[ga] Verisign: ".com/net not a necessity" replying to anti-trust concernsof WLS

[Loren Stocker <loren@800.net>]

Hi George,

Well put! 

I'm surprised than more people haven't commented. Perhaps, like me, they are
behind in their reading because of the nightmare Verisign has created by
denying transfers, forcing individual acks, and withholding "damage reports,"
(domain status reports that list the domains that didn't make it!). I'm even
filing suit against them tomorrow. Until I catch up, allow me to cut to the
chase here.

Are these "subscriptions" like snapname's current product offering? The key
question is whether WLS would allow -- like a snapback -- only one
subscription per domain? I'm guessing that it is and that these 
'monopoly' placeholders would be sold at retail giving the illusion that there
is some sort of competitive going on. Absurd. As the creation of a monopoly
placeholder defeats all competition!

As many of us know, insiders dominate the competitive acquisition of domains.
More than anything, it is our insights that result in success. Yet, there is
ALWAYS uncertainty. Everyone involved places their bet and let's go (I realize
this is dynamic, but we all precommit to technology). Then, like a sealed bid
auction, somebody wins. Good domains are reassigned within MILLISECONDS. 

Given the introduction of monolopy placeholders, the same technology would be
used by us insiders to secure ALL the great spots, and a lot of the good ones
-- within MILLISECONDS of the introduction. Speculation with move from domains
to reservations. In lieu of the domains themselves, speculators will resell
their spot in line. So what's changed?

The significant difference is that in today's arena consumers have a chance!
Even as late as the drop day, ANYONE can sign on to Namewinner and be the high
bidder. In contrast, typically services like "Snapback" has long been sold. 

Last minute participation is key, as even the most ambitious consumers may be
naive and not realize that domains are being reassigned until the Whois info
drops. With a registry-based WLS, all but first mover participation will be
lost. There will be no chance for the little guy -- or anyone else -- to win,
short of buying the spot from the monolopy placeholder. Any the best WLS
reservation will be gone on day one. If Snapbacks are "grandfathered," does
anyone doubt that there will be an insiders rush on Snapbacks? Then there's
the great waste. 

All great domains will be "covered" at a cost SEVEN times greater than the
domain subscription itself! For the not-so-great domains, WLS forces
interested third parties to buy reservations EARLY to avert specululators --
and I mean NOW, NOW, NOW! Once the reservation is lost, it may cost thousands
of dollars to retrieve it. The bottom line is that any bright competitor will
cover any and all significant domains -- if available, wasting millions of
dollars on events that never happen.

Then, for you corporate guys, what good are trademark rights in defense of a
reservation? There's no damage. No consumer confusion. Who's to say that
trademark rights will be valid once the domain is, in fact, available.
Enron.com for 2004, anyone?

So as I understand this idea, Verisign sits back and collects BIG dollars
while the Registars do all the work. This is competition? Rather, isn't this a
case of let's "you and him fight?" Verisign does nothing. Just skews the
competition for a price. How much? $45 per spot? WLS is but a sale of
influence. 

Bottom line, a registry-based WLS is ALL ABOUT MONEY and it's very creation is
an abuse of monolopy power. There are NO BENEFITS* that don't exist today,
only a certanity that casual consumers will have no hope of getting a WLSpot
for $45. If anyone has doubts that this non-sense is but a cash grab, let's
see if Verisign will do WLS for FREE. No other consumer driven company sells
influence,.. err I mean... "reservations", i.e., resturants, airlines, blood,
kidneys. This WLS is a scam for cash. Acquisitions should not be moved to a
self-serving monopolist, but remain with the CONSUMER'S AGENTS -- i.e. the
Registrars -- where it belongs!

Best Regards, Loren Stocker
www.800.net

*High computer loading during the mass dumps is due to dumping domains in
MASS. I've suggested they dump domains in predictable lots small enough to
smooth interest, i.e. give them 15 minutes of fame, AND assure that eveyone
knows when a domain is lost -- so we can STOP asking. Load solved.





George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello,

In Verisign's justification document, responding to the anti-trust
concerns of the WLS proposal, they make a truly astonishing argument:

"Another misunderstanding is that the WLS would be a 'monopoly'
service. VGRS has no ability to 'control' WLS prices to consumers, in
the anti-trust sense of being immune from competitive pressure.
Moreover, with other gTLDs and ccTLDs now pervasive in the marketplace,
neither .com and .net registrations, nor a WLS subscription, are a
necessity. And there are alternative services that both registrars and
consumers may use instead of the WLS."

It *is* a monopoly service -- from the sole registry operator (VGRS) to
registrars. If it wasn't, why does VGRS need ICANN's approval? The
market between consumers and registrars is a competitive one, but not
the one between the registry operator and registrars. By moving WLS
into the registry, instead of keeping the market as we have it now (the
"Status Quo" proposal) where we have competition from many sources
(eNom, NameWinner, SnapNames, NicGenie, AWRegistry, IARegistry, and at
least 10 others), Verisign/SnapNames will singularly dominate the
deleted domains market, and reduce innovation and choice for consumers
(unless you define "innovation" as choosing optimal font styles and
graphics in a web design). Only Verisign is able to propose the WLS, as
it leverages the existing monopoly held at the registry level.

As for dot-com and dot-net not being a necessity, that's true in the
sense that they're not like food, water or shelter. However, if
Verisign truly believed their own argument then the "one year test"
could be conducted with equal efficacy using the dot-TV or dot-CC TLDs,
and not dot-com/net. If it's true, I'm willing to trade Verisign
gs34jkhgds-jkhg.org for the NSI.com domain name. I believe someone
forgot to tell GreatDomains (a Verisign company) that other TLDs are
now pervasive:

http://www.greatdomains.com/support/AppraisalAbout.htm

"Location is everything, and many want to live in such coveted
neighborhoods or cities as Beverly Hills, New York City, Paris,
Singapore, or Hong Kong. That's equally true of premium cyberspace. On
the Internet, everyone prefers to dwell in the .com neighborhood. It's
the top-level domain (TLD) that embodies instant branding, and .com
names enjoy a premium rating."

Those who've paid for a Great Domains appraisal know that dot-com names
are given "4 stars", dot-net/TV/CC are given "2 stars" and everything
else is given "1 star". I find it interesting that Verisign controls
dot-com/net/TV/CC (2 stars and above)...

Microsoft might make the argument too that they don't "control" the
price of Windows to end-users. However, like Verisign, they control the
price to resellers, and are thus able to exact monopoly profits.
Dot-com has less to fear from competition in other TLDs than Windows
does from Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and other offerings. Is Windows not
a "necessity", such that the behaviour of Microsoft should not be
scrutinized? I'm sure the DoJ has seen this all before...

Verisign is right in saying that there *are* (note the PRESENT tense,
without WLS existing) alternatives to the WLS that both registrars and
consumers may use. However, once WLS is implemented, these alternatives
such as NameWinner, NicGenie, eNom Drop Club, IARegistry, AWRegistry,
etc. disappear. This proposal damages the existing competitive market,
outside of Verisign and SnapNames, and thus continues to raise
anti-trust concerns.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com












--
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