Re: [ga] Answers please.

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

Harold and all assembly members or other interested parties,

Harold Whiting wrote:

> At 09:46 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, Ron Wiener wrote:
> >Walsh,
> >
> >The data is based on only active subscriptions in our system, not historical
> >sales records.  You can't get fresher data than this.  If you refuse to read
> >the material, I refuse to answer any more of your unproductive questions.
> >
> >-Ron
>
> again with the impudent arrogant disrespect, shame on you.  His name is
> either "William", William Walsh", or even "Mr. Walsh".  Does your disregard
> for common courtesy  infer that we should simply address you as "Wiener"?
> Let's not degrade this discussion any further with this kind of nonsense, ok?
> ==========================

  Harold this is not ok IMHO.  If you wish to conduct a political correct
speech class, or attend one, please do so on some other forum.   As long
as I have been participating on various E-Mail based forums, addressing
someone by their last name is not rude in a any way, nor should be viewed
as such and is done fairly frequently...
===============================

Now to your questions below....

>
>
> Now, Ron, please answer this:
>
> Q: you registered ~23,500 names in 2001 True/False?

  Fair question, and one I also would like to see an answer to.
However you should understand that Ron nor Snapnames
is compelled or required to answer this question on this forum.
However this is a question that the ICANN Staff or BoD
should be asking with respect to the Registrar contract agreement
and potential abuse if a claim is filed.

>
>
> Q: you had ~$3M in revenues in 2001  True/False?

  If I were Ron or anyone at Snapnames I would tell you to
go smoke a pickle as my answer to this question.  I don't
see any need to know what the revenue of Snapnames is
nor is it any of my, your or anyone's business.

>
> - snip -

  The rest of you questions are good an valid questions IMHO.  But
they are questions that the ICANN BOD and staff as well as perhaps
the NTIA should be asking.  Therefore you may want to request
and post them to the ICANN BOD and staff as well as the NTIA
as well as possibly rephrase them.

>
>
> Q: Since you have not offered the shorter 12 month SnapBack subscription
> for anywhere close to a year, you cannot supply us with empirical data to
> support an answer to the question that many of us really want to know - How
> many SnapBacks go to term and expire without ever providing the subscriber
> with a name?  This group would likely be largely made up of all of your
> precious "Jills" and "mainstream consumers" and not "domain speculators",
> and do not give me the "IP Community" BS here, please.
> Basically, How many people end up with nothing to show for thier money?
>
> Q: Simple math, assuming the above figures are in line, shows us that even
> at the higher SnapBack cost of $49, the names registered in 2001 can only
> account for less than $1.2M  I doubt that you can tell us with a straight
> face that you really sold ~$1.8M worth of "SnapShot" subscriptions, did you?
>
> That leaves us with well over 50% of all SnapBack subscriptions sold last
> year unfulfilled. Yet you claim that "the majority" ripen in the first 60 days?
>
> I have no reason to believe that, if WLS were to be put in place,  the
> percentage of unfulfilled subscriptions would change by much.  This would
> mean, at a 5% level (as you have suggested) that over 700,000 people may
> simply be "throwing thier money away". Call me old fashioned, but to me
> this seems wrong to even contemplate offering such a thing to the public.
> I have seen concerns about this type of thing brought up by many different
> registrars, always with no response from SnapNames or VGRS to assure us
> that anything would prevent this.  I see it as becoming the majority of the
> WLS subscriptions, if implemented as proposed, due to FUD.  This concerns
> me, as a consumer, to think that the Registrar business will now be forced
> to sell a product to unsuspecting "main stream" consumers that has a likely
> chance of providing those same consumers with absolutely no performance for
> thier money.  Does the Registrar Industry need more "Black Clouds" of
> unscrupulous behavior hanging over it?  Oh, I forgot... It is for the
> Public good because it "fights" the "abusive speculators".  Personally, I
> see this whole proposal as Predatory itself.
>
> Q: What is the Patent Pending on your "technology"?  Where is it filed?
>
> Q: Were VeriSign to implement some similar process by themselves, without
> SnapNames, since SnapNames would not be able to operate as they are now,
> would SnapNames sue VeriSign?  If so, what would this suit be for, patent
> infringement or Anti Trust violations?  I expect no answer to this question.
>
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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@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