RE: [ga] WLS

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

> Although our pricing, like much of the debate taking place over
> WLS, is not
> legally relevant to the ICANN Board's review of VeriSign's proposed WLS
> price, we apply the same pricing rules to all SnapBack customers
> on an equal
> basis. We do and have always offered volume discounts, as any
> business does.
> Because this is standard business practice, and is in fact followed by all
> registrars, it's unclear why it is relevant here, even under the still
> legally unsupported standards of relevance held by WLS critics.

"Legally relevant"?  I'm not on the ICANN board, nor am I in a courtroom.
I'm just looking for some honesty.  And yours is refreshing.  You are under
no compulsion to respond to the unwashed rabble here.

You see, there are some people here, i.e. Mr. Gomes, who do not realize that
what is proposed is a system that, on day one, will assure the grandfathered
population of speculators, who paid *less* than everyone else for those
slots, will populate most of the WLS (or about half of it by his reckoning).
Also, quite obviously, your volume pricing practice will remain legally
irrelevant, none of anyone else's business, and unknown to the general
public who thinks they are getting the same deal as everyone else.  But Mr.
Gomes' opinion of how WLS will affect speculators is based on his apparent
ignorance of the actual fact that volume customers have obtained snapbacks -
which will be redeemed for WLS slots - at a discount.  So, he babbles on
about how it will increase their costs and claims that critics aren't basing
their arguments on "facts".

So those outside of SnapNames, who are unaware of that simple fact, may now
be enlightened and stop their uninformed comments about how this will work
against speculators.  The speculator advantage to WLS is built in, and,
again, when people find out that they were led to believe differently, I
just want to be able to pre-empt their whining.

Further reflection on the fact that Snapbacks have not all been priced the
same to all comers, will also aid the understanding of those who think I'm
kidding about WLS position speculation.  That is also built into the system,
and volume customers can play the spread between their price and the retail
price, even if we ignore the underlying value, if any, of the domain name in
question.

In terms of strategy with the legal mumbo-jumbo, though, it will work as
well on the board as did IOD's same tactics.  Whoever wrote the stuff about
how SnapNames is required to bring along its pre-registered customers, or
else they will sue ICANN, should look over how well that played in Marina
Del Rey the last time that tune was heard.  Quite frankly, the legal basis
for that argument is fundamentally flawed anyway.  It is not tortious
interference when circumstances change to make continued performance
impossible, and the current snapback contracts are not for a guaranteed
service.  In fact, those snapbacks can remain post-WLS snapbacks and not be
breached at all.  Of course they won't work as well, but no current snapback
customer contracted for the certainty of WLS, and thus are not entitled to a
benefit above that of the expected service for which they signed up.  Even
now, the possibility of "someone else got there first" happens.  So
post-WLS, that contingency simply becomes "the WLS got there first".  That
is not a contract problem for anyone, but I do smile when someone threatens
lawsuits against ICANN, as SnapNames does in a sideways fashion.

But while we are crying a river over the fact that other services are hard
to find/use/join/afford by the general public, let's reflect on what the
market, unaided by a monopoly, has said, and how our society approaches this
situation in other contexts.  SnapNames has a heavily-advertised fixed-price
service which is readily publically accessible and affordable.  I get a
distinct impression that this model has found itself unable to compete with
the closed/exclusive/inaccessible models, assuming that is really the
situation (I, for one, have no problem finding namewinner).  Oh well.  If
you can't compete, then it is time to change your model.  That is how a
market works.  Do you play golf?

As long as domain names are an initial fixed price commodity, there will be
speculation - it is economically necessary to allocate fixed price
commodities to their highest value economic use.  If anyone on this list has
actually bought shares in a company at the initial public offering price,
then stand up now, because in order to get the initial public offering
price, you have to be a very special person in a very special circle of
people.

But you are correct.  "Standard business practices" are of no legal
relevance here, and you are certainly entitled to engage in them.  But there
are people who don't seem to understand what the real consequences will be
when the "standard business practice" of maximizing profit - as you are
certainly required and entitled to do - kicks in.

You are absolutely correct that the standard of review applicable to the
proposal is up to the folks at Jones Day, and you might even win on that.
If you do, congratulations.  But some of the propaganda on the "irrelevant"
issues is simply insulting to a person of reasonable intelligence.  That's
all.


--
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