RE: Re[5]: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefit s of the Few

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>]

Hello,

--- Ron Wiener <Ron@Snapnames.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you can specifically state what data you wish to see, and why
> you
> wish to see it, that we have not already provided.  
> 
> Yes, your definition of holding = active subscriptions.  I presumed
> you
> wanted the most current data available.  If what you really want is
> historical data that is older, request it, and provide a reason why
> you
> think it's even relevant.  

I've not requested any data, as it's already been fully analyzed via
the public (and verifiable) Hot 100 list. I was just responding to the
dismissal of William's concerns, when the data you have chosen to
disclose is spin.
 
> Your question regarding "abusive speculation" was answered IN FULL by
> Cameron earlier this evening.  I'm attaching the e-mail as you've
> apparently
> missed it. 

Cameron's email was filtered out by the DNSO GA mailing list as junk,
as he is not subscribed. Thank you for providing it.

Cameron writes:
 
> Mr. Page is in error in alleging that we have ever stated that the
> growth in
> our revenues will be "a direct result of the new WLS arrangement with
> VeriSign."  Mr. Page is apparently reading press reports, but not, as
> he may
> be implying, press releases by SnapNames itself.  SnapNames has never
> claimed that its annual revenues would increase from $3 to $20
> million "as a
> direct result of the new WLS arrangement with VeriSign" because it is
> not
> true;

I find it very odd that SnapNames suggests these people are "in error"
and misquoting SnapNames, when they produce the same numbers
repeatedly. I point out that 

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

says "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".

Are these the same press that are falsely reporting that SnapNames
caters mostly to ma and pa registrants, when the majority of business
really comes from "speculators"?

> Second, while I'm not sure it was we who used the term "abusive
> speculator"
> (I note that we did recently quote Bruce Tonkin of MelbourneIT on the
> subject), and while we are under no obligation to respond to your
> interrogations, I'll point out for the other members of the list that
> we
> have, in fact, discussed repeatedly what might be termed "abusive"
> tactics
> of speculators.  Pages 16-17 of the October "State of the Domain"
> list
> several, from intentional credit card fraud to abuse of the 5-day
> grace
> period.  See
> http://www.snapnames.com/downloads/StateoftheDomainOct2001.pdf.

I read it -- I don't see any of your competitors who qualify as abusive
speculators by those definitions. Going after Canary.com or Beijing.com
or Cheerleaders.com weren't cases of "credit card fraud" or "abuse of
the 5 day grace period". 

> Page 20 of the August edition further discusses a distinction between
> speculators who have superior foresight in being the first to
> register a
> name, versus speculators who have superior access to other customers
> due to
> their preferential treatment by registrars -- a state of affairs into
> which
> we would invite congressional oversight.  See
> http://www.snapnames.com/downloads/StateoftheDomainAug2001.pdf.  We
> have

Isn't this "preferential treatment by registrars" something that
SnapNames itself is paying for, through its registrar connection
partners? I suppose any registrar with a different business model is a
black sheep under your definition, even though technically they are
running the identical registration processes as SnapNames? Is eNom
doing anything illegal? Is Dotster? Is Parava? IARegistry? AWRegistry?
Is NameScout? Inquiring minds want to know!

Sincerely,

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