RE: [registrars] Comments on Proposed Domain Name Wait Listing Service

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

Tim,

The price point is based on a lot of cost factors, including but not
limited to:
1. Licensing the technology (initial and ongoing costs)
2. Integration of the technology into Registry systems
3. Testing and quality assurance of the system
4. Development and support of OT&E versions of the service
5. Development and support of registrar agreements of the WLS
6. Customer service (initial and ongoing, 7x24x365)
7. Equipment
8. Operational support (development, implementation, ongoing
maintenance, etc.)
9. Policy development
10.Billing and collections (this will be a new service factor for us,
very different than regular registrations)
11.Legal liability
12.Easy to use tools for registrars
   etc.

We learned a long time ago to use very rigorous methods anytime we
implement a new offering.  It costs more but the reliability of the
service for our customers is greatly improved.  Also, we build in
redundancy in telecommunications, equipment and people to minimize
service impacting outages in the future.  I am sure that an offering
like this could be done less expensively, but I am equally as sure that
it would not meet the high standards that our engineering and operations
teams demand.

As I have said in other posts on this subject, we literally do not know
how successful this offering will be.  It may turn profitable in the
first year; it may not; it depends on volume.  We will design a system
that will scale to handle high volumes and, if the high volumes do come,
we should do well.  If they do not, it may be cancelled in a year and
there is risk of taking a loss.  That is the way things work in a free
marketplace.  There are risks but the risks are tolerable if there are
also incentives.

Could we roll this out at 70 to 80% of the proposed price?  I don't
know.  I have already noted that we could by compromising on the quality
of the support and infrastructure.  Also, if business volumes turn out
to be very high, then the scale will increase margins, but I would guess
that that won't happen in the first year.  That is one of the reasons
for proposing a one-year test; that should give you and us the market
data we need to decide how to proceed in the future.

Another point that was made in the proposal is that it is important that
the price be set high enough to avoid high volumes of abusive
speculative subscriptions.  Otherwise, we will end up with a similar
problem with the WLS as we now have with the deleted names issue.  That
has become a very high cost item for us in the regular registration
business.

It will be up to registrars to establish their own retail price, so it
would be up to you to set your own price for your customers.  Depending
on the value of the name, I would think there is lots of room to play on
your side.  There certainly seems to be plenty of demand.  In fact, I
would think that you as a registrar would have the chance to make even
better margins than we will.

With regard to the limit on the number of transfers allowed to other
domain names, that is primarily a customer support issue.  The more that
are allowed the more impact their is on our systems and our support
staff, including the possibility of transfer complaints.  What would be
helpful to me is if you could explain why you think three is not
sufficient.  I don't know that there is any magic to the limit of three;
if there was good rationale for changing this, I would certainly be
willing to take it up with our business development team.

I hope that helps.

Chuck

 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 3:06 PM
> To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Comments on Proposed Domain Name 
> Wait Listing
> Service
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> I would be interested in any detail you can share that 
> justifies the price
> point you're considering. Similar services now available have end-user
> prices close to that already. Given the monopoly you will have on this
> service, and that the registrars will be selling it for you, 
> it would seem
> you could roll this out for 70-80% of what you're proposing. 
> Granted, you
> offer 100% success rate, but we need to be able to sell this to our
> customers. Some will understand the difference, others won't.
> 
> Also, in 2.a.vii you state that a the subscriber may change 
> the domain name
> the subscription is tied to only 3 times. What is your 
> rationale for that
> limitation? Why not allow them to change it as often as they like?
> 
> Best regards,
> Tim Ruiz
> Go Daddy Software, Inc.
> 
>

smime.p7s