DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNames stats


--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
> Are you opposed to VeriSign Registry making a profit?

No, not at all. I don't believe it should be taking over an existing
industry, one with numerous business models and competitors, to offer a
system that makes me and many others worse off. Those others *include*
many registrars who are happy with things the way they are now.
> How would this put existing market participants out of business? 

Under this proposed regime, are you saying that I can continue to
contract with NameWinner to try to catch an expiring premium name (such
as Cheerleaders.com or Beijing.com or Compare.com), even if someone
else has the WLS slot on that name? Will NameWinner still be in

> What
> would prevent you from participating in this?

Under a current system such as NameWinner, or private systems, I only
pay for a name if I get it. They're able to make a profit charging only
$25 RETAIL on many names they catch, yet Verisign's minimum price will
be $46 WHOLESALE (although, a competitive retail market will probably
end up being $1 or $2 above WHOLESALE -- great profits for the other
registrars that have been forced out of their business models). 

Are you open to Dotster/NameWinner or other market participants making
a counterproposal to your offer to registrars? If they wish to make a
proposal, what consensus/conditions do you believe constitute
"acceptance" of their proposal, that will satisfy you that you should
abandon your WLS proposal?


George Kirikos

> Chuck
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Kirikos [mailto:gkirikos@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 9:36 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: ga@dnso.org; discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > Subject: RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNames
> > stats
> > 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
> > > George,
> > > 
> > > VeriSign profit is totally irrelevant as to the competitive
> market.
> > > Please help me understand what is noncompetitive?  Every
> registrar
> > > would
> > > have equal opportunity to participate or not participate, their
> > > individual choice.  It is your perogorative to be opposed 
> > to VeriSign
> > > Registry making a profit, but please don't use that as an
> argument
> > > related to competitiveness.
> > 
> > I'm not opposed to Verisign registrar making a profit, if it
> offered a
> > Drop Service that operated at the registrar level, similar to
> existing
> > market participants such as Snapnames, eNom, NameWinner, etc. (I've
> > sent a list in a prior message). My problem is leveraging the
> monopoly
> > power of the registry, to enter a "new business", which puts
> existing
> > market participants out of business (surely all existing market
> > participants would not be able to continue in their business with
> the
> > proposed regime, but would be forced to only resell WLS
> subscriptions,
> > or exit the business entirely. That's anti-competitive, and removes
> > opportunities for innovation.
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > George Kirikos
> > http://www.kirikos.com/

Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
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

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