[ga] Re: Fw: [RegistrarsList] Updated WLS Documents
I really don't see too very much different in this new/revised
proposal. It still contains almost, if not all, of the objectionable
elements. The only difference I see is the marketing spin on the
objections -- I mean no disrespect, but that is how I see it.
Moreover, the revised proposal dismisses certain objections because
they have no proven and factual foundation, but it espouses its own
set of facts, which also have no foundation -- for instance (to pick
on only two statements):
1. "The fact is that offering the WLS at the registry-level is the only way to
maximize consumer value for such a service."
2. "Given all the relevant facts, the purchaser is free to decide how
much it is worth and to act accordingly."
I think that reasonable minds can probably agree that when there is
only one source of supply, that the consumer will pay the tax man,
because they have NO CHOICE. That is NOT FREE ENTERPRISE, excuse my
french and thank you very much! My very humble TX nose knows the
difference between chicken salad and chicken -- or is it bull -- both
work in TX . . .
Folks, my view is that this is a marketing proposal. It is an
opportunity for the Registry to turn their systems problem into an
opportunity. I love the marketing folks when they think -- that is
what makes companies a lot of money. These are good marketing people
and they know how to work a crowd and turn around those objections
into opportunities and sales. But, let's cut to the core fundamentals
and examine the true problem -- and let's not be dazzled into an
unproven fairy tale world.
1. The Registry has impact on its systems which caused a DOS on the
mainstream registration of names. O.K. they came up with a "fix." No
one thinks it is the final solution and everyone thinks it is a
non-issue - that is, there is no current choking of the mainstream system at
this time (from what I've seen on this and other lists).
2. The Registry says, (again from what I've read), that there needs to
be a long term fix to this issue. O.K. However, I've read that is not
the reason for the WLS proposal . . . Hmmnm, really? Then, what is the
reason? Does the Registry then want another contract to sell a new
product/service? If so, then why is there any compulsion to sell
anyone else on the idea or concept? Is it just dependant on what side
of the street the marketing wind is blowing at the time? . . .
Let's cut to the chase. The Registry has certain obligations under
its contract. If the landscape has changed (i.e. the dropped domains
are really a problem and handling it costs more overhead than
anticipated), then their forum is with the entity covered by the
contract -- ICANN. On the other hand, I understand why they are
marketing this as a policy change - simple math is 35 + 6 = 41.
That's a pretty good improvement in the landscape and, as a publicly
held company they are on the Wall Street Treadmill -- I understand
all of the motivation and, also, the justification. It's called
However, regardless of my understanding of the motivation, it just
doesn't make sense to turn over the keys to the hen house to the fox.
Let's not forget who "brung us" to the party and why we are here.
As for the proprietary nature of the Registry's costs, I absolutely
agree, that the core fiber of their business is confidential. However,
I also recognize that no-one has publicly supported the idea that
there is a substantial overhead to pay per subscription ($35 - 6 = 29
-- really?). If that is the case, then I suggest that the Registry
may have made a very bad deal -- of course, if you can just be the
only game in town and pile your profit on top, well, then, it doesn't
really matter very much. However, it still matters to the consumer
and the general public, but that may not be very important when
walking the "Wall Street Treadmill."
I do not see any value in this proposal when I reflect upon it from
the consumer's point of view. There is no service differentiation.
Some, however, may take less margin, but there is really nothing which
really distinguishes on Registrar from another. I don't call that
competition. However, from the Registy's point of view, they get to eat
the whole banana and put on poundage . . . . Do I dare call that a
monopoly -- Yes, I Dare to Do So, because that is Exactly what is is.
Therefore, can we not recognize the motivation for this proposal and
all of the reasons why it should be defeated? Let's start with
justification about why any consumer, speculator or otherwise, should
be required to pay $41 for one domain name. Also, as the documents has
said, a lot of facts are not in evidence, the fact requiring this cost
is only just one of them.
So there is no mistake, (although my colleagues on this list are not
dumb, by any means), I am opposed with the maximum of resolve to this
proposal. It is anti-competitive, monopolistic, consumer unfriendly
and regardless of how it is shaded, a bad thing for Joe Consumer. I
am, therefore, an adversary to the success of this proposal and I
shall do everything within my power to defeat it.
Then, I'll take a walk in the park . . .
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc.
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55 (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html