RE: [ga] WLS

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

After re-reading my post,
below, I meant 
"2) buying the WLS from Registrar B for the same $X, "
not
"2) buying the WLS from Registrar A for the same $X, "

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura@enom.com]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 11:49 AM
To: 'jfield@aaaq.com'; Joe Sims; ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS


Joe Sims, 
please see below

you said:
> I have been following the discussions on this subject, and must 
> confess that
> I still am confused about exactly what this (and the many other similar
> statements that have appeared from others) really mean.  Could someone
> explain to me precisely how the WLS would harm consumers and/or 
> registrars?
> I understand, I think, the point that this would be a new service that
> provides revenue for VeriSign (assuming, of course, that someone actually
> buys it), and I understand that having more revenue will give 
> VeriSign more
> resources, and more resources will give it more financial ammunition with
> which to compete with its competitors, including other registrars.  And I
> understand that, because this reservation service (and only this service,
> given the fact that there is only one .com registry) will be able to offer
> more certainty than other competing reservation services, it may have a
> competitive advantage over those competing products, which some 
> people think
> is unfair.  But I get the impression that at least some people 
> believe that
> there is more to the competitive concern than these point?  If that is
> right, could someone lay it out for me simply and clearly, so that even I
> can understand it?  Thanks.

You and ICANN have painstakingly setup 
fair competition among registrars, and WLS would, IMO
make the playing field uneven because different registrars
buy the names at different costs.  Sure, the dollar amount
paid to the registry would be the same (the magnitude 
of this mount is another issue), 
but the cost in *risk* would be different for different registrars.

I'll try to be simple and clear in my explanation of just this one concern:
Only Verisign-the-registrar knows which names Verisign-the-registrar is
about to delete.  
Verisign-the-registrar can then offer the WLS on these
names to customers with less risk that they will actually be 
deleted than any other registrar can.  
(If they are not actually deleted, the cost of the WLS will be wasted 
by the WLS subscriber. One reason is because the subscriber can switch 
the WLS to another name only a limited number of times, 
and removing this limit does not remove this problem)  

Obviously if a subscriber had the choice of:
1) buying the WLS from Registrar A for $X, 
knowing for sure that they will get the name
since they know for sure the name will be deleted
or
2) buying the WLS from Registrar A for the same $X, 
NOT knowing for sure that they will get the name,
since they don't know the name will actually be deleted.

They will pick the less risky (actually certain) number 1.

Even though the price Verisign-the-registrar
pays to the registry is the same as any other registrar, the risk
is less (zero) that the names they hold and are selling WLS on will be
deleted.  
Since they delete by far the most names, they have by far the biggest
advantage
in selling the WLS on the names for less risk than the other registrars.
This is different than the current systems in re-registering deleted names 
where large registrars have no advantage at all over the smaller 
registrars by knowing which of their own names will be deleted.

The fact that Verisign-the-registry wishes to offer a service
that advantages Verisign-the-registrar (the same company) 
should raise a red flag.

Paul Stahura
eNom, Inc.



> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> 
> ==============================
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the 
> attorney-client or
> other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is
> intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If 
> you are not
> an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender 
> by replying
> to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination,
> distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is
> not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==============================
> 
> 
> 
> -- 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
--
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