Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS, and the Cookie Challenge

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

George and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hey Bret,
>
> --- Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com> wrote:
> > George Kirikos wrote:
> > > ICANN exists to make the tough decisions. If they can't handle the
> > job, give
> > > it to someone who will.
> >
> > I think that's exactly what I was suggesting: give the job to a Court
> > because deciding what is "anticompetitive" is outside ICANN's core
> > competency.
>
> As mentioned in my initial reply, fostering competition is part of
> ICANN's mission. Whether ICANN is competent or not in delivering upon
> their mission is an open question. ;) Perhaps they need more folks with
> an economics background (pick me, pick me!) on their Board. :)

  Well economics majors are good if they have allot of practical
experience in other areas other than economics.  Otherwise
they are of only specific value in situations of within companies.
That aside, or otherwise addressed here yet again, the competency
of the many of the ICANN BOD members and especially the
ICANN staff members is certainly in question as their financial
management alone has been very much less than stellar.

>
>
> All kidding aside, you're basically describing a laissez-faire legal
> doctrine that says all disputes should be resolved through private
> parties in courts, without government or quasi-government involvement.
> In an academic and pure environment, I can see the attractiveness of
> that (my own philosophy is moderately right-wing too, and I'm for less
> government, not more).

  Well nice to know your philosophy, George.  I think most
people don't give a dam about business philosophy's or
government philosophy's to any great degree.  The real world
want's effective and a good working government and business
sector.  This means regulation that is as simple as possible
and works consistently in an open and transparent market
place.

>
>
> However, in the real world this has problems for various reasons.
>
> 1) introduces legal costs and delays. Take the example of Microsoft vs.
> Netscape, for instance. There is no question now that Netscape was
> harmed by Microsoft's anti-trust activities, and they can collect
> damages. However, how many years has it taken to get there, and still
> Netscape hasn't seen a dime? The lawyers of course are big winners in
> the meantime.

  BTW, Netscape did receive some serious financial compensation
from Microsoft.  Netscape also got bought out by AOL at a highly
inflated value.

>
>
> 2) consumers and society are harmed in the meantime. While the "big
> boys" fight things out in court, little guys and gals don't stop and
> wait -- they have to live with the repercussions, through higher prices
> and fewer choices.

  Very good point here!

> While some corporations have infinite lives, and
> justice will eventually serve their interests, individual consumers
> don't live forever! Getting $500 damages 10 years later is not a
> perfect substitute for having had competition and increased choice for
> those 10 years.

  I sued in a joint class action suit an ex-employer.  It took 6 years
to collect, but I collected very BIG.  So it takes patience, persistence
and consistence.  But real world compensation can be obtained
even for the little guy.

>
>
> 3) related to #2, one can only really sue for money damages, which is
> not a perfect compensation for the harm done to consumers and society.

  Good point here!

>
> Collecting on those damages is also difficult (e.g. VRSN goes bankrupt,
> or something, because they spent all their cash on lawyers defending
> themselves to the bitter end, to rob their victims even further).

  Well suing Verisign now wouldn't be a very good strategy
as it's actual value is in the tank anyway.  >;)

>
> 4) Verisign's contracts are with ICANN. Registrar's agreements are with
> ICANN. It makes sense for ICANN to be involved. It's harder for
> individual victims to organize, and Verisign knows this.

  Yes it is hard for individuals to organize, but it can be done.
We [INEGroup] have done it.  I would not at this juncture
believe or desire ICANN to protect any of my interests
with respect to any registry or registrar.

>
>
> Thus, efficiency can be improved by stopping this anti-competitive
> behaviour before it begins.

  Now you got it!

>
>
> Take a look at what happened in the Microsoft/Netscape matter. To
> survive, Netscape had to sell themselves to Sun Microsystems, at a
> price that reflected a lower value due to the harm that had been
> caused.

  AOL bought Netscape, not Sun...  ????

>
>
> Verisign will harm the valuations of all registrars, allowing them to
> continue to cherry pick them at low price, as they consolidate the
> industry. Dotster said it clearly -- they make a significant profit
> from their expired names service. If Verisign takes that away, VRSN can
> buy up Dotster, or others, for less. It's naive to think that VRSN
> hasn't thought of these things. One of the "funniest" parts of the
> Bucharest transcripts at:
>
> http://www.icann.org/bucharest/captioning-afternoon-27jun02.htm
>
> was Chuck Gomes saying:
>
> "I’ll be very honest with you.
> There are registrar-based services that will likely experience negative
> impact in a case or two.
> Their particular business in going after the deleted names will
> probably be change drastically.
> And it certainly was not our intent to harm our customers' businesses;
> okay?"
>
> I leave it to the psychologists amongst us to interpret this, but I
> personally know how to interpret things when one prefaces statements
> with "I'll be very honest with you" (i.e. the more cynical people will
> read that as buzzwords for "I'm getting ready to lie to you!" ;) ) and
> end them with the question "okay?" (as though they're not convinced
> themselves of the statements, and are asking you!). Verisign and their
> army of consultants/lobbyists/lawyers are more sophisticated than
> Chuck's statement suggests.
>
> If anyone's read this far ;) I find it so predictable of Verisign and
> proponents of WLS to continue to avoid the tough questions. So, let's
> up the stakes a little, and provide them with an incentive. Before, I
> asked at:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02800.html
>
> "Consider the following scenario. The Status Quo exists, and SnapNames
> approaches VGRS to make a private deal, whereby SnapBack holders get
> first dibs on all expiring domain names for the first day. SnapNames
> then announces that any registrar can resell SnapBacks for $30 ($24+$6
> registration fee). SnapNames negotiates a private deal with VGRS to
> split the cash.
>
> Do you not think the above scenario would have consumers and registrars
> up in arms? I REALLY want someone to answer that question -- yes or no,
> would that deal as described above be allowed?

  There are two questions here George.  Our answer to the first is
yes the registrars would be up in arms, but the consumers likely
would not be.

>
>
> Now, how do you differentiate the above scenario with the WLS proposal?

  You don't.

>
> The *impact* on the marketplace is IDENTICAL, the only thing that has
> changed is that VGRS is the one with the "public face" saying they'll
> collect the proceeds from participating Registrars.
>
> If anyone can explain to me how they would logically Reject the
> scenario above, yet accept WLS, that would put to rest the WLS debate
> completely. I issue that as a challenge to Jeff, Chuck, your lawyers,
> lobbyists, and any other proponent of WLS -- your silence will be
> telling."
>
> Since their silence is deafening, I renew and repeat the challenge --
> and to make things more interesting, I'll send a basket of cookies
> anywhere in the world to the first proponent of WLS at
> Verisign/SnapNames/etc. who takes on the challenge of answering that!
> :) Come on, Chuck, Roger, Mason, Becky Burr, Jeff, etc. -- take my
> challenge, and earn some cookies. :)

  I just did answer.  So I like chocolate chip cookies!  How many in
a basket George?  >;)

>
>
> Showing you the money, errr, cookies, :)
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> --
>

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