Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>]

Hello,

--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
> Ross,
> 
> Nothing has changed with the statements I made. On what basis did you
> conclude that we would "arbitrarily launch the service without
> appropriately consulting the community?"
> 
> Chuck

From:

http://portland.bcentral.com/portland/stories/2001/12/03/story2.html

my curiosity is raised at the statement:

"The company expects to close 2001 with $3 million in revenue, and is
projecting sales of more than $20 million in 2002, based on contracts
that have already been signed."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Notice the story was dated December 3, 2001. Perhaps SnapNames is
referring to other "contracts", but it's clear that one possibility is
that this is referring to a "done deal" with Verisign, given that the
"test period" revenues would be on the order of $60 million, split
between Verisign and Snapnames. To go from $3 million to $20 million
without WLS would be difficult, in my opinion, as other registrars
continue to launch competitive systems. Also, when I go to acquire a
SnapBack today, I am only allowed to register it via NameScout, whereas
previously I could choose from 6 or 7 registrars.

They also said the following: "Owen ran NameWinner for Dotster, which
is a viable competitor of ours" 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(for those interested in the anti-competitiveness nature of the
proposal)

And in:

http://portland.bcentral.com/portland/stories/2001/12/31/daily37.html

"The deal with VeriSign will bring SnapNames more than $20 million in
revenue this year, said Ron Wiener, CEO of SnapNames. "This is a huge
deal," he said, "a five-year exclusive licensing agreement. We consider
it will have a total value of $100 million to $150 million over the
term of the contract." In 2001, SnapNames took in $2.98 million in
revenue."

Note the language "The deal with Verisign WILL...." (not might or
could)

Also, that article confirmed that SnapNames is not profitable as a
whole.

Since Verisign and SnapNames seem to be perpetuating the myth of
"abusive speculation" existing in the current system (to the detriment
of the "Greatest Good", please identify exactly which registrars and/or
registrants are responsible for this activity, as well as a definition
of "abusive speculation".

I remind you that this question has been asked before, without an
answer. See:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00085.html

in particular:

> The typical SnapNames "mythology" about deleted names is that their
> clients are pure and noble, and everyone else is an "abusive
> speculator" that must be stopped. SnapNames publishes a list of names
> they've caught, at:

> http://www.snapnames.com/hot100.html

> In case they decide to remove that list, I've saved a copy at:

> http://www.loffs.com/images/hot100.txt

> Let us analyze this list, and see who some of SnapNames's "pure and
> noble" clients are:

> a) UltSearch.com owns 19 of the 100 names (participates on many other
> drop systems too). 
> b) BuyDomains.com - 16 of the 100 names (all for sale, too!)
> c) DirectSeek/PTI Networks/Frank and Michelle Schilling -- 6 names
> (participants on other drop systems too).
> d) 5 other names were explicitly for sale in the WHOIS info, or were
> pointed at Afternic, a domain auction site.
> e) Michele Dinoia -- 2 names (a high volume domain registrant via
> AWRegistry, among others)
> f) 7 names seem to raise some trademark issues:
> i) advil.net (and the domain is for sale!)
> ii) xeroxprinters.com 
> iii) wall-mart.com (redirecting to Amazon.com for now, using the
> "hotdealsweb-20" affiliate tag)
> iv) NokiaTunes.com
> v) HondaAccord.com
> vi) VolkswagonParts.com -- redirects to an "abortion is murder" site,
> with a picture of a headless fetus (gruesome)
> vii) UnitedAir.com (nice use of Flash in the WHOIS; see the WHOIS at
> www.netsol.com for this one)

> I'm not saying that any of the above are "abusive speculators" (well,
I
> think I'm safe on the volkswagonparts.com one!), but I personally
would
> like to have SnapNames provde a precise definition of "abusive
> speculator". Does it have to do with a high volume of registrations?
> Does it involve trademark violations? Does it have to do with
offering
> the name up immediately for sale? Does it mean using a non-SnapNames
> system (many of SnapNames' biggest customers use alternatives too).
> Personally, I think any registrant is innocent, until proven guilty
via
> the UDRP process. But, I want to know Verisign and SnapNames' precise
> definition of abusive registrants, as they routinely trash the
clients
> of competing drop systems, and are the ones saying that there is a
> current problem that needs to be "solved". Once we have a clear
> definition, we can see how many of SnapNames' own clients fit that
> profile.

I should note that BuyDomains has recently posted against the WLS
proposal, see:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00514.html

They are equally against a monopoly by one group over the expired
domains industry. They're SnapNames customers, as am I.

Patiently awaiting your reply,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
--
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