Re: [ga] WLS

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Folks, we are getting far afield from the core issue and getting
buried in minutia.

WLS is anti-competitive. We've already seen the arguments. VeriSign
keeps trying to put perfume on a hog and it just doesn't work. Good
marketing spins and misinformation pollution, but a hog still smells
like a hog. They want to monopolize an already open, free and
available market.

There are several players already offering services - just go to the
archives of this list and you will see them named numerous times.

The truth is that VeriSign and Snap Names just want all of the
marbles. They don't want open competition. Look what happened to
VeriSign's market share for domain names as a result of competition,
for instance. To them, competition is bad.

WLS is anti-consumer.  Ditto.  Same reasons.  They argue that the high
price will drive speculators away, yet admit that half (or more) of
Snap Name's customers (also at a high price) are speculators.  They
say whatever will promote their cause to control and monopolize this
market.

Let's look at the big picture and not get down and grovel in their
ditches.

A free and open market is good for all consumers.  It drives the
price down, causes innovation and gives the consumer (whatever label
you may put on them) a CHOICE!  That's what the free enterprise system
is all about.  That's why there is an old law on the books called the
Sherman Antitrust Act.

Remember when domain names used to cost everyone $50 or $35 and they
had to be registered for a min of two years? Now that there is
competition, how does the current market compare?

Why would VeriSign and Snap Names be spending all of this time to
generate so much propaganda, if it wasn't worth substantial revenue to
them?  Follow the trail to the gold and you will find the answer.

It doesn't matter what label gets appended to the buyer. A buyer is
just a buyer and VeriSign and Snap Names want all the business. They
don't want any competitors. They want to return to the old days when
they were the supreme Monopoly and could "dictate" whatever they
wanted and "dictate" whatever they provided. Do y'all remember those
days of long hold times and dealing with people who had IQ's lower
than a rock? Think about it.

Since it seems that almost no one was happy during the days when we
had only one source of supply for new domain names, I doubt that
almost no one will be happy if we have only one source for expired
domain names, either.

Rise above the marketing spins and misinformation. Don't let them send
you down rabbit trails to no where. Look at the big picture and
remember your own experience with the former domain name monopoly.  If
you don't have prior experience, ask someone who does.  Just get the
other side of the story from someone who is not a sales type and has
nothing to gain . . .

Thanks,


Friday, June 21, 2002, 10:47:34 AM, James Love <james.love@cptech.org> wrote:
JL> I agree with Kent on this.   There is a difference between end users and 
JL> speculators, and it is far more important to protect end users than 
JL> speculators in domain names.

JL>    Jamie

JL> Jeff Field wrote:
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Kent
>>>Crispin
>>>Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 12:27 AM
>>>To: ga@dnso.org
>>>Subject: Re: [ga] WLS
>>>
>>>
>>>On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:40:23PM -0400, John Berryhill wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Dramatically increase the cost for whom?  Registrars, speculators? or
>>>>>consumers?
>>>>>
>>>>>Chuck
>>>>
>>>>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.  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.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
>>>kent@songbird.com                          lonesome."  -- Mark Twain
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> In the stock market you have some people that buy and sell stocks as an
>> investment and others that buy and sell stocks on pure speculation.  The
>> first group are called, "investors"; the second group, "speculators".  But
>> investors and speculators are simply subsets of the more broad terms,
>> "buyers" and "sellers".
>> 
>> In regards to domain names, IMHO, *way* too much emphasis has been placed on
>> trying to make the distinction between a "consumer" and a "speculator".
>> Both are simply members of the more broad term, "registrant".  The basic
>> question that needs answering regarding WLS is whether or not "registrants"
>> will be harmed.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> --
>> jeff field
>> 952-848-7626
>> 952-848-7627 fax
>> jfield@aaaq.com <mailto:jfield@aaaq.com>
>> -----
>> 
>> --
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 






----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
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