Okay, it seems that some of my questions have been answered here,
especially the one about snapnames having (or NOT having) more connections
allowed. So now that I'm a -teeny- bit more informed, comments are below:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Cameron Powell wrote:
> John Payne writes:
-snip-
> a) To my knowledge, we are on this particular part of the list because
> Elliot Noss, who was kind enough to let us begin this discussion, asked us
> to post to this part of the list. If you think this discussion should be
> posted on the biz-ops list, please let us know. We'd be happy to take the
> conversation there if it's appropriate.
This is the perfect place for it, IMO. Most people who post here are
OpenSRS customers who are interested in where it's going and how it will
affect them. They are also, I've noticed, people who ask a lot of (and
the right) questions.
-snip-
> At least as importantly, no one uses their resources as efficiently as our
> partners. All other registrars who attempt to play this game solo do so on
> behalf of a few high-paying customers. It has not been concealed from us or
> our partners that ICANN and the Registry prefer our method of serving the
> maximum number of customers, democratically, per connection, rather than
> those who use the public good that is ICANN-granted connections to the
> Registry to serve a few (speculators).
I think it would be more democratic to let each RSP deal with it as s/he
pleases than to put this kind of service up, which may potentially take
customers from the RSPs. This doesn't affect me, since people that I deal
with mostly know I'm stubborn and persistent as ****, but it seems to me
that if OpenSRS advocates and promotes this as an official thing, it is
saying, basically, that your software/scripts is better than anyone
else's, and, as I've seen so far, the question has been asked about the
technicalities of this, and so far, I have seen no answer. Is that
the premise the decision will be made on? If so, I guess we should
all see the technical reasons snapnames would be the most efficient.
If that's already been addressed in this thread, smack me and tell me
to read the archives. I admit I haven't paid as much attention to
this as I could have. But even if snapnames DOES have superior
scripts/staff right now, advocating one company as an official backorder
company seems to put a knife in the backs of the ones of us who would
like to have a chance to get the name for someone, and who also may, in
the future, out script, etc, snapnames. So, would there be a possibility
in the future, of having a LIST of companies who are good at grabbing
names? Hmm...
> Because no other model is as efficient, no other model is as scalable or
> will be as capable of avoiding inviting further Registry regulation.
> Furthermore, some registrars have been competing only by violating their
> ICANN and Registry agreements (including by allowing third parties to run
> scripts through them; see related thread). As we continue to add legitimate
> partners, and build a technology consortium of all registrars, the
> competition will continue to fade. The consortium has more connections to
> the Registry than any individual registrar could ever amass, which pleases
> our partners, and uses its resources in a highly efficient manner, which
> pleases the Registry and the mass market of customers.
>
The phrase that worries me here is: "... the competition will continue to
fade." Back to ECO101, competition is a GOOD thing. I won't go into
Milton Friedman or anyone now, but I think you get the point. Now, if you
were doing something similar to the RSA crack or something, and not
profitting from it, that would be a different story, but this isn't a
different story. The word "amass" bothers me too. I hope that someday
large companies will realize what the word truly means. Evidence of it is
here on this list, and, like, competition, it is also a good thing.
> Again, all this would merely be a competing theory if we did not have the
> numbers to back us up. Today we are on track to receive another 1000
> SnapBack(tm) orders, at $49 each. These orders come to us at conversion
> rates (a measure of the value proposition to customers) of up to 9%.
> Efficacy on back-orders is historically 76%. And so our rate of repeat
> customers is very high and RPMS for SnapNames often exceed $3000 ($3 per
> click-through).
>
So you're doing well. Good. However, I think there is a better way of
announcing your success than for a company such as TUCOWS to endorse you
as a source for getting domains that are being currently used. The
service you provide, and your success rate is admirable, so let your
numbers speak for themselves. The more I think about this, the more I'm
opposed to it. I will read further and see if I can find any merit in it.
So far, I do not.
> There are very good reasons we weathered the simultaneous drop of the domain
> market and the investment market, and that we have the partners and
> interested partners that we do, and that, after due diligence by numerous
> major investment banks, we will quickly raise another round in coming weeks:
> there's a shortage of smoke and mirrors here. I look forward to continuing
> the dialogue to give you whatever information we're able to give in order to
> answer your continuing questions.
And having TUCOWS endorse you would make your investors very happy, I'm
sure. (: Again, if I'm off base, please let me know.
Thanks,
Cindy
P.S.
> Connecting Registrars and their Customers to the Secondary Market in Domain
> Names
What is the Secondary Market?
"My theology, briefly, is that the universe was dictated but not
signed." (Christopher Morley)
