Re: [ga] Survey Results - thank you for participating in study of secondar y name costs
--- Ron Wiener <Ron@Snapnames.com> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> Quite a few registrars and professional speculators participated in a
> over the past few days, to help us all better understand the
> economics of
> their businesses and how they might be affected by WLS. The results
> of this
> survey are attached. We thank those of you who participated for your
> and cooperation.
Can you post in plain text, or link to HTML on the web? Sending PDFs
that are above the 10K posting limit (on the GA list) and that are
difficult to quote from isn't useful.
I find it extremely odd that SnapNames is now attempting to claim that
they and Verisign didn't bring up the issue of registry load, now
dismissing it as a "red herring". This was the *justification* for the
proposal in the first place. Now that it's been disproven, you claim
that detractors brought it up! The only red herrings are the ones that
Verisign/SnapNames bring up, that opponents of the proposal have had to
spend time educating others about. Trying to suggest a "test", when
your company would earn $20 million during that test, while existing
competitors would be wiped out completely is something you should
disclose. I don't see SnapNames "responding to concerns" (paragraph 1)
about how the plan is anything but a cash-grab that is
anti-competitive. Why not list which of the existing competitors would
still be able to run their business models under the WLS?
Now it appears gears have been shifted, and the justification for the
WLS is that it's a "ready to implement solution to a number of problems
in the status quo, such as the absence of an ordered process for
distributing expiring domain names, and the practical reality that most
mainstream name seekers are 'frozen out' of the secondary market by
speculators who purchase preferred access to connections."
1) Isn't SnapNames CURRENTLY paying registrars for preferred access to
connections? ("consideration" of some sort, can be indirect) Yes or no?
1.a) Will NSI/SnapNames provide stats, broken down by registrars, as to
the number of checks/queries/etc. per month? (i.e. who are the real
culprits on "load"? let's get some stats)
2) Why do we need an "ordered process", where Verisign/Snapnames would
put existing competitors out of business and secure 100% of the market
and profits for themselves, when the existing "unordered process" seems
to be functioning just fine? Isn't competition, by it's very nature,
unordered? If eNom, NameWinner, NicGenie, IARegistry, AWRegistry and
other competitors are kicking your butt, and new entrants are cropping
up in the market to provide consumers with choice, Verisign/SnapNames
better provide a better reason why they want to impose a new monopoly
2) Unless someone is violating a trademark and loses a name via UDRP,
who is SnapNames to say that one owner of a name is "mainstream" and
has a higher claim on any name? Especially coming from a company whose
biggest customers are speculators (I don't use that term in a bad way),
what makes you think SnapNames has any credibility in suggesting a
higher price helps "the market", when at the same time SnapNames would
profit more from a high price (supposing a proposed monopolistic WLS
took hold)? The suggestions are obviously self-serving. Under your
logic, shouldn't the registry be charging $500 per name, instead of $6
per name, in order to reduce rampant speculation in the primary market?
3) Who cares what speculators or any party is paying on an average cost
now? What did Verisign/SnapNames do to make them think that they
*deserve* a *guaranteed* share of that? Certainly the invention of a
"waiting list" has been around for hundreds of years and isn't
something novel. Right now, SnapNames might have 30% or whatever market
share of the expired names business, and new entrants continue to
innovate. Currently, I can choose from a variety of business models,
and I value that, as do many others. True competitors like eNom and
NameWinner have my respect as they fight in the trenches every day,
instead of trying to impose monopolies.
3.a) SnapNames neglects to mention that under many competing systems,
one only pays for a name if it is successfully caught. e.g.
NameWinner's $50 average price of a name is only on those that are
caught! One doesn't need to pay SnapNames $69, for a *chance* at a
name, when it's cheaper to go with a different firm and only pay for
4) You write "the WLS will have little impact on the price speculators
pay or the rate at which they buy; what *will* change will be that
speculators will be joined by mainstream customers." Don't you also
neglect to mention that what will also change (for your own company's
benefit) is that SnapNames/Verisign also just happen to get a
guaranteed piece of every transaction in the future, which is much
different than today? And that piece will be essentially the entire
pie, as competition amongst resellers of the WLS drives their margin to
$1 or $2 above cost? Also, please provide a single example of a
"mainstream" buyer who had a higher claim on a name than anyone else
under the current system. I imagine someone had a SnapBack on the names
"Beijing.com" and "compare.com" when they dropped recently, for
instance. Did the current system fail for those names? UltSearch
acquired both of those names, but didn't use SnapNames. Is UltSearch
"mainstream" when they use a SnapBack, but an "abusive speculator" or
part of the "armies of speculators" that SnapNames "goes to war with
everyday" when they use a competing service?
5) Is SnapNames in favour of the "Let's Make George Kirikos a
Multi-Millionaire Proposal"? If not, why not? Certainly it solves all
the fictional problems that Verisign/SnapNames claim exist at present.
Why not try a 1 year test of that system? I'd be very eager to see
SnapNames/Verisign attempt to give reasons against the "Let's Make
George Kirikos a Multi-Millionaire Proposal", as I suspect those are
very similar to the reasons folks oppose the WLS. Indeed, I offer that
up as an open invitation and challenge to you. :)
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html