Elliot, Thanks for the feedback. I will send a note off list. Austin
"Elliot Noss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Two things here. The blogware point you make is well understood here. Some > of the scalability and usability issues are in front of what you are > talking about. Also, some of the bits are easier to fix than others. As > you can appreciate it is never as simple as "add more developers". That > can introduce many other problems. Sometimes these things need be serial. > > There is no question in our minds as to whose customer the end user is. It > is yours. In blogware, especially compared with ANY other alternative, > there is a ton of branding and customization inside the service for the > reseller to do. It is beyond that where I think the efforts should be made > in any event. It is tools and a level of service that greatly assists > users in using blogware that is where the branding opportunities lie. > > When talking about expired names I did very purposefully use the term "end > user" not "customer" so there would be no confusion. The point I was > making relates to the end user. The service provider is our customer and > the end user is their customer. AND the end user is part of the market and > the transaction and Tucows cannot be blind to them. > > The substance of the issue is the role of the service provider. We > believe, and the vast majority of our customers believe (and I know from > our interactions that you believe), that the role of the service provider > is to help end users, both businesses and individuals, use the Internet. > They provide them with important services and they assist them in using > those services. > > With respect to an expiring domain name there are a few truths that have > clearly emerged. Two are important here. First, expiring names have value. > It is only a small percentage of the total names that expire, but there is > material value involved. Second, for a service provider who supplies > domain names to their customers there are three ways they could deal with > this truth as follows: > > i) they could ignore it and take the position that they have sent out > numerous renewal notices that have been ignored thus they have fulfilled > their obligation; > > ii) they could profit from it by taking the position that they have sent > out numerous renewal notices that have been ignored thus they are entitled > to any benefits that flow from the name; > > iii) even though they have sent out numerous renewal notices that have > been ignored, they could take steps to realize the latent value on behalf > of their customer and charge a reasonable fee for that service. > > Let's look at each of the three. Let me be clear, my comments are not in > any way legal in nature. They are my opinion as to what is right to do to > best serve your customer. Again, your customer. > > The first, which is where most of the market is right now, is > understandable. It would be difficult today to capture value efficiently > for your customer. If it were easy to do then the analysis may be > different. > > The second is, in my opinion, just not right. Registrars and resellers who > convert their whole expiring base to their own benefit are not serving > their customers' best interests and will not do as well in the long term > as those that look after their customers interests. In fact, they have > positioned their interests at odds with those of their customers ("oops. > sorry you didn't get that renewal notice. so what if we use the term > "viagra" in it!"). > > When you read the options in order it is plain to see that the third will > be the de facto standard for customer-focused service providers. > > The Internet is brutal in its speed and efficiency in disciplining > markets. Tucows needs to create a marketplace (and I use that term only in > connection with expired names) that makes it easy for its customers, > service providers, to best serve their customers. We are aware of the fact > that effecting this service in this way has a value judgement implicit in > it. > > We are valuing service providers interested in providing the best service > to their customers. This really pushes us to provide this service in this > way. We have always built services with this in mind. > > We can have a lively discussion about what transaction size is efficient > to convert on behalf of the end user. I know a name "worth" $12 is > probably not worth the transaction cost of running an auction. I also know > a name "worth" $100 clearly is. None of that changes the underlying > premises. > > There are thousands of things that suppliers do every day for customers > without the customers explicit consent. The nature of the > customer/supplier relationship regularly contains implied consent to any > number of steps taken on the customer's behalf. In my view, end users rely > on service providers to "look after them" or to "take care of them" with > domain names and with many other Internet services. Again, I do not have > any doubt as to the way this will be viewed in the market twelve months > from now. > > Quick note on gdnx. We will be looking to provide our customers with any > opportunities that make sense in terms of what they offer to their > customers. We will be looking to expose our customers inventory to > anyplace that would treat it appropriately. That is all about efficiency > and liquidity. If gdnx can do that then we will be happy to work with > them. > > The easiest thing to do, especially as a public company, would be to put > the money in our pockets or to do that with the resellers. In my view I > would be setting you guys up. Someone will deal with the market in a > customer-centric way. This is the Internet. There are no secrets. Someone > will. When they do they will make you look like an ass. What you would be > doing is benefiting yourself to the detriment of your customers. Ignorance > is not a business model in anything but the very short term. > > Coming to Toronto soon? I can buy you a beer and you can tell me how wrong > I am :-). > > Regards > > Austin wrote: >> Elliott, >> In your statement you use the word 'customer' instead of 'end user'. I >> must assume that this was just a slip. Who is your customer? The end user >> is my customer, not yours.That would make me, the Reseller, your >> customer. >> The biggest issue we are having with BW (other than stability - which >> Tucows is working on), is that the system is setup so that Tucows keeps >> getting in between me and my customer, the end user. This happens with >> signups, login, logout, subscribers, usernames, reader accounts, etc. >> Please get this fixed so that your customers can make money for >> themselves and Tucows. >> With regard to expiring domains, I would just say again that you need ask >> who your customer is. It appears that you are trying to police the market >> instead of creating a product that your customers can use to make more >> money for Tucows and themselves. >> Not to go off topic, but in my opinion, you should consider working with >> GDNX.org so that you can give your customers an avenue to make money for >> themselves and Tucows in the domain resale market. >> My theme should be apparent, but please concentrate on doing things that >> give your customers more opportunities to make more money for themselves >> and Tucows. >> >> Austin >> >> "elliot noss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>>Robert, I need to dig a bit deeper on something you said: >>> >>>"This is a choice between acting ethically or taking money I >>>wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole"? >>> >>>I would like to understand this a bit better, and let me be clear up >>>front. I do not agree. >>> >>>First, I would like to park the email marketing service discussion here. >>>It will be responded to separately, which is more appropriate. >>> >>>When I read the above statement there are two possible threads that come >>>to mind for me, the "opt-in vs. opt-out" discussion related to expiring >>>names and our offering of blogware and website building tools (the >>>"tucows is getting into hosting" discussion). Are their others? If so, >>>please identify. If it is those two then I would like to further examine >>>both. >>> >>>I will start the ball rolling with a statement. To me, in twelve months >>>there will be no question that registrars who are "opt-out" with respect >>>to expiring names will be clearly seen as making the ethical decision, >>>the one that takes the customers best interests into account and that >>>"opt-in" will be seen for what it is. Acting in the interests of the >>>registrar or reseller NOT the customer. >>> >>>Regards >>>Elliot Noss >>> >>>Abel Wisman wrote: >>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>From: "Robert L Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>To: <[email protected]> >>>>Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 5:48 PM >>>>Subject: Re: [domains-gen] Tucows Email Marketing Service >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>(Why is it that many of my postings to this list in the last year boil >>>>>down to "This is a choice between acting ethically or taking money I >>>>>wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole"? That can't be a good sign.) >>>> >>>> >>>>Make that the last 2+ years and we're getting closer. >>>> >>>>You were here at the start, like some of us, with totally different >>>>ideas as >>>>to what it now has turned into, I guess this is another cleansing of >>>>those >>>>that think that way. >>>> >>>>abel >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>domains-gen mailing list >>>>[email protected] >>>>http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> domains-gen mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen > > > -- > Elliot Noss > Tucows Inc. > 416-538-5494 > _______________________________________________ domains-gen mailing list [email protected] http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen
