[ga] Re: WLS pricing proposal

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>]

Hello,

--- "Lee Hodgson, DomainGuru.com" <guru@domainguru.com> wrote:
> Hello George,
> 
> > That's an illegal cartel. It's anti-competitive for the monopolist
> > registry to enforce price controls on the retailers. It's like a
> music
> > company telling CD retailers that they have to all charge $20 per
> CD.
> > Simply illegal in most countries. In the US, one can start one's
> > research on the antitrust issue at:
> 
> What I am proposing is that Verisign themselves launch the service at
> $69.95, and registrars become 'partners' or 'affiliates' who get
> rewarded
> for referring clients. That practice exists on virtually every
> commercial
> web site on the Net. If it's not possible for the registry to launch
> their
> own service, then fine, the proposal is a non-starter. I'm just
> trying to
> think of ideas the same as everyone else.

Those other commercial websites with affiliate programs have a lot of
competition already (e.g. Amazon.com and BN.com are competitors, and
have affiliate programs; that's fine). For instance, at the *registrar*
level, I'm sure Verisign, Register.com and others have affiliate
programs or the equivalent, to use as marketing tools in competitive
markets for domain registration.

However it's a much different thing to take an existing market which is
already competitive (domain drops), and transform it into a monopoly,
killing off the existing competitors, and turning them forcibly into
"affiliates".

It's equivalent to suggesting that Verisign eliminate competition in
the registrar market, by forcing all existing registrars to be
marketing partners of Verisign, and get affiliate fees as a percentage
of the $35 that Verisign charges retail. Killing off a competitive
market and replacing it with a monopoly (even one with "affiliates") is
unacceptable behaviour.

> > Indeed, that's why the entire WLS as proposed is in the scrap heap.
> > There already exist innovative competitors in the registrar space
> (I
> > enumerated at least 10 in prior posts) serving the expired names
> > market, and I'm sure even more innovation is ahead, as long as
> Verisign
> > doesn't interfere in this market. Verisign registrar is open to
> > compete, but not at the registry level which would stifle
> competition.
> 
> Which scrap heap is that in? Do you think WLS won't go ahead, and
> registrars
> will be free to continue name grabbing after March 20th?

Yes, it's dead. If it's not, I'm sure ICANN, the US Department of
Justice and the FTC will hear complaints.
 
> > If you have your own expired names service, you're free to launch
> such
> > a system in the current competitive market (for instance, you can
> > associate with one or more of the registrars, or SnapNames, or
> > ExpireFish, NameWinner, NicGenie, eNom, AWRegistry, IArRegistry,
> etc.
> > or go it alone).
> 
> Why would I launch a service today that will probably become obsolete
> by
> March 20th?

Business is always a gamble. "No guts, no glory."

Actually, just as you suggest for your own service, this proposal in
itself has already affected the market in an anti-competitive way, 
through the creation of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). I'm sure
Verisign has learned well by studying Microsoft in pre-announcing
products, to stifle competition and upset existing competitors and
new-entrants like yourself.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
--
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