Re: [ga] WLS

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

> > > Dramatically increase the cost for whom?  Registrars, speculators? or
> > > consumers?
> >
> > Please provide a meaningful distinction between a "speculator" and a
> > "consumer".
>
> Speculators register domain names for the primary intent of reselling
> them later for a profit.  Consumers don't have resale as a primary
> intent.

I suppose I should have qualified "meaningful", to avoid a studied disregard
of context.  Let me put it this way.  When the registry receives $6 for a
domain name, how does the mental state of the registrant alter that $6?
Additionally, what distinction is made in the registry data between a
"speculator" and a "consumer".

If we are discussing a proposal to regulate social behavior, fine.  But let's
be clear about that.  Because there is no economic or technical distinction
to be made here.

And, let's be clear, a bulk registrant who acquires many domain names in
order to capitalize on traffic, rather than to sell the domain names is not a
"speculator", correct?  Because I get the impression that some folks equate
"bulk registrant" with "speculator".  The fact is that most of the people of
whom I'm aware which have sizeable numbers of domain names have learned long
ago that there is more money in developing traffic from them than selling
them.

>As you know, the law is quite capable of using intent as a
> meaningful distinguishing characteristic.  In general, you are making a
> "slippery slope" argument, and, again, as you know, slippery slope
> arguments are not valid.

A "slippery slope" to what?

Let's recap... half of snapbacks are admitted to be held by "speculators".
SnapNames wants to grandfather snapbacks into the WLS.  In their report, they
say that ICANN will be sued if they aren't grandfathered.  So we know,
already, that half of the WLS positions are going to be held by speculators
on the very day that WLS starts.  You want to guess what is happening with
snapback sales right now?  Duh.  People are already staking out their WLS
turf pre-emptively.  Those are the facts as they stand today - it is not a
"slippery slope" to anything.  On day one, half of all WLS positions will be
held by speculators, and that is the admitted and undisputed present fact.

Now, if you read the long Part II screed that SnapNames has published on this
thing, it basically says that the current system is "unfair" because people
with a lot of money are better at getting what they want than people who do
not have a lot of money.  We are also provided with a lovely short story
about someone from a socialist country who has a hard time dealing with that
simple fact of the free world.

The SnapNames report also says that these speculators are paying acquisition
costs of between sixty and one hundred dollars per name.  Then, the SnapNames
report says that a price point of $35 will discourage speculators.

WLS is going to be great for speculators.  And, what's even better, the
exclusivity and certainty of a WLS position renders the position itself to be
a thing of speculative value.

The WLS folks are beginning to sound more and more like IOD's .web folks. "I
can't get the exclusive franchise I want from ICANN, so I'm going to piss and
moan at increasing volume."  And also, just like IOD, they want to bring
their pre-registered customers in with the deal.

The SnapNames report makes it clear that with enough money, the present
system allows people to get what they want.  Tell me something new.  Just TRY
getting a TLD that way.  You want to talk about an exclusive market
barrier...



--
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