What impact will this have on Snapnames and similar companies? Based on just reading the summary it appears it would either put them out of business or make it much more expensive for them to offer their service.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Jeftovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "George Kirikos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 4:20 PM Subject: Re: Verisign Attempting Cash Grab over Expiring Names > > Well I'm still digesting this. > > They compare this system to snapnames, there is a big difference. > > Other parties (read: people like me) still have a shot at domains > that are snapnames subscribed. > > This goes away under this proposal as far as I can tell. The registry > is doing an end run around everybody and basically locks the post-expiry > market on names subscribed. > > In short, there will be no competition for a given name. It will be > first come, first served. Maybe this is not a bad thing, since its > similar to domains now. But the cost is pretty steep. > > -mark > > > On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, George Kirikos wrote: > > > Verisign has made a new "proposal" over expiring domain names. I've > > mirrored a copy of it at: > > > > http://www.loffs.com/images/VRSN_WLS.pdf > > > > (Adobe Acrobat is required to view it, feel free to mirror it > > elsewhere, as it was obtained from another website) > > > > Given the wording of the document, with its rapidly approaching dates > > for implementation, it seems more like an attempt to sneak through a > > 'done deal' negotiated in secret, rather than just be a discussion > > document. It's scheduled to run for a full year at least (looks like 2 > > years to me, as a "Waiting list" order in the final month would still > > last a year). > > > > In summary, it's just a Snapnames-like service, wholesaled to other > > registrars, with a WHOLESALE cost of $40 per name, PLUS the $6 > > registration fee (wholesale) for the new registrant. If a name doesn't > > expire, the Waiting List Service buyer gets nothing. Other registrars > > would charge a markup on top of the wholesale costs. Quality names > > would no longer be deleted as they are now. > > > > This is a pure cash grab -- Verisign's profitability has been in > > question, with the lower than expected growth in registrations. With an > > expected market of 5% of the 30 million domain names, that's roughly > > $60 MILLION dollars per year to Verisign, for doing essentially > > nothing. > > > > Verisign presents this as a "win-win" for everyone, but I don't see it > > that way. If Verisign is extracting an additional $60 million/year (on > > top of the $180 million/year it already gets as maintainers of the > > registry) from the system, someone is losing out -- consumers. Also, > > many registrars would lose out, as they can make more money using the > > existing state of affairs (registrars will be nothing more than bulk > > resellers of a commodity, with low margins, while Verisign scoops up an > > additional $40 per name. > > > > There is NO WAY that it's costing Verisign $60 million/year to > > implement the batch drop system, as it exists now. If they think it > > does, I'll offer to take responsibility for it for only $30 > > million/year, saving them lots of money! :) > > > > I'm hopeful that others see this for what it is, and protest strongly > > to the appropriate authorities (ICANN, etc.). If someone can provide > > email addresses, that would be great (I've never sent email to ICANN -- > > this will be a first). > > > > Also, if Tucow/OpenSRS would reiterate its position stated at: > > > > http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes/ > > > > (i.e. VGRS Obligations proposal), that might help. > > > > Verisign is the embodiment of greed, attempting to overstep its > > authority over these expiring names in order to pad its earnings, at > > the expense of consumers and other registrars. The only solution I see > > is an order from ICANN, in keeping with the VGRS obligations proposal > > by Tucows/OpenSRS, that they be forced to delete all expiring names for > > re-registration by ANYONE and ANY REGISTRAR at the standard $6/year > > wholesale cost, using the batch system that exists now. The registry > > monopoly doesn't exist so that Verisign can maximize profits at the > > expense of others. > > > > If they really think there is a problem with excessive automated > > processes, those processes can be easily throttled. OR, there can be a > > slight surcharge for names registered via the batch pool (e.g. make it > > $10 instead of $6). > > > > I'm looking forward to comments. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Kirikos > > http://www.kirikos.com/ > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > > http://greetings.yahoo.com > > > > -- > mark jeftovic > http://www.easydns.com > http://mark.jeftovic.net >
