[ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few
Title: Message Paul, I've responded below to any new
questions, but not repeated answers where they have already been given before,
in the interest of everyone's time. -----Original Message----- Ron, Also, thanks for the stats, but the real
informative stats would be what percent of SnapBack ripen in the
first month. That is the stat that will tell us all how many of your
customers are mainstream users, not the stats you gave. >>
Before I post any further confidential company data to a public listserv, Paul,
I'd like to see you provide evidence of some of your business model
claims. Including: -
How many registrars' connections does eNom control
besides it own? -
How many club drop members are there? -
How many connections does each member get to utilize? -
How many names does each member get, on average, for their $2500
monthly fee? -
What percentage of the club drop members are speculators? -
What percentage of the club drop members' target names
are beyond expiration? Beyond delete command? -
What will happen to club drop members' performance
expectations when V-Registrar stops deleting in batches? 2) I think you are flat-out wrong in
your characterization of the registrar conference call. Nice attempt at spinning it as much as you
can toward WLS, though. Please note that there was not one single
registrar who voted "for" the WLS
service. None. >> They
were not given the option of voting for "yes, with modifications"
but rather railroaded to vote for either "yes, as is" or "no,
as is" or "abstain."
BTW, you can't claim V-Registrar as both voting against the
proposal (which they did not) and being obviously for it because of some
conspiracy theory advantage they would have. Pick one. Some said that under no circumstances would they offer WLS to
their customers. >>
True. Four registrars who did not
disclose having a vested self-interest in maintaining the status quo voted in
this manner. Out
of 96. 75 haven't even
spoken on it as yet. I could tell by their voices and
words that they are outraged not just about WLS and it effect on competition, but
about the "its already done" press releases. >> Our
press releases clearly stated the fact that the system is proposed,
not enacted. We can't control
editors. We can't control
registrars spreading misinformation to the press. And those who vote "no to WLS"
do not have an interest in maintaining the status quo, as you say they do. >>
Going by the votes in the distributed notes, this is not true. Since any registrar say they support WLS. >> WLS
wasn't even announced until Dec 30th. I agree completely Paul - between Sept
7th and Dec 30th no registrar ever said they'd
support the WLS. Because
they never heard of it. regarding WLS on registrant's own
names.... I recommend, that if WLS is implemented,
and I do not recommend that it is, that registrants be
prohibited from getting WLS on their own name since there
is no purpose to it. I think Rick is saying that without
this, these mainstream users will be duped into paying the exorbitant fee for nothing. >> Enough with this red herring "duping"
issue. Are you seriously suggesting
that some registrars would stoop so low as to "dupe" unwitting
customers into buying a WLS subscription on their own name? I'm sorry, I don't buy it. regarding load... I was surprised to hear you and Chuck say
that WLS is not intended to solve the load
problem. >> WLS was
*never* put forth as a solution
for the load problem. There have
been many other good suggestions for dealing with the load problem, but they
are in no way related to the merits of the WLS. The WLS should have a positive impact on
preventing *further* degradation
as more registrars continue to get into the secondary name marketplace, can't
possibly have a negative impact (as other proposed methods do), but was never
proposed as the solution to this problem.
This means that we all agree that someone
will have to implement another method to fix *that* (the
load) problem. Also, if WLS is not intended to solve the load problem, what problem is
it solving? >> As
primary domain name sales continue to decline many registrars are minding their
bottom line and seeking new products to offer to their customers. The secondary market is obviously
lucrative or there wouldn't be such intense infighting over it. WLS allows ALL registrars, not just a
select few, to participate in the secondary market as a vital new revenue
source, without impacting the registry *further*. The WLS solves a very long-standing
problem that mainstream customers have had, that they are willing to pay registrars
to solve for them, and WLS addresses that better than any other proposal. |