Hmmm, I think you and Drewbert should get together and come up with a site that
can do snatches from the VeriSign/SnapNames back door.
(SH*!... SnatchNames.com is gone)
*********
Speaking of back door deals...
JMHO ...Network Solutions and then ICANN were the first internet Back Door
Deals
As far as ICANN ever ripping a new one for Verisign or SnapNames (if I read
your post correctly (or it might (...it was) Drewberts)
NFW...never happen...what is *ONLY* good for the "Most Influential"
SIG constituencies ".CONS", IS (in) ICANNS best (and only) interest.
They may, pay a little lipservice, to the
"Registrars ".CON" ...for appearances sake, but that's it....
THE WHOLE FREEKIN LOT OF THEM MAKE ME WANT TO go
POSTAL!!!
********
Jeez ...gone ... zapnames.com, snapzap.com, snapbid.com, presnap.com,
eSnap.com (heh heh heehhhh not responding)-->(since 98 ...talk about dumb
luck...ie you just never know when or what word, will
take on a new meaning and gain value as a domain...(j/k...but not!;)
********
Forrester, http:///
Sat Jan 5 03:12:09 2002 -
205.188.199.167 - message #43445
================================================================
DREWBERT,
I want your collaboration (collusion?) building a new website at VeriSnap.com.
Please contact me ASAP.
cartoonz, http:///
Sat Jan 5 00:04:00 2002 - 64.30.193.201 - message #43428
=================================================================
I'm
really getting so sick of hearing the word "cybersquatter"!!!!
We need to [Expletive Deleted]ing
declare WAR on the people who try to keep this term alive! It is being misused
intentionally towards us buy the people who benefit from us! The word couldn't
be more further from the truth for the people for which it is implied to!
People in the domain business who use this word are purposely trying to degrade
people in the speculating business for their hopeful benefit! I'm sure they
would love to have it where it is illegal to hold domains so they can be the
holders instead. That way, they have control of them and then they can resell
them in a speculative way! The [Expletive Deleted]ing Hippocrates! I wonder how many domains that Snapnames holds in private on speculation?
So I guess according to Snapnames, speculating is
squatting! If they hold names that aren't in use, they are squatting! I know
that NSI has many names they personally own but aren't working sites! I guess
they are squatters too! I guess people who buy stocks, buy art or buy property
on speculation are squatters!
Squatting is illegal so why isn't it when NSI lets anyone register as many
names as they want, why wouldn't that be considered illegal on NSI's part to?
They are aiding and the so called enemy! [Expletive Deleted]holes like Ron
"The [Expletive Deleted]ing Wiener" are
purposely perpetuating the word "Cybersquatter" to the masses, who
don't know the truth about what the word means, in order to make us look like
the enemy to capitalism! That [Expletive Deleted] just fires up Washington to legislate laws that work against us! There is
nothing wrong with speculation in the domain business and he knows it! He just
doesn't want the masses to know it! Speculation is part of capitalism so Ron,
what's so [Expletive Deleted]ing
wrong with that, you [Expletive Deleted]ing MORON? If it wasn't for the speculation game, there
wouldn't be a Snapnames, plain and simple!
Bucko, http:///
Sat Jan 5 12:32:43 2002 -
24.49.9.159 - message #43477
One
concern I have is if you have to submit your "snaps" to the
registrars, whats to stop them from cherry picking
them, giving the good ones to someone else and just
telling you its already taken? Is there anything in place to
prevent that?
Wicked,
*********************
Good point! We are at the mercy of people who have been known to deal from the
bottom of the deck! How reassuring can that be! This is the perfect example
where the fox is guarding the chicken house!
Using sex.com as an example, lets suppose (like this
would really happen with domain) that someone had a snap on it. Does anyone
here actually believe that the guy who has a snap on it will get it? You can
bet a million bucks that somehow, someone affiliated with the registrar will
get it. They will just make up some story why you didn't get it! Most
registrars are not accountable for their actions! Domains need to be looked
after like the gold in Fort Knox! I have names I let drop over a year ago that are still listed under my
name. I can't do a thing with them though. I think this is a way for NSI to
hoard names without looking like they are!
Bucko, http:///
Sat Jan 5 23:51:54 2002 -
24.49.9.159 - message #43572
We've
always compared domain names to real estate. I'm sure that domain names will
continue to be bought, sold, and traded at market values, just like any other
entity. All this current news is just the market maturing. Real estate has
value based on location and availability and highest/best use. The same will
occur with domains based on length, extension, and traffic and best use. My
opinion is that people will still be able to strike deals with existing owners
before they drop...
I think what Joe/Coastal said is the way of the future in this business. How it
will be organized is the question. I think it will be just like real estate.
There will always be motivated sellers and sellers that don't see hidden value
or best use. Those of us that understand value and are good at negotiating can
capitalize on that and still profit.
On the term "Cybersquatter" Bucko, I feel exactly the way you do, but
it's not worth any energy thinking about it. I've always been in direct sales
(selling products door to door). I've always honest about it and have been
proud to call myself a "professional salesperson". In the media and
the legal profession however, we were (are still) called solicitors, hawkers,
or peddlers (and those weren't the worst). You can't change that stuff; it
isn't worth any energy. It's better to focus on your business and be as
professional as you can. Winning is the best way to combat it and when you're
winning, you don't care anyway.
On the VeriSnap thing eventually turning into an
auction, I don't think that the registrars will end up being able to hold
auctions for the long haul, because in the ICANN charter for registrars, one of
their stated objectives is to make registrations available at reasonable prices
to the general public. I think that over time, their being involved in auctions
will come to be seen as being out of line.
In addition to that, there will be competition in this market too. Competition
in registrars certainly lowered the price of domains and I think that the
competitive nature of the registrar community will continue to work in this
area too. I mean a few registrars have tried auctions on expired domains. I
don't think it worked for them so why should it work going forward. There are
enough of them that at least a few will break rank and market this service at
reasonable prices. George K.'s post (#43547) proves
that. It seems to me that there is a serious consensus amongst registrars so
far that this whole idea will need to be discussed at length.
As far as SnapNames, you have to give them credit for being the best in
business and selling their technology or engine for all these "on hold
subscriptions". No one here is happy that they're raising prices but you
have to admit that they are very respected in the
registrar community. Most registrars use them as they help registrars increase
revenues. I think that they will continue to work with Verisign, but also with
the other registrars. The way I understand it, whatever registrant puts a
snapback on a name first will get it, but there will only be one per domain.
How many layers of chances will registrants reasonably put up with. I can't see it ever going to multiple layers of
reservations on domains. It doesn't make sense. On top of that, I think that
subscriptions for this service could come from any registrar. This is evidenced
by part of Verisign's press release here:
"A proposal has been submitted by VeriSign Global Registry Services to all
ICANN-accredited registrars (who represent the distribution channel for this
service) seeking their comment..."
Whatever registrar gets the sale first gets the sale. Seems simple and makes
sense to me? Of course, I'm not a computer programmer thus not capable of
building s script/search/registration engine, so I would stand to benefit.
We're still in the early days of how this stuff works (and is
regulated). Andrew Carnegie made his fortune selling steel to the railroad
company that he was formerly employed by. J. Paul Getty made his fortune with
an oil monopoly. Before the SEC was in place, people made millions legally on
inside trading. All these kinds of things would be difficult to do today but
they were perfectly fine then.
The domain business will eventually become more regulated and fair as these
practices come to into the light. In the mean time, I don't see anything wrong
with using knowledge, study, and foresight as a competitive advantage. We all
do it too.
Joe Zeppy
Joe Zeppy, Personaweb.com
Sun Jan 6 03:24:41
2002 - 66.146.40.165 - message #43587
-----Original Message-----
From: HJW
[mailto:webmaster@buildable.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002
2:00 AM
To:
icann-delete@total.confusion.net
Subject: RE: [icann-delete]
Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System
At 11:46 PM 1/7/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Responses incorporated below.
and yet more response incorporated below
-----Original Message-----
From: HJW [mailto:webmaster@buildable.com]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 6:43
PM
To:
icann-delete@total.confusion.net
Subject: RE: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry
Re-circulation System
At 06:08 PM 1/7/2002 -0800, Ron Wiener wrote:
...are
you not then in effect alerting him or her to the fact that their name may have
some value, and encouraging them to renew rather than allow the name to
expire? This may be a brilliant scheme for goosing up renewal rates, but
how does it help registrars and registries gain any upside that they would
presumably only enjoy if the name actually changed hands?
Are you implying that it is more advantageous to create a "new"
registrant rather than retain the current one? Is this a mindset you
REALLY want Registrars to have? Encourage "Domain Abandonment"
over Renewals?
You know what I meant, Harold. Peter's will-intentioned RRS proposal was
created to deal with the expired name "re-cycling" opportunity.
I was just pointing out that in this regard the proposed mechanism didn't seem
to fit that description. Of course I wouldn't encourage "domain
abandonment." Don't be silly. For the past year now
SnapNames has even offered a free service (SnapShot) that people can use to
monitor their own domain names to make sure they don't expire accidentally - a
very popular feature with the IP community.
I know what you SAID, Ron - "but
how does it help registrars and registries gain any upside that they would
presumably only enjoy if the name actually changed hands?".
That statement strongly suggests to me that the registrars have more to gain if
the domain expires, rather than renews. It indicates that the only
"upside" to be "enjoyed" is by the name changing hands.
(Through your hands, too, I might add)
1. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the reason you NEED the current
registrant's permission is that in order to circumvent the registry, you want
to be able to use the XFER command instead of actually deleting the name.
I suspect the IP constituency might have some serious heartburn over this as it
creates all sorts of liability problems when the creation date of a domain name
record is not reset upon a new registrant receiving the name. Using the
XFER command in this way exposes the new registrant to potential litigation
from the prior registrant who may claim the registrar did a lousy job of
tracking him down with a renewal notice "because they'd make a lot more
money auctioning off my name than letting me renew it." The original
transfer date matching his filed invoices could imply that the name is still
his since apparently it was never deleted.
2. It's also not clear to me that registrars Terms & Conditions
extend the current registrant's rights to the domain name past the actual
expiration date and into the grace period. If this is the case that the
current registrant's rights have already ended then the registrar would
essentially be warehousing and speculating with this name during the grace
period. Perhaps someone from ICANN or VGRS can clarify this for us.
Dan or Chuck?
Why should the REGISTRY be allowed to "speculate" on names either? It
does seem that with the WLS proposal that is essentially what is
happening. They may not be "warehousing" it for speculation,
but diverting it off through another channel for profit, which seems
effectively the same to me.
I fail to see the connection you are trying to make. If you're asking me
whether speculators should be entitled to make a $500 or $1000 profit on a name
while registrars be relegated to making only $1 or $2 per name and also make
continuous investments in hardware and software to support your business, I
guess I'd have to say that it strikes me that this is somewhat out of
balance. The registrars and registries, with these proposals, are merely
trying to get a miniscule slice of what you make on the inventory, in order to
restore some health and stability to their businesses. I don't see this
as a crime. Apparently you do.
I do not set Registrar's prices, they do. Registrars are not making
"continuous investments in hardware and software to support MY business,
they do this to support thier own business. Many are doing this to profit from
the deletion business too, without "your help". The REGISTRY is
the only one making the huge cash grab with YOUR proposal, from what I can
tell. Oh, yes, SnapNames profits too. Do Not put words into my mouth, I
never said anything about Registrar's making a profit was a crime. That
the Registry is finding a way around the government mandated $6 cap might be a
different matter though...
1. It seems to me that there is a distinction between the WLS (as
proposed) and the RRS (as proposed), in that the WLS allows registrars to
capture "backup demand" for any name throughout the entire
year. The RRS only allows the capture of demand during a portion of the
45-day grace period window, which inherently means it would be primarily of
interest to, and accessible to, speculators, not mainstream consumers.
Please give us the facts. What percentage of
SnapNames' income is derived from speculators? Why would the WLS be any
less of a percentage?
SnapNames' site traffic is 100% registrar-driven
and as such our customer mix is like registrars' typical
customer mix - some speculators, some mainstream, as one might naturally
expect. We physically cannot and ethically will not (were we physically
able to) discriminate between them, any more so than any registrar can or
would. The WLS mechanism collects buyer demand all year long, however,
not just during the last five days of a batch-deleted name's existence, and as
such will create fair and equal access for mainstream customers who are not
scouring delete lists looking for opportunities.
You have edited my question above, I wonder why? You also did not give me a
direct answer. What percentage of SnapName's income is derived from
speculators? Do I need to name the top 5 speculators so that you can get
a handle on this? If it is such an even "blend" of
mainstream/speculators, why is this a tough question?
Also, have there been ANY "SnapBack" subscriptions that have even
gone to term so that you could definitively state the number of subscriptions
that failed? I do not believe that you have been offering the "1
year" subscription for even close to a year now, am I correct? Your
statements the "most SnapBacks 'ripen' within the first 60 days indicates
to me that most of your customers must be doing thier homework on which names
to choose, is this something that most "mainstream" customers
do? I know that speculators certainly do this... I also know that
most speculators I have spoken with (and you know I talk with a lot of them) do
not care for this "100% success for one person" idea either, except
for the top five who already know how to game your system.
1. Mainstream customers are unlikely to happen to discover a need for
a domain name during any particular 45-day period, learn how to search for it
from about 1.5M names that would presumably be up for auction during such
period, learn how the bidding mechanism works, dig in their pockets for a
credit card to pay a $2 fee (smacks a bit too much of $2 .biz lottery fees -
yikes - bad memories!), and sit around to monitor the whole thing. Odds
are 9:1 that the discovered need for a name would happen sometime other than
that 45-day window. (I'm simplifying this by assuming the average
registration is about one year in term anyway.) The RRS proposal states
that consumers would have "open, fair access to deleting domain names in
an environment free from high-tech gaming and first-mover advantage" but
the method described doesn't seem to meet this definition.
Consumers
are not likely to want to participate in an auction process which can easily be
gamed, much like eBay auctions often are, with shill bids. Witness the
thick file at the FTC and the number of lawsuits that were generated. In
fact, a savvy speculator could whip up a robotic algorithm to outbid others
milliseconds before auction close, or to pump fraudulent bids into the system using
stolen credit card numbers - a problem already plaguing too many registrars and
secondary name sites.
I know for a fact that speculators are already "whipping up robotic
algorithms" to immediately pounce on WLS slots on names the second they go
on hold. This seems like a red herring to me.
Which argument are you making Harold? On the one hand you say that a $69
to $99 retail price for a WLS subscription is too high, but on the other hand
you say that you know "for a fact" that speculators are already
planning to pounce on these slots. You can't be making both arguments at
once, so just pick ONE, would you?
Where did I say the RETAIL price was to high? Which hand was that? My argument,
or one of them, has consistently been that the WHOLESALE price is way out of
line. Just because your "market reseach" shows that the market
will "bear" high Retail prices does not mean that the Registrars will
charge that, nor does it remotely justify the wholesale price. My comment
about the top speculators already formulating "pounce plans" are
true. That is what speculators do. You know this, as well as you know
just how much income those same speculators bring you today.
Consumers
are also not likely to wait anywhere from 1 to 344 days to then have to monitor
an auction process, and then be prepared to spend an undefined amount of money
to get the name. I can see speculators being willing to do this all day
long - they're good at it - but mainstream consumers? For them I believe
this type of mechanism would be deemed yet another "game of chance"
with $2 betting fees, and could become a lightning rod for litigation against
registrars, ICANN, VeriSign, et al. Speculators may be just fine with the
game of change (some seem to even thrive on it) but mainstream customers would
be anything but enamored by the prospect of it.
The WLS proposal is still a "Game of Chance", in my opinion, due to
the fact that it encourages the sale of WLS "positions" on names NOT
known to be deleting. If total market saturation were to occur on 32
million names, how many consumers would recieve absolutely nothing? The
idea of being able to "switch names" 3 times also indicates to me
that this is still something that would require the consumer's attention during
the subscription period, if only to avoid recieving nothing in return for
whatever fees they paid. Why can a consumer buy a WLS on a name that isn't even
going to expire during the term of the WLS? If a name were
"accidentally" deleted during this term, would it not have to be returned
to the original registrant anyway?
It's a matter of degree, if nothing else, Harold. If there is a chance
that a name will renew and not expire, that's outside the registrar/registry's
control. But if it expires and the efficacy is less than 100% then, from
a consumer's perspective, it is a "game of chance" because this is
something that seemingly should be within the control of the
registrar/registry. It would be a controllable factor in the instance of
the WLS, but not with the status quo, nor with the RRS proposal. WLS
subscribers do not need to "monitor" their subscriptions in the same
way as having to monitor an auction to make sure they are not outbid by some
swift or robotic counter-bidder.
I am not too keen on Peter's auction proposal either, but if it is only a
"matter of degree" it is still a "Game of Chance".
Again, you failed to address the other questions I posed in the above secion as
well.
Further,
while I fundamentally agree that variable-pricing makes a lot of sense in the
long run, it's extraordinarily tricky getting it right when it comes to domain
names, and now doesn't seem the right time to implement such an advanced
marketplace concept. Witness the number of different models that have
been tried and abandoned by some of the ccTLDs - a perfect one is yet to be
found. One concern from an FTC standpoint is that uninitiated
domain name buyers might be goaded into paying unwarranted prices for domain
names because of the heated action of an auction. This is where sites
like NameWinner are actually safer, because everyone there is at least a
quasi-professional speculator and knows how to appraise the value of a
name. If unwitting consumers are successfully drawn into an active
bidding event for domain names, they could potentially be misled into paying
exorbitant prices. One benefit of the flat pricing of the WLS structure
is that it eliminates the possibility of this sort of complex and problematic
consumer experience. Again, you might ask the FTC how many such complaints
they've received from eBay customers over this sort of thing.
What this has to do with anything, I don't know. The FTC doesn't much
care for monopolies either, as far as I can tell.
You've made your disinterest in mainstream customers' experiences very clear
over and over during the past few months; no need to repeat it again. We all understand your agenda.
MY AGENDA? Am I the one trying to form a monopoly? And when have I
disparaged the "mainstream customer"? All I have done is
repeatedly remind you that your biggest customers are the very same speculators
that you consistently eviscerate in the press. For the record, My
"agenda", if that is what I have, is for equal access and competition
for registrars and registrants alike. My position is that your proposal does
neither. Registrars can now choose a number of different models to compete.
With your proposal, I see only one.
Finally,
putting on my Wall Street hat for a moment, the RRS lacks two especially nice
financial features of the WLS which is that it provides no forward visibility
on certain revenues (i.e. if 60% of my registrants do not renew next year I
know that x% of the names in question would automatically go to a wait listed
customer) and no growth in deferred revenue, a key valuation driver. For
public companies (there are currently six publicly-held registrars) this is
particularly important, as it is for the valuation of any registrar that hopes
to be acquired someday.
While the WLS may indeed provide these nice "Wall Street" benefits
for SnapNames and Verisign, it has been stated already by some registrars that
the margin on WLS sales by registrars will most likely only be a dollar or
two. All it takes is for ONE registrar to do it and ALL the others will
have to follow suit in order to be competitive. Again, this also seems to
be "encouraging domain abandonment" rather than "registration
retention", although I agree that a certain percentage will not renew
anyway.
Again, you are espousing two conflicting positions, Harry. If, as you
say, the registrars will inevitably, through some "curse of nature,"
choose to price their products $1 above cost, then what difference does it make
where the product is priced? The wholesale price proposal was based on a
standard healthy margin range predicated upon a retail price that market
research indicated the market would bear, producing the 5% market penetration
estimate. By your theory it doesn't matter if VGRS proposed a $0.40 price
or a $400 price, the registrars would only charge a $1 or $2 mark-up.
My name is not "Harry", and you know that too. I have kept my
dialog restricted to the subject and respectful. I strongly suggest that you do
the same.
Again, you conveniently edited my question above too. I repeat, is it
your contention that every registrar "hopes to be aquired someday"?
By whom? Verisign?
As far as the $1 or $2 over cost retail pricing, I was not the one to suggest
that. The registrars themselves have stated this several times, and strangely
enough "curse of nature" was not one of the reasons given. From
your statement above, am I to read that you arrived at the $40 wholesale cost
only because of what you deducted the "Retail cost" that you
decided "the market would bear" and NOT justified by actual cost to
produce and operate? Thank you for confirming one of the most common
complaints of all the registrars that I have seen post. I do not believe
it is me espousing two conflicting positions here, Ron. Perhaps you have
me mistaken with somebody else? By the way, you might have a better
chance of selling this proposal to the registrars if the cost was lowered to
$0.40, but even then I think you would still find resistance.
Many registrars would prefer to have the chance
of creating a significant new revenue stream, nonetheless. And in case
you hadn't noticed, those registrars who do hold the high water mark on domain
name pricing, at $35 retail, are by far the most profitable and successful of
the lot, despite the continued marketing of $6.50 names at the bottom end of
the market. I know you subscribe to State of the Domain, so I'm somewhat
surprised you are not aware of these readily available financial
analyses. This assertion that all registrars would be "forced"
to discount the price to $1 above cost is the most absurd thing I've heard
since Bin Laden's last videotape. It's a very poor argument for how to
properly price a new product.
Again, I submit that yours is not the only "true
path to enlightenment" for the registrars to "create a new revenue stream".
I never stated that registrars were not interested in more revenues, just that
the vast majority of the "revenues" from your offering does not seem
to go to the registrars. I do indeed enjoy your "State of the Domain"
reports, and those same Registrars you speak of charging the high dollars seem
to be the same ones losing maket share. I am sure that the same
registrars that shared thier thoughts on the inevitability of $1 to $2 markups
will appreciate your connection to Bin Laden's last videotape as well.
For the record, while it is true that I do have a vested inerest in the outcome
of this, no matter what that may be, my position is and always has been
focused. My Position is equal access to this resource combined with
CHOICE for registrars and registrants alike. Your model does not fit my
definition of choice in that there is only your model to choose from.
As far as your model giving "equal access" to the mainstream
registrant, it is undeniable that you have the most market exposure but I still
submit that it is only a few keen speculators that know how to get the jump on
everybody else (and have the bankroll behind them) for the premium names,
leaving the "little guy" out in the cold. At least with the
current system, the "little guy" still has a chance by utilizing any
of the several other services available. What happens if your proposal
becomes reality? The "little guy" will just get left out in the cold,
with nowhere else to turn.
Honestly, does SnapNames derive a majority of its income from speculators,
including a few that spend $50,000 at a time, or is it really just the all the
"little guys" that make up the majority? Would those same High
Rollers "spread the wealth" amongst the registrars (as they do now,
for the registrars active in the deletion game) or will they just gravitate
towards one spot with your proposal, presumably the least expensive, since all
other incentives are gone?
805.886.4164