Re: [ga] WLS Questions

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Please stop wandering at WLS. This is just a way for them to get a few 
bucks out of cybersquatters. They are not in DN business but, as everyone 
else, in survival business. jfc


On 06:13 14/06/02, John Berryhill said:
>I'm trying to understand this notion of how a monopoly WLS, which guarantees
>only one person a crack at an expiring name, is "fair" relative to multiple
>competing services, and would appreciate hearing from someone who (a)
>believes it is fair, and (b) is not associated with SnapNames or Verisign.
>
>Chuck Gomes has said that something like 50% of SnapNames customers are
>speculators instead of "average" domain name registrants.  Leaving aside the
>question of how a population of 50% of anything is not "average", or the
>methodology used to read the minds of the other 50% to determine their
>motivation, then can someone clue me in to how 50% of WLS position holders
>are NOT going to be speculators?
>
>Snapbacks are $69 a pop, and we are told half of them are owned by
>speculators.  So, the point here is that SnapNames wants to have 50% fewer
>customers?  Or they want to charge 100% of them twice as much money in order
>to get rid of the "bad" customers while keeping the "good" customers?
>
>And with the "price high enough to discourage speculation" idea, what is the
>evidence that speculators don't have more money than these "average"
>registrants for whom we are trying to make things "fair"?
>
>And if we aren't going to have a dispute resolution procedure for people who
>take up WLS slots on expiring domain names that are someone else's
>trademarks, then what is the point of making the identity of WLS slot
>holders known?
>
>I have to take my hat off to the guy with enough chutzpah to tell a Senate
>subcommittee that ICANN was strangling consumer choice and competition by
>refusing to introduce a monopoly service that would replace several
>competing services to do the same thing.  Doing that and avoiding dizziness
>at the same time is an admirable feat.
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.370 / Virus Database: 205 - Release Date: 05/06/02