<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] WLS call follow-up
Interesting numbers. But given that you figure the remains add up to
maybe 10% and the original claim worked out to 17.5% we are not talking
much of a difference. 10% -17/5% is not a big spread. The large numbers
are still the 40% which belongs to the Verisign registrar. No matter
how it's sliced, Verisign Registry can technically claim market share
support in the registrar business for their WLS proposal.
Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> At 21.05.2002 21:34, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >1. Chuck: In the presentation you made to the task force and all
> >those attending the call, you talked about registrars with a total
> >market share of 57.5% supporting the proposal. I already mentioned
> >during the call that, after substracting Verisign's own market share
> >of about 40%, we end up at a mere 17.5% of market share; this is
> >comparable to the market share you mention as being opposed to WLS.
> >I believe that it was Rick Wesson who asked how much of that
> >remaining market share in favor of WLS actually belongs to
> >registrars owned by or affiliated with Verisign. Could you please
> >provide some clarification of this on the GA list? Thank you.
>
> This is the presentation:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/ppt00002.ppt
>
> Let's see -- the original claim was 18 registrars supporting WLS
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02170.html),
> but it seems that 2 have retracted their signatures
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02177.html).
>
> Jim Archer writes in that posting that he has been told that
> VeriSign owned five of the signing registrars. It's easy to
> confirm each of these cases with Google's help.
>
> VeriSign Registrar, Herndon, VA, USA
>
> NameEngine, New York, NY, USA
> (http://www.nameengine.com/about/press/ceo_verisign.html)
>
> NameSecure, Moravia, CA, USA
> (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/verisign-submission-29mar01.htm)
>
> SRSPlus, Los Angeles, California, USA
> (http://www.srsplus.com/en-def-82b225ecaf3f/en/srsplus/about_srsplus.shtml)
>
> Registrars.com, Los Angeles, California USA
> (http://www.registrars.com/)
>
> Furthermore, DomainSite.com (another signatory) is listed as
> one of SnapName's "strategic partners".
> (http://www.snapnames.com/partners_strategic.html)
> NameScout is one of SnapNames' registrar partners
> (http://www.snapnames.com/namescoutterms.html).
>
> Who is left?
> SiteName, Rishon Lezion, Israel
> (seems identical with Galcomm.com, Rishon Lezion, Israel)
> BulkRegister.com, Baltimore, MD, USA
> ChinaDNS, Beijing, China
> DirectNic, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
> DomainMonger.com, Washington State, USA
> Go Daddy, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
> Namebay, Monaco
> NameSystem, Bridgetown, Barbados
> Neteka, Toronto, Canada
> Register.it, Bergamo, Italy
>
> So what is the percentage of registrations represented by these
> registrars not affiliated with VeriSign or SnapNames AND
> supporting the WLS?
>
> Using data from https://www.sotd.info/sotd/Content/Documents/sotdQ102.pdf
> (which ironically is published by SnapNames...) I arrive at
> the following com/net/org market shares:
>
> ???? % SiteName
> 0.00 % Galcomm.com
> 5.39 % BulkRegister.com
> ???? % ChinaDNS (only listed for .biz)
> 1.73 % DirectNic
> ???? % DomainMonger.com
> 2.61 % Go Daddy
> 0.09 % Namebay
> 0.00 % NameSystem
> 0.00 % Neteka/Namesbeyond
> ???? % Register.it
>
> It doubt that this adds up to more than 10 percent; please
> correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|