RE: [ga] WLS call follow-up

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Thanks Alexander.  You actually helped me find one error in our analysis.
The number of registrars not associated with the VeriSign Registrar should
have been 13, not 14, and the total should be 32, not 33.  I will
communicate the correction in my presentation today.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:alexander@svensson.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:10 AM
> To: DNSO General Assembly
> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS call follow-up
> 
> 
> 
> At 21.05.2002 21:34, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >1. Chuck: In the presentation you made to the task force and all  
> >those attending the call, you talked about registrars with a total  
> >market share of 57.5% supporting the proposal.  I already mentioned  
> >during the call that, after substracting Verisign's own market share 
> >of about 40%, we end up at a mere 17.5% of market share; this is  
> >comparable to the market share you mention as being opposed to WLS. 
> >I believe that it was Rick Wesson who asked how much of that  
> >remaining market share in favor of WLS actually belongs to  
> >registrars owned by or affiliated with Verisign.  Could you please  
> >provide some clarification of this on the GA list?  Thank you.
> 
> 
> This is the presentation:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/ppt00002.ppt
> 
> Let's see -- the original claim was 18 registrars supporting WLS
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02170.html),
> but it seems that 2 have retracted their signatures
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02177.html).
> 
> Jim Archer writes in that posting that he has been told that
> VeriSign owned five of the signing registrars. It's easy to
> confirm each of these cases with Google's help.
> 
>  VeriSign Registrar, Herndon, VA, USA
> 
>  NameEngine, New York, NY, USA
>  (http://www.nameengine.com/about/press/ceo_verisign.html)
> 
>  NameSecure, Moravia, CA, USA
>  (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/verisign-submission-29mar01.htm)
> 
>  SRSPlus, Los Angeles, California, USA
>  
(http://www.srsplus.com/en-def-82b225ecaf3f/en/srsplus/about_srsplus.shtml)

 Registrars.com, Los Angeles, California USA
 (http://www.registrars.com/)


Furthermore, DomainSite.com (another signatory) is listed as
one of SnapName's "strategic partners".
(http://www.snapnames.com/partners_strategic.html)
NameScout is one of SnapNames' registrar partners
(http://www.snapnames.com/namescoutterms.html).

Who is left?
  SiteName, Rishon Lezion, Israel
  (seems identical with Galcomm.com, Rishon Lezion, Israel)
  BulkRegister.com, Baltimore, MD, USA
  ChinaDNS, Beijing, China
  DirectNic, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
  DomainMonger.com, Washington State, USA       
  Go Daddy, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
  Namebay, Monaco
  NameSystem, Bridgetown, Barbados
  Neteka, Toronto, Canada
  Register.it, Bergamo, Italy

So what is the percentage of registrations represented by these
registrars not affiliated with VeriSign or SnapNames AND 
supporting the WLS?

Using data from https://www.sotd.info/sotd/Content/Documents/sotdQ102.pdf
(which ironically is published by SnapNames...) I arrive at 
the following com/net/org market shares:

  ???? % SiteName
  0.00 % Galcomm.com
  5.39 % BulkRegister.com
  ???? % ChinaDNS (only listed for .biz)
  1.73 % DirectNic
  ???? % DomainMonger.com
  2.61 % Go Daddy
  0.09 % Namebay
  0.00 % NameSystem
  0.00 % Neteka/Namesbeyond
  ???? % Register.it

It doubt that this adds up to more than 10 percent; please
correct me if I'm wrong.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

--
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
--
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