[ga] Re: WLS pricing proposal

["Lee Hodgson, DomainGuru.com" <guru@domainguru.com>]

Hello George,

> That's an illegal cartel. It's anti-competitive for the monopolist
> registry to enforce price controls on the retailers. It's like a music
> company telling CD retailers that they have to all charge $20 per CD.
> Simply illegal in most countries. In the US, one can start one's
> research on the antitrust issue at:

What I am proposing is that Verisign themselves launch the service at
$69.95, and registrars become 'partners' or 'affiliates' who get rewarded
for referring clients. That practice exists on virtually every commercial
web site on the Net. If it's not possible for the registry to launch their
own service, then fine, the proposal is a non-starter. I'm just trying to
think of ideas the same as everyone else.

> Indeed, that's why the entire WLS as proposed is in the scrap heap.
> There already exist innovative competitors in the registrar space (I
> enumerated at least 10 in prior posts) serving the expired names
> market, and I'm sure even more innovation is ahead, as long as Verisign
> doesn't interfere in this market. Verisign registrar is open to
> compete, but not at the registry level which would stifle competition.

Which scrap heap is that in? Do you think WLS won't go ahead, and registrars
will be free to continue name grabbing after March 20th?

> If you have your own expired names service, you're free to launch such
> a system in the current competitive market (for instance, you can
> associate with one or more of the registrars, or SnapNames, or
> ExpireFish, NameWinner, NicGenie, eNom, AWRegistry, IArRegistry, etc.
> or go it alone).

Why would I launch a service today that will probably become obsolete by
March 20th?

Thanks,
Lee Hodgson

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@yahoo.com>
To: "Lee Hodgson, DomainGuru.com" <guru@domainguru.com>;
<cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: <cameronp@snapnames.com>; <discuss-list@opensrs.org>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: WLS pricing proposal


> Hello,
>
> --- "Lee Hodgson, DomainGuru.com" <guru@domainguru.com> wrote:
> > In principle I am comfortable with the WLS proposal. What I am not
> > comfortable with is the current revenue sharing model i.e. splitting
> > it between wholesale (which guarantees Verisign / Snapnames $40 per
> > subscription), and retail, which if the 'competition' between ICANN
> > registrars for domain registration business is any indicator, will
> > lead to registrars fighting over a few dollars per subscription.
> <snip>
> > So why not guarantee registrars and their resellers a fairer split?
> > Set the price of the service at $69.95 and give registrars a 30%-40%
> > cut of that. It's all very well saying that competition is good for
>
> That's an illegal cartel. It's anti-competitive for the monopolist
> registry to enforce price controls on the retailers. It's like a music
> company telling CD retailers that they have to all charge $20 per CD.
> Simply illegal in most countries. In the US, one can start one's
> research on the antitrust issue at:
>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/overview.html
>
> "The antitrust laws apply to virtually all industries and to every
> level of business, including manufacturing, transportation,
> distribution, and marketing. They prohibit a variety of practices that
> restrain trade, such as price-fixing conspiracies, corporate mergers
> likely to reduce the competitive vigor of particular markets, and
> predatory acts designed to achieve or maintain monopoly power."
>
> Note the words "price-fixing conspiracies" above, as well as "predatory
> acts designed to achieve or maintain monopoly power".
>
> I find it amazing that so many would openly make proposals that will
> certainly draw the attention of these government agencies.
>
> > In closing, the current proposal will inevitably lead to thin margins
> > amongst ICANN registrars and their resellers / expiring names
> > services, and this will in turn kill off the innovation which should
> > be an integral part of any market. Innoviation benefits everyone -
> > consumers, registrars, and the registry!
>
> Indeed, that's why the entire WLS as proposed is in the scrap heap.
> There already exist innovative competitors in the registrar space (I
> enumerated at least 10 in prior posts) serving the expired names
> market, and I'm sure even more innovation is ahead, as long as Verisign
> doesn't interfere in this market. Verisign registrar is open to
> compete, but not at the registry level which would stifle competition.
>
> If you have your own expired names service, you're free to launch such
> a system in the current competitive market (for instance, you can
> associate with one or more of the registrars, or SnapNames, or
> ExpireFish, NameWinner, NicGenie, eNom, AWRegistry, IArRegistry, etc.
> or go it alone).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html