Re: [ga] WLS Questions

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

So, in other words, you think that a bunch of people are going to sit around
having a "fair lottery" to get the domain name, when all anyone needs to do
is to pay off the prior registrant in order to head off the lottery?

I don't follow the logic here.  This "fix" boils down to "have the prior
registrant conduct an auction".

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>

> What would fix the WLS issue would be to have a period after a domain
> expired, where anyone who wanted it could express intereset, and there
would
> be a fair lottery to see who got it.     And, at any point before the
> lottery, the old domain holder should be able to get it back.
>
> Jamie
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Berryhill" <john@johnberryhill.com>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 12:13 AM
> Subject: [ga] WLS Questions
>
>
> :
> : I'm trying to understand this notion of how a monopoly WLS, which
> guarantees
> : only one person a crack at an expiring name, is "fair" relative to
> multiple
> : competing services, and would appreciate hearing from someone who (a)
> : believes it is fair, and (b) is not associated with SnapNames or
Verisign.
> :
> : Chuck Gomes has said that something like 50% of SnapNames customers are
> : speculators instead of "average" domain name registrants.  Leaving aside
> the
> : question of how a population of 50% of anything is not "average", or the
> : methodology used to read the minds of the other 50% to determine their
> : motivation, then can someone clue me in to how 50% of WLS position
holders
> : are NOT going to be speculators?
> :
> : Snapbacks are $69 a pop, and we are told half of them are owned by
> : speculators.  So, the point here is that SnapNames wants to have 50%
fewer
> : customers?  Or they want to charge 100% of them twice as much money in
> order
> : to get rid of the "bad" customers while keeping the "good" customers?
> :
> : And with the "price high enough to discourage speculation" idea, what is
> the
> : evidence that speculators don't have more money than these "average"
> : registrants for whom we are trying to make things "fair"?
> :
> : And if we aren't going to have a dispute resolution procedure for people
> who
> : take up WLS slots on expiring domain names that are someone else's
> : trademarks, then what is the point of making the identity of WLS slot
> : holders known?
> :
> : I have to take my hat off to the guy with enough chutzpah to tell a
Senate
> : subcommittee that ICANN was strangling consumer choice and competition by
> : refusing to introduce a monopoly service that would replace several
> : competing services to do the same thing.  Doing that and avoiding
> dizziness
> : at the same time is an admirable feat.
> :
> : --
> : 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
> :
> :
> :
>
>
>

--
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