<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[registrars] RE: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefit s of the Few
Ron,
Please remove eNom from your site.
I'd hate to give people the impression eNom supports the WLS proposal.
Where's our check, anyway?
Thanks
Paul
eNom, Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Wiener [mailto:Ron@Snapnames.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 4:55 PM
> To: 'George Kirikos'; ga@dnso.org; icann-delete@total.confusion.net
> Cc: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: RE: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs.
> Benefit s of the Few
>
>
> George,
>
> I think we'd all appreciate it if you did not regurgitate all
> the content
> everyone has already read. I've responded to everything here
> already and
> won't do it twice.
>
> As for why NameScout shows up as your only registrar choice
> on our site it
> is because you linked through to our site from theirs and
> your cookie was
> set. Delete the cookie and you will see eNom, OpenSRS, NameScout,
> DomainsAtCost, Directi, Internic, BulkRegister and Network
> Solutions as your
> choices.
>
> - Ron
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Kirikos [mailto:gkirikos@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 4:44 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Ross Wm. Rader'; Ron Wiener; ga@dnso.org; icann-
> > delete@total.confusion.net
> > Cc: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs.
> > Benefits of the Few
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
> > > Ross,
> > >
> > > Nothing has changed with the statements I made. On what
> basis did you
> > > conclude that we would "arbitrarily launch the service without
> > > appropriately consulting the community?"
> > >
> > > Chuck
> >
> > From:
> >
> > http://portland.bcentral.com/portland/stories/2001/12/03/story2.html
> >
> > my curiosity is raised at the statement:
> >
> > "The company expects to close 2001 with $3 million in
> revenue, and is
> > projecting sales of more than $20 million in 2002, based on
> contracts
> > that have already been signed."
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Notice the story was dated December 3, 2001. Perhaps SnapNames is
> > referring to other "contracts", but it's clear that one
> possibility is
> > that this is referring to a "done deal" with Verisign,
> given that the
> > "test period" revenues would be on the order of $60 million, split
> > between Verisign and Snapnames. To go from $3 million to $20 million
> > without WLS would be difficult, in my opinion, as other registrars
> > continue to launch competitive systems. Also, when I go to acquire a
> > SnapBack today, I am only allowed to register it via
> NameScout, whereas
> > previously I could choose from 6 or 7 registrars.
> >
> > They also said the following: "Owen ran NameWinner for
> Dotster, which
> > is a viable competitor of ours"
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > (for those interested in the anti-competitiveness nature of the
> > proposal)
> >
> > And in:
> >
> >
> http://portland.bcentral.com/portland/stories/2001/12/31/daily37.html
> >
> > "The deal with VeriSign will bring SnapNames more than $20
> million in
> > revenue this year, said Ron Wiener, CEO of SnapNames. "This
> is a huge
> > deal," he said, "a five-year exclusive licensing agreement.
> We consider
> > it will have a total value of $100 million to $150 million over the
> > term of the contract." In 2001, SnapNames took in $2.98 million in
> > revenue."
> >
> > Note the language "The deal with Verisign WILL...." (not might or
> > could)
> >
> > Also, that article confirmed that SnapNames is not profitable as a
> > whole.
> >
> > Since Verisign and SnapNames seem to be perpetuating the myth of
> > "abusive speculation" existing in the current system (to
> the detriment
> > of the "Greatest Good", please identify exactly which
> registrars and/or
> > registrants are responsible for this activity, as well as a
> definition
> > of "abusive speculation".
> >
> > I remind you that this question has been asked before, without an
> > answer. See:
> >
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00085.html
> >
> > in particular:
> >
> > > The typical SnapNames "mythology" about deleted names is
> that their
> > > clients are pure and noble, and everyone else is an "abusive
> > > speculator" that must be stopped. SnapNames publishes a
> list of names
> > > they've caught, at:
> >
> > > http://www.snapnames.com/hot100.html
> >
> > > In case they decide to remove that list, I've saved a copy at:
> >
> > > http://www.loffs.com/images/hot100.txt
> >
> > > Let us analyze this list, and see who some of SnapNames's
> "pure and
> > > noble" clients are:
> >
> > > a) UltSearch.com owns 19 of the 100 names (participates
> on many other
> > > drop systems too).
> > > b) BuyDomains.com - 16 of the 100 names (all for sale, too!)
> > > c) DirectSeek/PTI Networks/Frank and Michelle Schilling -- 6 names
> > > (participants on other drop systems too).
> > > d) 5 other names were explicitly for sale in the WHOIS
> info, or were
> > > pointed at Afternic, a domain auction site.
> > > e) Michele Dinoia -- 2 names (a high volume domain registrant via
> > > AWRegistry, among others)
> > > f) 7 names seem to raise some trademark issues:
> > > i) advil.net (and the domain is for sale!)
> > > ii) xeroxprinters.com
> > > iii) wall-mart.com (redirecting to Amazon.com for now, using the
> > > "hotdealsweb-20" affiliate tag)
> > > iv) NokiaTunes.com
> > > v) HondaAccord.com
> > > vi) VolkswagonParts.com -- redirects to an "abortion is
> murder" site,
> > > with a picture of a headless fetus (gruesome)
> > > vii) UnitedAir.com (nice use of Flash in the WHOIS; see
> the WHOIS at
> > > www.netsol.com for this one)
> >
> > > I'm not saying that any of the above are "abusive
> speculators" (well,
> > I
> > > think I'm safe on the volkswagonparts.com one!), but I personally
> > would
> > > like to have SnapNames provde a precise definition of "abusive
> > > speculator". Does it have to do with a high volume of
> registrations?
> > > Does it involve trademark violations? Does it have to do with
> > offering
> > > the name up immediately for sale? Does it mean using a
> non-SnapNames
> > > system (many of SnapNames' biggest customers use
> alternatives too).
> > > Personally, I think any registrant is innocent, until
> proven guilty
> > via
> > > the UDRP process. But, I want to know Verisign and
> SnapNames' precise
> > > definition of abusive registrants, as they routinely trash the
> > clients
> > > of competing drop systems, and are the ones saying that there is a
> > > current problem that needs to be "solved". Once we have a clear
> > > definition, we can see how many of SnapNames' own clients fit that
> > > profile.
> >
> > I should note that BuyDomains has recently posted against the WLS
> > proposal, see:
> >
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00514.html
> >
> > They are equally against a monopoly by one group over the expired
> > domains industry. They're SnapNames customers, as am I.
> >
> > Patiently awaiting your reply,
> >
> > George Kirikos
> > http://www.kirikos.com/
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> > http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|