[ga] Re: WLS scrapheap proposal

[Harold Whiting <Harold@PeterWhiting.com>]

At 04:32 PM 1/11/2002 +0700, Lee Hodgson, DomainGuru.com wrote:
>Hello George,
>
>> That's an illegal cartel. It's anti-competitive for the monopolist
>> registry to enforce price controls on the retailers. It's like a music
>> company telling CD retailers that they have to all charge $20 per CD.
>> Simply illegal in most countries. In the US, one can start one's
>> research on the antitrust issue at:
>
>What I am proposing is that Verisign themselves launch the service at
>$69.95, and registrars become 'partners' or 'affiliates' who get rewarded
>for referring clients. That practice exists on virtually every commercial
>web site on the Net. If it's not possible for the registry to launch their
>own service, then fine, the proposal is a non-starter. I'm just trying to
>think of ideas the same as everyone else.

That idea is even worse than the proposal as it stands now, can you say
"complete monopolistic control"? The registry is contracted with the USG to
do one thing, they are the custodians of the registry.  For this, they
recieve $6 per name.  ANY plan that attempts to bypass this contract should
be viewed in a very dim light by the DoC, in my opinion. Remember, the NSI
monoply was broken up for a reason - to create fair business practices and
healthy competition.

>> Indeed, that's why the entire WLS as proposed is in the scrap heap.
>> There already exist innovative competitors in the registrar space (I
>> enumerated at least 10 in prior posts) serving the expired names
>> market, and I'm sure even more innovation is ahead, as long as Verisign
>> doesn't interfere in this market. Verisign registrar is open to
>> compete, but not at the registry level which would stifle competition.
>
>Which scrap heap is that in? Do you think WLS won't go ahead, and registrars
>will be free to continue name grabbing after March 20th?

Well, not one of the registrars supports it. Do you really think that ICANN
will just "rubber stamp" it and ignore the Registrar's constituency?

>> If you have your own expired names service, you're free to launch such
>> a system in the current competitive market (for instance, you can
>> associate with one or more of the registrars, or SnapNames, or
>> ExpireFish, NameWinner, NicGenie, eNom, AWRegistry, IArRegistry, etc.
>> or go it alone).
>
>Why would I launch a service today that will probably become obsolete by
>March 20th?

I would also like to thank you, Lee.  If it wasn't for you, we probably
would not even be dealing with this at this time.  You should be proud.


Harold Whiting
--
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