DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] Re: [icann-delete] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

George and all assembly members,

  George, you make some really good points here from a
financial strategy point of view.  But in reality or the real world,
those aspects of the WLS proposal are only partly the problem
with the proposal.

  I have to agree with Jeff Feld in his comments to a great degree
see: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00604.html
When he said, "IMHO, the delete/load problem will absolutely
vanish if WLS is implemented.  Why?  Because all names of
any substantial value will always have subscriptions, all names
of lesser value that get near or go past their expiration date
will soon get subscribed (on a rolling basis), and names that
have no value at all will just go away.  IOW, any name in
the registry worth anything to a speculator or otherwise
will be registered by utilizing WLS, not by snagging it
at mass delete time.  The only names that will be mass
deleted will be names that have no value.  And, if the
names being deleted have no value, it would naturally
follow that no one will be hitting the registry to register
those names.  And, if no one is hitting the registry at
mass delete time, well, there goes the load on the
registry and,  there also goes the delete problem."
====End quote=====

  I would not have gone quite as far as Jeff Feld did
ins saying that Price, if low, would absolutely eliminate
the load problem however.  But that is another issue
entirely in and of itself.  But it is at least likely that
the lower the price for a WLS position the more
DN's of little value will be re-registered, thereby
aiding in the reduction of load in the delete process.
But the law of diminishing returns will come into play
at some point even here.

  So this this extent "Price" is a big issue.  Now
the other area that you touched upon with respect to
price, George is a different matter entirely.  I can't
see WLS if implemented would put anyone out of business.
Even if it had a huge effect, that is how the business world
in small areas such as this sometimes work.  But they rarely
remain static in terms of competition.

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
> --- Eric Schneider <eric@unames.com> wrote:
> > Registrars are concerned about how they can make money from WLS
> > without
> > having flashbacks of the cut throat thin margins of providing domain
> > name
> > registration services.  The burning question is how can registrars
> > and for
> > that matter all constituencies get paid fairly from this newly
> > proposed
> > service?
> When you start talking about "getting paid fairly", you're opening the
> anti-trust door. There's a fixed amount of value due to the intrinsic
> value of the names themselves. WLS isn't providing a valuable service
> -- the value, as others have also pointed out, is in the name itself.
> Competition as we have now amongst registrars and different business
> models ensures that consumers and registrars alike are getting a fair
> price.
> > provide reusability services.  If you disagree that it is not the
> > Registry's
> > responsibility to manage such services then I encourage you to run
> > your own
> > Registry and elect not to.
> Sure, I'll do it for less than the $180 million per year that Verisign
> charges. How about it, Chuck? :) This is simply a ploy by Verisign to
> enter a new market where there already exists competition, and take it
> over.
> > Just because WLS, if implemented, may stifle other secondary market
> > models
> > does not mean in the slightest that WLS stifles competition amongst
> > registrars.  Currently, secondary market models and proposals other
> Competition is stifled. All that happens is that existing competitors
> get the privilege of being resellers of Verisign services, instead of
> being allowed to innovate as they are now.
> > than WLS
> > seem only interested in solving the problem of recycling domain names
> > upon
> > or after the domain name expiry date.  By nature, there is little
> > flexibility of any model that manages domain name reusability before
> > the
> > expiry date.  The bottom line is that there are only so many ways to
> > roll-out a WLS type service and I challenge anyone to propose new
> > models
> > that solve the issues of reusability before expiration.
> It's been admitted that there exist no issues of reusability. The WLS
> proposal and the pounding of the registry have been de-coupled, since
> VRSN can easily fix the problem of load by implementing the technical
> fixes that they've refused to do so.
> > Face it, registering a domain name or registering a back-order is a
> > vanilla
> > process where the dimension of competition is limited only to price.
> SnapNames has suggested that folks can innovate on the basis of colour
> schemes and jazzy graphics on a website. I know when I'm shopping for
> domain services, having a fancy graphic makes me willing to pay 60%
> margins! :) [sarcasm, for the humour-impaired]
> > Personally speaking, I am in disgust over the devolved science of the
> > insane
> > free-for-all hoarding of dropped domain names like a gold rush in the
> > wild
> > west while being patronized by the propaganda of registrars claiming
> > that
> > they are doing this on my behalf, for my benefit, the consumer.  Grow
> > up and
> > stop belittling the consumer by assuming that the only substantial
> > market
> > group is that of a speculator.  Keep your eye on the ball stupid and
> > remember that you are in the subscription business, the first rule of
> > which
> > is to retain subscribership.
> A cleaner argument could not be made AGAINST the WLS, by those words.
> Verisign can and should have no problem continuing to make $6 per name,
> regardless of whether or not it was previously registered. Any WLS or
> other proposal is making it more valuable to lose a subscribership
> rather than get a renewal.
> > Personally, I think that the first-time purchase of a back-order
> > should be treated as a fixed expense of sorts.  There should be no
> > price competition between registrars for the initial purchase with
> > the price set at $100 for anyone, anytime, and anywhere.  By so
> > doing all constituencies including ICANN, Registry, and Registrar
> > get paid fairly.
> You leave out the "registrant". Basically, your pricing scheme is a
> centrally-planned model, similar to what central-planners did under
> communism. They'd set a price based on what they thought was "fair",
> rather than allowing the market to set the price and mechanism through
> competition. To be blunt, if you want to be a central planner and want
> a price that is "fair", you should not be in the domain business, which
> is run on free-market principles. I'll rely on a competitive
> marketplace to determine prices and valid business models, rather than
> a single individual (you), monopolist (Verisign), or cartel (all
> registrars co-ordinating to price-fix).
> Since that competitive market exists now, you'd better provide a darn
> good reason why you want to interfere in it. Saying that "system load
> is too high" obviously isn't one of those good reasons (problem is
> fixed easily, and Verisign/SnapNames have backed off the suggestion
> that WLS solves system load). Saying that "I'm not making enough money
> in this existing competitive market, thus I want to corner it" is not a
> good reason either.
> Sincerely,
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
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 >>>