Re: [ga] Answers please.

[Harold Whiting <Harold@PeterWhiting.com>]

At 11:57 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Harold, so that you don't frustrate yourself, just know that I will no
longer respond to you or William X Walsh on the public boards.  I've
received multiple e-mails from people who've been on the ga list for a long
time cautioning me about you two, and from what I've seen, they speak from
experience.  Shame on me for my naiveté in tangling with you earlier.  
>
>-RW

Interesting response, considering I have only been a member of the GA list
for less than a week and have had no problems with anyone else.
Additionally, the questions I posed stand on thier own, no matter who asks
them.  How convenient that you refuse to answer them.  DO you not think
that others want these answers too?  I believe they do, and have asked as
well.  How long will you be able to dodge the issues that we ALL want
addressed?


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HJW [mailto:webmaster@buildable.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 11:08 PM
>> To: icann-delete@total.confusion.net
>> Subject: [icann-delete] Answers, please.
>> 
>> At 09:46 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, Ron Wiener wrote:
>> >Walsh,
>> >
>> >The data is based on only active subscriptions in our system, not
>> historical
>> >sales records.  You can't get fresher data than this.  If you refuse to
>> read
>> >the material, I refuse to answer any more of your unproductive questions.
>> >
>> >-Ron
>> 
>> again with the impudent arrogant disrespect, shame on you.  His name is
>> either "William", William Walsh", or even "Mr. Walsh".  Does your
>> disregard
>> for common courtesy  infer that we should simply address you as "Wiener"?
>> Let's not degrade this discussion any further with this kind of nonsense,
>> ok?
>> ==========================
>> 
>> Now, Ron, please answer this:
>> 
>> Q: you registered ~23,500 names in 2001 True/False?
>> 
>> Q: you had ~$3M in revenues in 2001  True/False?
>> 
>> The "majority" of SnapBacks miraculously "ripen" within 60 days.  You have
>> made this statement repeatedly, so I will not ask you True/False.
>> 
>> Q: Since you have not offered the shorter 12 month SnapBack subscription
>> for anywhere close to a year, you cannot supply us with empirical data to
>> support an answer to the question that many of us really want to know -
>> How
>> many SnapBacks go to term and expire without ever providing the subscriber
>> with a name?  This group would likely be largely made up of all of your
>> precious "Jills" and "mainstream consumers" and not "domain speculators",
>> and do not give me the "IP Community" BS here, please.
>> Basically, How many people end up with nothing to show for thier money?
>> 
>> Q: Simple math, assuming the above figures are in line, shows us that even
>> at the higher SnapBack cost of $49, the names registered in 2001 can only
>> account for less than $1.2M  I doubt that you can tell us with a straight
>> face that you really sold ~$1.8M worth of "SnapShot" subscriptions, did
>> you?
>> 
>> That leaves us with well over 50% of all SnapBack subscriptions sold last
>> year unfulfilled. Yet you claim that "the majority" ripen in the first 60
>> days?
>> 
>> I have no reason to believe that, if WLS were to be put in place,  the
>> percentage of unfulfilled subscriptions would change by much.  This would
>> mean, at a 5% level (as you have suggested) that over 700,000 people may
>> simply be "throwing thier money away". Call me old fashioned, but to me
>> this seems wrong to even contemplate offering such a thing to the public.
>> I have seen concerns about this type of thing brought up by many different
>> registrars, always with no response from SnapNames or VGRS to assure us
>> that anything would prevent this.  I see it as becoming the majority of
>> the
>> WLS subscriptions, if implemented as proposed, due to FUD.  This concerns
>> me, as a consumer, to think that the Registrar business will now be forced
>> to sell a product to unsuspecting "main stream" consumers that has a
>> likely
>> chance of providing those same consumers with absolutely no performance
>> for
>> thier money.  Does the Registrar Industry need more "Black Clouds" of
>> unscrupulous behavior hanging over it?  Oh, I forgot... It is for the
>> Public good because it "fights" the "abusive speculators".  Personally, I
>> see this whole proposal as Predatory itself.
>> 
>> Q: What is the Patent Pending on your "technology"?  Where is it filed?
>> 
>> Q: Were VeriSign to implement some similar process by themselves, without
>> SnapNames, since SnapNames would not be able to operate as they are now,
>> would SnapNames sue VeriSign?  If so, what would this suit be for, patent
>> infringement or Anti Trust violations?  I expect no answer to this
>> question.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Harold Whiting
>> webmaster@buildable.com
>> 805.886.4164

Harold Whiting
--
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