Re: [ga] Re: [icann-delete] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

I think this, and other recent posts, stray from the core issue (no
offense intended).

This is not a marketing or a sales issue. So a discussion of business
models (auction, WLS or otherwise) is misplaced.

The rudimentary issue identified, is the need for the development of a
workable procedure for dropping domain names so that: (1) it resolves
the Registry's capacity issue (2) so "everyone" is on a level playing
field; Registrars, Resellers, Speculators, Registrants and all other
interested parties (3) so that it neither stifles competition nor
allows a monopolistic, or other unfair, advantage.

Fulfillment of the foregoing objective allows a free market. That free
market includes various auction models, the variety of models
currently employed by many of the Registrars, as well as the Snap and
the "Snap similar" competitors. Moreover, it allows for innovation and
further competition. IOW, when the core objective is attained, the
free market will take care of itself.

The RAA http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm, in
particular, section 3.7.5, speaks to expired and canceling domain
names. It also speaks about the potential adoption of an ICANN
specification and procedure with respect to expired and/or canceled
domain names, but no such specification and procedure has been
adopted.

The creation of a uniform policy, specification and practice, which is
adopted by ICANN under 3.7.5 of the RAA and a technical solution for
the Registry (many have been suggested but rejected without
explanation) is, IMHO, where we should concentrate our efforts and
debate.

FWIW



Saturday, January 19, 2002, 12:46:01 PM, Eric Schneider <eric@unames.com> wrote:
>> > COMPETITION
>> > Just because WLS, if implemented, may stifle other secondary market
>> > models
>> > does not mean in the slightest that WLS stifles competition amongst
>> > registrars.  Currently, secondary market models and proposals other
>>
>> Competition is stifled. All that happens is that existing competitors
>> get the privilege of being resellers of Verisign services, instead of
>> being allowed to innovate as they are now.

ES> One competing proposal is that of an auction model.  Tell me, how will
ES> auctioning be stifled from WLS.  End-users don't have to wait for a domain
ES> name to expire to make a bid.

ES> Competition has emerged by developing solutions in response to an expiration
ES> event.  If a competitor was truly innovative they would've realized that
ES> there would be merit in providing services to consumers at any time without
ES> waiting around for the condition of an expiration event.

ES> It is precisely because competitors are as you say "innovating as they are
ES> now" the reason why they have not seen that there could be other solutions.
ES> You snooze, you lose.  After a company ramps up a new service, they tend to
ES> make innovation less of a priority and possibly fall asleep at the wheel.
ES> Those companies who innovate unconditionally 24/7 are the ones that will
ES> emerge from the herd and lead with new products/services in new markets and
ES> new directions.

ES> New technologies emerge everyday that can shift marketshares in an instance.
ES> That's what business and competition is all about.  I have no pity for a
ES> competitor that could not see the forest from the trees.


>> > Personally, I think that the first-time purchase of a back-order
>> > should be treated as a fixed expense of sorts.  There should be no
>> > price competition between registrars for the initial purchase with
>> > the price set at $100 for anyone, anytime, and anywhere.  By so
>> > doing all constituencies including ICANN, Registry, and Registrar
>> > get paid fairly.
>>
>> You leave out the "registrant". Basically, your pricing scheme is a
>> centrally-planned model, similar to what central-planners did under
>> communism. They'd set a price based on what they thought was "fair",
>> rather than allowing the market to set the price and mechanism through
>> competition. To be blunt, if you want to be a central planner and want
>> a price that is "fair", you should not be in the domain business, which
>> is run on free-market principles. I'll rely on a competitive
>> marketplace to determine prices and valid business models, rather than
>> a single individual (you), monopolist (Verisign), or cartel (all
>> registrars co-ordinating to price-fix).

ES> You are taking this out of context and are commenting on only one component
ES> of the proposed pricing model.  The intention of my initial comments was an
ES> attempt to be more creative of how a service such as a WLS might be priced.
ES> Most subscription pricing models are time based by charging some kind of
ES> periodic rate ($69 per year).  The point is that by proposing a price model
ES> that is EVENT BASED rather than TIME BASED, there would be the advantages of
ES> a FIXED RISK at the time of purchase.

ES> Regards,
ES> Eric Schneider




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




----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
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