Re: [registrars] RE: WLS Comments

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

chuck,


On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Thanks Mike.  Now I understand what you meant with regard to
> speculators.
>

[snip]

> As a business we are always interested in new business opportuntities
> and the WLS certainly fits that category.  But your suggestion is the
> first time I am aware of that anyone has suggested that we intentionally
> are going after the speculator market.

A few snipits from Alice's Registry Response to the WLS:

...

   In a mail to the icann-delete list Larry Erlich noted to me, "The
   fact is, without speculators there would be no industry."

...

   Many have stated that the price should be high to discourage too
   much speculation; however I suggest the proposed service is all
   about speculation and as such, speculators make up the vast
   majority of registrations these days. So, I see no reason why we should
   discourage speculation about speculation by setting high wholesale
   prices. Thus, the price should remain low such that VGRS can make a
   reasonable profit and recover their costs.

I completely agree with Mike, IMHO his discussion on this matter is right
on target.


-rick

> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike [mailto:mike@awregistry.net]
> > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:24 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: WLS Comments
> >
> >
> > Hi Chuck,
> >
> > What I mean is, it looks like speculators are the main consumer group
> > targeted by WLS.  Not that WLS will help them more than
> > current systems,
> > quite the opposite (see my point number 2), but it is likely
> > that most
> > WLS subscriptions will be purchased by speculators.  Now, there is
> > nothing wrong with creating new products aimed at
> > speculators.  That is
> > exactly what we, Snapnames, other registrars, Afternic, and
> > many others
> > have done in offering products that attempt to register
> > deleted domains
> > for speculators.  The success of all these offerings has
> > created healthy
> > markets and proven that there is good money to be made from product
> > offerings that cater to speculators.
> >
> > It is obvious to me that the REAL purpose of WLS, though not
> > stated, is
> > to enable VeriSign to grab a larger portion of the speculation market
> > pie, of which they currently get only a thin slice.  Again, nothing
> > wrong with this, if it is done fairly.
> >
> > The problem with WLS is that it UNFAIRLY reapportions the
> > "pie" so that
> > VeriSign would get a fat slice, while registrars would get a much
> > smaller piece than they do now.  It would have a major,
> > negative impact
> > on many currently profitable businesses.  Nothing wrong with
> > offering a
> > product that negatively impacts your competitor's business,
> > but we are
> > not VeriSign's competitor, we are your CUSTOMER!
> >
> > The reason it is unfair is because of VeriSign's unique
> > position as the
> >     only entity able to offer WLS.  Should a registrar become
> > dissatisfied with WLS service, there would be no one else who could
> > offer them a similar service at a better price, with better customer
> > service, etc.  The only choice would be to resell or not
> > resell the WLS.
> >   This is not the American way!  Admittedly, a similar
> > situation exists
> > with .com registrations, but we are afforded protections from
> > arbitrary
> > price increases, service level decreases, etc., through the contracts
> > with ICANN.  No such protections have even been hinted at in
> > regard to WLS.
> >
> > Well, that was a little long-winded, but I hope I have clarified our
> > point #3.  Thanks again for hearing us.
> >
> > Mike Brown
> > All West Communications, Inc. D/B/A AWRegistry
> >
> >
> > Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for your feedback Mike.  I have just one request of
> > you: please
> > > help me understand how the WLS would aid speculators any
> > more than the
> > > current process especially if it is priced at a higher level.  My
> > > opinion is that the current process greatly aids
> > speculators and there
> > > seems to be lots of evidence to support that.  So if you
> > don't want the
> > > WLS because you think it aids speculators, you must be
> > opposed to the
> > > current process.  But since you state below that you do not have
> > > problems with the current auto pool, I am confused.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > >
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Mike [mailto:mike@awregistry.net]
> > >>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:00 PM
> > >>To: cgomes@verisign.com
> > >>Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > >>Subject: WLS Comments
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Dear Mr. Gomes,
> > >>
> > >>All West Communications, Inc. (AWRegistry) is opposed to the
> > >>proposed VeriSign WLS for the following reasons:
> > >>
> > >>1.  We believe implementation of the WLS will force upon us
> > >>significant changes to the way we do business, thus necessitating
> > >>spending on unplanned costs and business expenses, while
> > >>seriously and negatively impacting an important revenue stream,
> > >>specifically registrations of recently deleted domain names.
> > >>
> > >>2.  We believe WLS will negatively impact the businesses of many
> > >>resellers and speculators, who will no longer be able to register
> > >>expired domain names in the same ways they do now.  They too will
> > >>incur unplanned costs in order to continue their businesses.
> > >>
> > >>3.  The WLS seems to be specifically designed to aid speculators,
> > >>but moves much of the revenue generated by this speculation from
> > >>registrars to registry.  Our opinion is that this is an abuse of the
> > >>registry's position as the only entity able to offer this service as
> > >>proposed.
> > >>
> > >>4.  We do not believe that the stated goals of WLS, which are:
> > >>
> > >>          to provide both (1) a new, streamlined business
> > >>          opportunity for the entire registrar community,
> > >>          and (2) some measure of relief in dealing with
> > >>          the deleted domains issue.
> > >>
> > >>will be successfully met.  On (1), while it does provide a new
> > >>product offering, we think it will not make up for the adverse
> > >>effects it will have on existing markets.  On (2), there will
> > >>continue to be heavy traffic in the auto pool for registrations
> > >>of deleted names that have no WLS subscriptions.  Also, we do not
> > >>see significant problems with the current auto pool.  Our
> > >>"pounding" of the server during drop times does not seem to crash
> > >>the server, nor does it cause problems in the normal pool.  We
> > >>think the auto pool was a good solution to a problem which is no
> > >>more, and if there are still technical problems, they should be
> > >>solved by technical means.
> > >>
> > >>5.  We believe the current system of deletions is a fair and
> > >>efficient way to re-allocate expired names to registrants, providing
> > >>many choices to registrants, registrars, and resellers, and enabling
> > >>various thriving markets in deleted domain names.
> > >>
> > >>6.  We do not believe it is ethical to sell "chances" of anything.
> > >>To be specific, we think that by selling a WLS subscription, we
> > >>would be selling a chance to register a domain name if and only if
> > >>the name is deleted within the subscription period.  There isn't
> > >>even any way to calculate the odds that a particular name will ever
> > >>be deleted.  Though legally WLS would probably not fall into the
> > >>category of a lottery, we think many consumers would be duped into
> > >>buying WLS subscriptions that will never come to fruition.  Some
> > >>may take on a "gambler" mentality and buy subscriptions for high
> > >>profile names (the business.com type), knowing that they probably
> > >>won't be deleted; but some people can't resist the urge to gamble.
> > >>We want no part of that.
> > >>
> > >>Thank you for accepting our comments.
> > >>
> > >>Sincerely,
> > >>
> > >>Mike Brown
> > >>Project Manager
> > >>All West Communications, Inc. D/B/A AWRegistry
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>