The CEO of snapnames was on this list at one time, at least he was posting to it.
I wonder if he will post his thoughts on it... -mark On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Chuck Hatcher wrote: > Wonder what Snapnames has to say about this? Seems like their whole > business model has suddenly become irrelevant. I guess they could become a > registrar if they aren't "snapped" up by Verisign. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Jeftovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "George Kirikos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 7:20 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 > -- mark jeftovic http://www.easydns.com http://mark.jeftovic.net
