Re: [ga] WLS

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

John and all assembly members,

  John, thank you very much for very nicely and simply getting poor
old Joe S. straightened out.  His increasing raveges of age and declining
ability to either be honest, or to comprehend his native language,
english, seem to limit him and thereby the ICANN BOD and staff
to the point of being dangerous to themselves.

  We [INEGroup] very strongly agree with much of where you outline
below John, that would cause damage to the consumer or registrant
by WLS.  I am at a loss why Old Joe, fails to understand these
obvious concerns given his position and supposed experience. ???

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> >But I get the impression that at least some people believe that
> >there is more to the competitive concern than these point?
> >If that is right, could someone lay it out for me simply and
> >clearly, so that even I can understand it?  Thanks.
>
> It is fairly simple and clear, and entirely missed in your recapitulation of
> the competition concerns.  The "registrar harm" and "consumer harm" points
> are flagged below with asterisks, so that even you can find them.
>
> 1.  Presently, there are several different services which use different
> business models to compete for the opportunity to register domain names which
> come off registration.  For example, there is SnapNames.com, Namewinner.com,
> and several others.  Some of these services are fixed price services, some of
> them are auctions with payment due on contingency, some for a "bounty", and
> so forth.  During the development of these services, which involve various
> repetitive polling mechanisms, there was concern that these services were
> overloading registry resources during name drop periods.   That problem has
> since been solved.
>
> 2.  WLS as proposed, will be the only way to obtain an expiring domain name,
> since it will operate at the registry level.  Hence, this registry-level
> service will effectively eliminate the present range of competing
> registrar-level services for registration of expiring names.  Not compete -
> eliminate - as any other method will be entirely ineffective.  **This will
> eliminate a present revenue stream for some registrars.**  It is not a matter
> of WLS providing a "competitive advantage" over the existing mix of services,
> as you seem to perceive it.  The WLS as proposed will be the only game in
> town, and will eliminate the existing mix of services, because it will
> operate with certainty at the registry level to provide registration of an
> expiring domain name to the single person who managed to grab the WLS slot
> first.  There will be no competition to have an "advantage" over, and if a
> WLS-squatter has the slot, you are out of luck.
>
> 3.  From the consumer perspective, the WLS as proposed will provide one, and
> only one, person with certainty that they will become the registrant of an
> expiring domain name.  Under the current situation, a consumer may obtain at
> least an uncertain chance of obtaining the name through one of the present
> competing services.  Presently, a consumer who finds that a SnapNames
> "snapback" is taken on the domain name they want, can go elsewhere and have a
> chance to register the name.  Under WLS, a consumer who finds that someone
> else has already obtained the WLS slot for the name they want will have no
> choice, because **there will be no alternative available.**
>
> 4.  To recap, the WLS will (a) eliminate a present registrar revenue stream
> and a present competitive market, and (b) reduce consumer choice.  These
> effects are entirely independent of whether Verisign will make money.
> Verisign is entitled to make all of the money they lawfully can, and nobody
> should have a problem with that.  Nobody has been saying that WLS is
> anti-competitive for the mere fact that Verisign will make money from it.
> The competition concern is that the proposal under consideration here is for
> a monopoly service which will have incidental effects (a) and (b) noted
> above.
>
> Whether the WLS as proposed is implemented or not, released domain names will
> continue to be registered by the quick and the clever, just as they are now.
> The race will only be shifted to obtaining WLS slots rather than obtaining
> the domain names themselves.  The notion is simply absurd that people who are
> generally unfamiliar with domain name policies and procedures will have a
> level playing field with those who are expert and studious followers of this
> arcane nonsense.  But, the WLS party line plays well with those abused of a
> habit of wishful thinking and unsupported theories of human behavior.
>
> On further reflection, we may well simply see a bloom of competitive WLS
> "gaming" services...
>
> --
> 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