[ga] Answers please.

[Harold Whiting <Harold@PeterWhiting.com>]

At 09:46 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, Ron Wiener wrote:
>Walsh,
>
>The data is based on only active subscriptions in our system, not historical
>sales records.  You can't get fresher data than this.  If you refuse to read
>the material, I refuse to answer any more of your unproductive questions.  
>
>-Ron

again with the impudent arrogant disrespect, shame on you.  His name is
either "William", William Walsh", or even "Mr. Walsh".  Does your disregard
for common courtesy  infer that we should simply address you as "Wiener"?
Let's not degrade this discussion any further with this kind of nonsense, ok?
==========================

Now, Ron, please answer this:

Q: you registered ~23,500 names in 2001 True/False?

Q: you had ~$3M in revenues in 2001  True/False?

The "majority" of SnapBacks miraculously "ripen" within 60 days.  You have
made this statement repeatedly, so I will not ask you True/False.

Q: Since you have not offered the shorter 12 month SnapBack subscription
for anywhere close to a year, you cannot supply us with empirical data to
support an answer to the question that many of us really want to know - How
many SnapBacks go to term and expire without ever providing the subscriber
with a name?  This group would likely be largely made up of all of your
precious "Jills" and "mainstream consumers" and not "domain speculators",
and do not give me the "IP Community" BS here, please.
Basically, How many people end up with nothing to show for thier money?

Q: Simple math, assuming the above figures are in line, shows us that even
at the higher SnapBack cost of $49, the names registered in 2001 can only
account for less than $1.2M  I doubt that you can tell us with a straight
face that you really sold ~$1.8M worth of "SnapShot" subscriptions, did you?

That leaves us with well over 50% of all SnapBack subscriptions sold last
year unfulfilled. Yet you claim that "the majority" ripen in the first 60 days?

I have no reason to believe that, if WLS were to be put in place,  the
percentage of unfulfilled subscriptions would change by much.  This would
mean, at a 5% level (as you have suggested) that over 700,000 people may
simply be "throwing thier money away". Call me old fashioned, but to me
this seems wrong to even contemplate offering such a thing to the public.
I have seen concerns about this type of thing brought up by many different
registrars, always with no response from SnapNames or VGRS to assure us
that anything would prevent this.  I see it as becoming the majority of the
WLS subscriptions, if implemented as proposed, due to FUD.  This concerns
me, as a consumer, to think that the Registrar business will now be forced
to sell a product to unsuspecting "main stream" consumers that has a likely
chance of providing those same consumers with absolutely no performance for
thier money.  Does the Registrar Industry need more "Black Clouds" of
unscrupulous behavior hanging over it?  Oh, I forgot... It is for the
Public good because it "fights" the "abusive speculators".  Personally, I
see this whole proposal as Predatory itself.

Q: What is the Patent Pending on your "technology"?  Where is it filed?

Q: Were VeriSign to implement some similar process by themselves, without
SnapNames, since SnapNames would not be able to operate as they are now,
would SnapNames sue VeriSign?  If so, what would this suit be for, patent
infringement or Anti Trust violations?  I expect no answer to this question.



Harold Whiting
--
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