ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few


Title: Message

Paul,

 

I've responded below to any new questions, but not repeated answers where they have already been given before, in the interest of everyone's time.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura@enom.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, January 15, 2002 6:10 PM
To: Ron Wiener; 'ga@dnso.org'; 'icann-delete@total.confusion.net'
Subject: RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

 

Ron,

 

Also, thanks for the stats, but the real informative stats would be

what percent of SnapBack ripen in the first month.  That is the

stat that will tell us all how many of your customers are mainstream users,

not the stats you gave.

 

>> Before I post any further confidential company data to a public listserv, Paul, I'd like to see you provide evidence of some of your business model claims.  Including:

-     How many registrars' connections does eNom control besides it own?

-     How many club drop members are there?

-     How many connections does each member get to utilize?

-     How many names does each member get, on average, for their $2500 monthly fee?

-     What percentage of the club drop members are speculators?

-     What percentage of the club drop members' target names are beyond expiration? Beyond delete command?

-     What will happen to club drop members' performance expectations when V-Registrar stops deleting in batches?

 

2)  I think you are flat-out wrong in your characterization of the registrar conference call.

Nice attempt at spinning it as much as you can toward WLS, though.

Please note that there was not one single registrar who

voted "for" the WLS service.  None.

 

>> They were not given the option of voting for "yes, with modifications" but rather railroaded to vote for either "yes, as is" or "no, as is" or "abstain."  BTW, you can't claim V-Registrar as both voting against the proposal (which they did not) and being obviously for it because of some conspiracy theory advantage they would have.  Pick one.

 

Some said that under no

circumstances would they offer WLS to their customers.

 

>> True.  Four registrars who did not disclose having a vested self-interest in maintaining the status quo voted in this manner.  Out of 96.  75 haven't even spoken on it as yet.

 

I could tell by their voices and words that they are outraged not just about

WLS and it effect on competition, but about the "its already done" press releases. 

 

>> Our press releases clearly stated the fact that the system is proposed, not enacted.  We can't control editors.  We can't control registrars spreading misinformation to the press.

 

And those who vote "no to WLS" do not have an interest in maintaining

the status quo, as you say they do. 

 

>> Going by the votes in the distributed notes, this is not true.

 

Since Montevideo (or for that matter, ever), I have not heard

any registrar say they support WLS. 

 

>> WLS wasn't even announced until Dec 30th.  I agree completely Paul - between Sept 7th and Dec 30th no registrar ever said they'd support the WLS.  Because they never heard of it.

 

 

 

regarding WLS on registrant's own names....

I recommend, that if WLS is implemented, and I do not

recommend that it is, that registrants be prohibited from

getting WLS on their own name since there is no purpose

to it. I think Rick is saying that without this, these mainstream

users will be duped into paying the exorbitant fee for nothing.

 

>> Enough with this red herring "duping" issue.  Are you seriously suggesting that some registrars would stoop so low as to "dupe" unwitting customers into buying a WLS subscription on their own name?  I'm sorry, I don't buy it. 

 

 

regarding load...

I was surprised to hear you and Chuck say that

WLS is not intended to solve the load problem. 

 

>> WLS was *never* put forth as a solution for the load problem.  There have been many other good suggestions for dealing with the load problem, but they are in no way related to the merits of the WLS.  The WLS should have a positive impact on preventing *further* degradation as more registrars continue to get into the secondary name marketplace, can't possibly have a negative impact (as other proposed methods do), but was never proposed as the solution to this problem. 

 

This means that we all agree that someone will have to implement

another method to fix *that* (the load) problem.  Also, if WLS is not intended

to solve the load problem, what problem is it solving?

 

>> As primary domain name sales continue to decline many registrars are minding their bottom line and seeking new products to offer to their customers.  The secondary market is obviously lucrative or there wouldn't be such intense infighting over it.  WLS allows ALL registrars, not just a select few, to participate in the secondary market as a vital new revenue source, without impacting the registry *further*.  The WLS solves a very long-standing problem that mainstream customers have had, that they are willing to pay registrars to solve for them, and WLS addresses that better than any other proposal.   



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>