Re: [ga] WLS proposal

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Don and all assembly members,

  Don, long time no hear.  Thanks for chiming in here...
(See more below Don's comments)

Don Brown wrote:

> Rick,
>
> I think you are missing the point.
>
> The status quo is pro-competition.  Pro-competition is pro-consumer.
> Look what's happened to the price of domain name registrations after
> other Registrars have entered the market.  Even NetSol/VeriSign has
> been offering sales and discounts.

  This is true.  However this also has nothing what so ever to
do with WLS, Transfer's, or the Delete problem, Don...

>
>
> WLS means there will be one, and only one, source of supply for
> expired domain names and at a very high cost, indeed. Add to that
> equation the fact that NetSol/VeriSign has been hoarding domain names
> for a long time. They will, therefore, have the only watering hole and
> can dictate, mandate and demand whatever price they want for anyone to
> have a drink. The consumer has absolutely no choice.  The price is
> fixed.

  Exactly right here!  And this is just one of the many problems with WLS.

>
>
> If WLS happens, there will not be any open market competition or
> consumer choice.  History shows us that's a bad deal.  Monopoly has
> never proven to be good for the consumer.

  True.  Monopolies such as NSOL/Verisign and now ICANN itself
have lead to more problems or created more problems than they
were originally intended to solve, or could ever solve.

>
>
> However, you are absolutely correct that other people are making money
> due to the status quo.  They are competing for the opportunity to make
> it, though, and that introduces market efficiencies.

  Yes, but  an over competitive marketplace is also not a healthy
thing as it creates an over reduced price decline that can therefore
not support the overages in supply.  Hence market practices dictate
a balanced approach and striving to maintain such a balance...

>  That's good for
> the consumer and generally drives down the price.  A monopoly has
> absolutely no incentive to do that, since they are the only game in
> town.

  Monopolies have little or no incentive to do much of anything to
provide for better service as they have no competition what so ever.

>
>
> The "add storms" were initially an excuse to justify WLS. However,
> when NetSol/VeriSign was called on it, they stated more than once that
> the "add storms" are no longer a problem.

  Add Storms, were never a problem.  They existed in short time frames,
yes, but could have been handled in a number of ways that were
articulated when they were first noticed or discovered.  Yet, Verisign
decided to in part use them to buy time mostly.  I can't completely
blame for that...

> George gave you the links to
> those statements. Therefore, Registry capacity is not relevant to WLS.
> Even if it was relevant, it is a very weak argument, laughable, in
> fact, from a technical standpoint.

  Exactly.  And was laughable a when first stated/reported from a technical
standpoint.  Yet the ICANN Staff allowed this behavior to continue, even
though it's oversight responsibility should have dictated otherwise...  That
is a prime example of how poor the ICANN staff handles it's responsibility,
yet again...

>
>
> Bull Feathers, WRT the argument that WLS will reduce domain name
> speculation.  Snap Names and Gomez readily admits that half of the
> Snap Name customers are speculators.

  What difference does it make it 90% of them are speculators?

>
>
> Bull Feathers, also to the argument that the other competitors will be
> able to market WLS at whatever price they like. NetSol sets that
> price, too. There is not very much margin to pay for the little things
> like R&D and marketing discriminators, either. NetSol/VeriSign gets
> the lions share of the margin. Again, the big dog eats whenever he
> wants. That's how a monopoly works and that's bad for a free market
> and consumers.

  Exactly!  And the cozy relationship between ICANN and Verisign
allows for this sort of thing to occur, if not actually encourages it...

>
>
> Please don't fall for the marketing hipe. The obvious intent of WLS is
> to fully control and monopolize domain name expirations, kill all
> competition, remove any consumer choice and for Snap Names and
> NetSol/VeriSign to make one heck of a lot of money.

  Making a hell of a lot of money is not a crime or to be looked upon
in a negative light by any company.  But when they do so at the detriment
of the consumer/stakeholder/user, of even intend to, than it is time
for them to get spanked!  Auther Anderson just found that out
in today's verdict...

>
>
> It's not an original thought, but I'll repeat it anyway.  WLS is
> nothing more than a money grab.  It is about profit for the WLS
> players, pure and simple.

  No.  I part this is what it is about.  It is also a tool to be used
in such a way so as to control the Domain Name market, to limit
speculation to a very few, and a boon for the IP legal community
to gain some $$ and notoriety as well...  WLS as it is being proposed
now, and will also not solve the real delete problem, and does not
even remotely address the Domain Name Transfer problem.  Hence
as a issue with the TR Task Force, it is more of a created problem
to also in part distract from the real purpose of the TR Task Force.

>
>
> I'm confident that if you continue to peel the onion and look at all
> of the posts with regard to WLS and use your own common sense, that
> you will come to the very same conclusion.

  Well I am glad that you are confident, Don, but I unfortunately am
not.  It seems that Rick, amongst others have been in part, sucked
in to some of the Verisign Hype...

>
>
> Thanks for spending the time to be on the TF and work on this project.

  Yes, now if they will just get some actual work done on Domain Name
Transfers, perhaps something productive can be accomplished by this
Task Force...

>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Monday, June 17, 2002, 6:44:17 PM, Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com> wrote:
>
> RW> George,
>
> >> Conclusion: the Status Quo works great! Don't worry, be happy!
>
> RW> an issue that concerns some is that your statement seems to read:
>
> RW>   " I making money, so please don't screw up my nice little market nitch"
>
> RW> Its not working for everyone and that is what we are attempting to fix in
> RW> a fair and equitable manor, fail to realize that and you are marginalized.
>
> RW> -rick
>
> RW> --
> RW> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> RW> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> RW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> RW> 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@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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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