Re: [ga] WLS

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

John and all assembly members,

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > > > Dramatically increase the cost for whom?  Registrars, speculators? or
> > > > consumers?
> > >
> > > Please provide a meaningful distinction between a "speculator" and a
> > > "consumer".
> >
> > Speculators register domain names for the primary intent of reselling
> > them later for a profit.  Consumers don't have resale as a primary
> > intent.
>
> I suppose I should have qualified "meaningful", to avoid a studied disregard
> of context.  Let me put it this way.  When the registry receives $6 for a
> domain name, how does the mental state of the registrant alter that $6?
> Additionally, what distinction is made in the registry data between a
> "speculator" and a "consumer".

  Good point.  But I would bet that most people here will miss the
meaning of your point here John...

>
>
> If we are discussing a proposal to regulate social behavior, fine.  But let's
> be clear about that.  Because there is no economic or technical distinction
> to be made here.

  Very much agreed here.  However social behavior in the Domain Name
Game is not an issue that ICANN or the DNSO should be addressing.
WLS only hightens such behaviors IMHO...

>
>
> And, let's be clear, a bulk registrant who acquires many domain names in
> order to capitalize on traffic, rather than to sell the domain names is not a
> "speculator", correct?

  Correct.

>  Because I get the impression that some folks equate
> "bulk registrant" with "speculator".

  Yes.  Bulkregister.com as a registrar for instance, perhaps???

>  The fact is that most of the people of
> whom I'm aware which have sizeable numbers of domain names have learned long
> ago that there is more money in developing traffic from them than selling
> them.

  This may be true.  I really don't know.  However I have made far
more from selling Domain Names than developing traffic from them.
I think this would depend on where one's emphasis lies, John...

>
>
> >As you know, the law is quite capable of using intent as a
> > meaningful distinguishing characteristic.  In general, you are making a
> > "slippery slope" argument, and, again, as you know, slippery slope
> > arguments are not valid.
>
> A "slippery slope" to what?
>
> Let's recap... half of snapbacks are admitted to be held by "speculators".
> SnapNames wants to grandfather snapbacks into the WLS.  In their report, they
> say that ICANN will be sued if they aren't grandfathered.  So we know,
> already, that half of the WLS positions are going to be held by speculators
> on the very day that WLS starts.  You want to guess what is happening with
> snapback sales right now?  Duh.  People are already staking out their WLS
> turf pre-emptively.  Those are the facts as they stand today - it is not a
> "slippery slope" to anything.  On day one, half of all WLS positions will be
> held by speculators, and that is the admitted and undisputed present fact.

  Very much agreed here.

>
>
> Now, if you read the long Part II screed that SnapNames has published on this
> thing, it basically says that the current system is "unfair" because people
> with a lot of money are better at getting what they want than people who do
> not have a lot of money.  We are also provided with a lovely short story
> about someone from a socialist country who has a hard time dealing with that
> simple fact of the free world.
>
> The SnapNames report also says that these speculators are paying acquisition
> costs of between sixty and one hundred dollars per name.  Then, the SnapNames
> report says that a price point of $35 will discourage speculators.

  And this is a laugh to believe that $35 will discourage any speculator!
Even 10 times that amount would not discourage any good speculator,
and especially not ad-hoc speculator groups that have pooled financial
resources.

>
>
> WLS is going to be great for speculators.  And, what's even better, the
> exclusivity and certainty of a WLS position renders the position itself to be
> a thing of speculative value.

  Yes WLS will be a potential boon for speculators to some degree.
And will still not address the delete problem of which WLS is touted
to address...  Sounds like a flim-flam to me...

>
>
> The WLS folks are beginning to sound more and more like IOD's .web folks. "I
> can't get the exclusive franchise I want from ICANN, so I'm going to piss and
> moan at increasing volume."  And also, just like IOD, they want to bring
> their pre-registered customers in with the deal.

  Well ICANN set itself up for this as it has as you know John, already
given away some exclusive franchises in MdR 2000 for TLD's...

>
>
> The SnapNames report makes it clear that with enough money, the present
> system allows people to get what they want.  Tell me something new.  Just TRY
> getting a TLD that way.  You want to talk about an exclusive market
> barrier...
>
> --
> 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 124k members/stakeholders 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