Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #998
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, January 16 2002         Volume 01 : Number 998

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:18:17 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Answers please.

At 11:57 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Harold, so that you don't frustrate yourself, just know that I will no
longer respond to you or William X Walsh on the public boards.  I've
received multiple e-mails from people who've been on the ga list for a long
time cautioning me about you two, and from what I've seen, they speak from
experience.  Shame on me for my naiveté in tangling with you earlier.  
>
>-RW

Interesting response, considering I have only been a member of the GA list
for less than a week and have had no problems with anyone else.
Additionally, the questions I posed stand on thier own, no matter who asks
them.  How convenient that you refuse to answer them.  DO you not think
that others want these answers too?  I believe they do, and have asked as
well.  How long will you be able to dodge the issues that we ALL want
addressed?

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HJW [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 11:08 PM
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Subject: [icann-delete] Answers, please.
>> 
>> At 09:46 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, Ron Wiener wrote:
>> >Walsh,
>> >
>> >The data is based on only active subscriptions in our system, not
>> historical
>> >sales records.  You can't get fresher data than this.  If you refuse to
>> read
>> >the material, I refuse to answer any more of your unproductive questions.
>> >
>> >-Ron
>> 
>> again with the impudent arrogant disrespect, shame on you.  His name is
>> either "William", William Walsh", or even "Mr. Walsh".  Does your
>> disregard
>> for common courtesy  infer that we should simply address you as "Wiener"?
>> Let's not degrade this discussion any further with this kind of nonsense,
>> ok?
>> ==========================
>> 
>> Now, Ron, please answer this:
>> 
>> Q: you registered ~23,500 names in 2001 True/False?
>> 
>> Q: you had ~$3M in revenues in 2001  True/False?
>> 
>> The "majority" of SnapBacks miraculously "ripen" within 60 days.  You have
>> made this statement repeatedly, so I will not ask you True/False.
>> 
>> Q: Since you have not offered the shorter 12 month SnapBack subscription
>> for anywhere close to a year, you cannot supply us with empirical data to
>> support an answer to the question that many of us really want to know -
>> How
>> many SnapBacks go to term and expire without ever providing the subscriber
>> with a name?  This group would likely be largely made up of all of your
>> precious "Jills" and "mainstream consumers" and not "domain speculators",
>> and do not give me the "IP Community" BS here, please.
>> Basically, How many people end up with nothing to show for thier money?
>> 
>> Q: Simple math, assuming the above figures are in line, shows us that even
>> at the higher SnapBack cost of $49, the names registered in 2001 can only
>> account for less than $1.2M  I doubt that you can tell us with a straight
>> face that you really sold ~$1.8M worth of "SnapShot" subscriptions, did
>> you?
>> 
>> That leaves us with well over 50% of all SnapBack subscriptions sold last
>> year unfulfilled. Yet you claim that "the majority" ripen in the first 60
>> days?
>> 
>> I have no reason to believe that, if WLS were to be put in place,  the
>> percentage of unfulfilled subscriptions would change by much.  This would
>> mean, at a 5% level (as you have suggested) that over 700,000 people may
>> simply be "throwing thier money away". Call me old fashioned, but to me
>> this seems wrong to even contemplate offering such a thing to the public.
>> I have seen concerns about this type of thing brought up by many different
>> registrars, always with no response from SnapNames or VGRS to assure us
>> that anything would prevent this.  I see it as becoming the majority of
>> the
>> WLS subscriptions, if implemented as proposed, due to FUD.  This concerns
>> me, as a consumer, to think that the Registrar business will now be forced
>> to sell a product to unsuspecting "main stream" consumers that has a
>> likely
>> chance of providing those same consumers with absolutely no performance
>> for
>> thier money.  Does the Registrar Industry need more "Black Clouds" of
>> unscrupulous behavior hanging over it?  Oh, I forgot... It is for the
>> Public good because it "fights" the "abusive speculators".  Personally, I
>> see this whole proposal as Predatory itself.
>> 
>> Q: What is the Patent Pending on your "technology"?  Where is it filed?
>> 
>> Q: Were VeriSign to implement some similar process by themselves, without
>> SnapNames, since SnapNames would not be able to operate as they are now,
>> would SnapNames sue VeriSign?  If so, what would this suit be for, patent
>> infringement or Anti Trust violations?  I expect no answer to this
>> question.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Harold Whiting
>> [email-masked]
>> 805.886.4164

Harold Whiting
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:20:40 -0600
From: "Donny Simonton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0172_01C19DE9.0737C200
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ron,

I was the one registrar who said "when Verisign goes live with the WLS,
we would offer it."  But before I made that statement I also said, "in
my opinion in doesn't matter what decision we come up with today, I
think Verisign will go through with the WLS no matter what the
registrars opinions are!"  I went on to say that I thought the price was
WAY too high, but it was an interesting concept.  But don't get too
excited yet.

The WLS will be the end of Snapnames!  If the WLS goes live either using
the Snapnames technology or not, the snapnames service that is offered
today on their site will no longer exist as it does today.  So Snapnames
has the largest amount to lose in this entire proposal.  If the WLS
never goes live, Snapnames will continue as usual.  If the WLS goes live
as proposed, they will all be rich and happy.  If the WLS goes live,
without using the Snapnames technology, all of their employees will be
looking for new jobs!  So this must go through for Snapnames to stay in
business.

WLS without the Snapnames technology?  Sit down and think about what
would be involved in creating this technology.  I mapped out the entire
WLS backend technology on a napkin in 10 minutes.  It's very easy!  And
I would give my technology away for free, not charge $40 a domain for
it.  Sure, it might not be in some pretty 90 page pdf file with all of
the EPP commands, but mine comes with some doodles on the top of the
napkin and is a lot cheaper.

 

Let's talk about chargebacks with the WLS system.  Let's pretend I'm
Enom (the have said they will charge $1.00 over their cost).  A customer
comes to the site and does a "WLSback" or whatever it's going to be
called.  They want donny.com, because they really don't like Donny
Osmond.  So they pay their $47.00.  The initial $40.00 goes to the new
registry Verisign/Snapnames and the $7.00 goes to the registrar.  If the
domain is really registered, then $6.00 would go to Verisign and the
registrar would get their $1.00 profit.  And now they can go on that
vacation to the bankruptcy court you always wanted.

But guess what?  The customer didn't get donny.com, because the current
registrant renewed the domain.  So the customer charges back on you.  So
let's see you are now out $40.00, because you already paid
Verisign/Snapnames and you can't get a refund, and you are out the
chargeback fee, which we will say is $20.00.  So you are out $60.00,
because the customer charged back on you, because they were confused
about the service.  Now you have to sell 60 more "WLSbacks" to break
even again!

How does the WLS system handle chargebacks?   It's never been mentioned.

 

The WLS will NOT lower the number of check domain queries send to the
registry, in fact I bet it will more than double the current number of
queries.  It's simple, every registrar that would offer it would do the
"check if domain is available for WLSback" command, whenever anyone does
a search on their site.  Since right now on our site if somebody does a
search for a word, we show them if the .com, .net and .org are available
or not.  With the WLS, we would also check to see if the "WLSback" is
available for the .com and .net.  So at least from our site you will get
a 66% increase in lookups of some type.  

I was talking to one of our customers yesterday about the WLS system,
because I respect his opinion since he owns a few domains.  I told him
that I didn't like what we would have to charge him if the current
pricing scheme stays the same.  When I told him the price he was
overjoyed that it was so expensive.  His quote was "It will keep all of
the normal people out of the business!"  He went on to say that Verisign
should charge $5000.00, so that only 3 or 4 people would be able to buy
domains.  I know that I don't have the money to "blow" on a domain that
I might not even get and I am sure 99% of our customers are the same
way.

 

Trust me nobody on the conference call had anything good to say about
the WLS system except for myself.  Even the Verisign representative
decided not to comment on any of the proposals.  I like the concept of
the WLS, but not the current implementation!  IMHO, there is no reason
for Snapnames to be involved with this system.  There is no need for
their "technology"; it's a very simple process.  Without their
technology, Verisign would still have to create another
registry/company, since ICANN won't allow Verisign to sell domains to
registrars for more than $6.00.  So they could funnel the deleted
domains through the other company and do it that way.  This is why we
have a "technology partner" with this proposal.

I say Verisign should just buy Snapnames and get this all over with!

Donny

 

 

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ron Wiener
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 10:24 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the
Few

Rather than respond to individual response documents and e-mail posts,
please find attached aconcise document, in PDF format.

Cheers,

Ron

- ------=_NextPart_000_0172_01C19DE9.0737C200
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">

<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<title>Message</title>

<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Verdana;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p
	{margin-right:0in;
	margin-left:0in;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
	{font-family:Verdana;
	color:windowtext;
	font-weight:normal;
	font-style:normal;
	text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle19
	{font-family:Arial;
	color:navy;}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
- -->
</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Ron,</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I was the one registrar who said =
&#8220;when
Verisign goes live with the WLS, we would offer it.&#8221;&nbsp; But =
before I
made that statement I also said, &#8220;in my opinion in doesn&#8217;t =
matter
what decision we come up with today, I think Verisign will go through =
with the
WLS no matter what the registrars opinions are!&#8221;&nbsp; I went on =
to say
that I thought the price was WAY too high, but it was an interesting =
concept.&nbsp;
But don&#8217;t get too excited yet.</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The WLS will be the end of =
Snapnames!&nbsp;
If the WLS goes live either using the Snapnames technology or not, the =
snapnames
service that is offered today on their site will no longer exist as it =
does
today.&nbsp; So Snapnames has the largest amount to lose in this entire
proposal.&nbsp; If the WLS never goes live, Snapnames will continue as
usual.&nbsp; If the WLS goes live as proposed, they will all be rich and
happy.&nbsp; If the WLS goes live, without using the Snapnames =
technology, all
of their employees will be looking for new jobs!&nbsp; So this must go =
through
for Snapnames to stay in business.</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>WLS without the Snapnames =
technology?&nbsp;
Sit down and think about what would be involved in creating this =
technology.&nbsp;
I mapped out the entire WLS backend technology on a napkin in 10 =
minutes.&nbsp;
It&#8217;s very easy!&nbsp; And I would give my technology away for =
free, not
charge $40 a domain for it.&nbsp; Sure, it might not be in some pretty =
90 page pdf
file with all of the EPP commands, but mine comes with some doodles on =
the top
of the napkin and is a lot cheaper.</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Let&#8217;s talk about chargebacks =
with
the WLS system.&nbsp; Let&#8217;s pretend I&#8217;m Enom (the have said =
they
will charge $1.00 over their cost).&nbsp; A customer comes to the site =
and does
a &#8220;WLSback&#8221; or whatever it&#8217;s going to be called.&nbsp; =
They
want donny.com, because they really don&#8217;t like Donny Osmond.&nbsp; =
So
they pay their $47.00.&nbsp; The initial $40.00 goes to the new registry
Verisign/Snapnames and the $7.00 goes to the registrar.&nbsp; If the =
domain is
really registered, then $6.00 would go to Verisign and the registrar =
would get
their $1.00 profit.&nbsp; And now they can go on that vacation to the
bankruptcy court you always wanted.</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>But guess what?&nbsp; The customer =
didn&#8217;t
get donny.com, because the current registrant renewed the domain.&nbsp; =
So the
customer charges back on you.&nbsp; So let&#8217;s see you are now out =
$40.00,
because you already paid Verisign/Snapnames and you can&#8217;t get a =
refund,
and you are out the chargeback fee, which we will say is $20.00.&nbsp; =
So you
are out $60.00, because the customer charged back on you, because they =
were
confused about the service.&nbsp; Now you have to sell 60 more =
&#8220;WLSbacks&#8221;
to break even again!</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>How does the WLS system handle =
chargebacks?&nbsp;&nbsp;
It&#8217;s never been mentioned.</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The WLS will NOT lower the number =
of check
domain queries send to the registry, in fact I bet it will more than =
double the
current number of queries.&nbsp; It&#8217;s simple, every registrar that =
would
offer it would do the &#8220;check if domain is available for =
WLSback&#8221; command,
whenever anyone does a search on their site.&nbsp; Since right now on =
our site
if somebody does a search for a word, we show them if the .com, .net and =
.org are
available or not.&nbsp; With the WLS, we would also check to see if the =
&#8220;WLSback&#8221;
is available for the .com and .net.&nbsp; So at least from our site you =
will
get a 66% increase in lookups of some type.&nbsp; </span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I was talking to one of our =
customers
yesterday about the WLS system, because I respect his opinion since he =
owns a
few domains.&nbsp; I told him that I didn&#8217;t like what we would =
have to
charge him if the current pricing scheme stays the same.&nbsp; When I =
told him
the price he was overjoyed that it was so expensive.&nbsp; His quote was =
&#8220;It
will keep all of the normal people out of the business!&#8221;&nbsp; He =
went on
to say that Verisign should charge $5000.00, so that only 3 or 4 people =
would
be able to buy domains.&nbsp; I know that I don&#8217;t have the money =
to &#8220;blow&#8221;
on a domain that I might not even get and I am sure 99% of our customers =
are
the same way.</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Trust me nobody on the conference =
call had
anything good to say about the WLS system except for myself.&nbsp; Even =
the
Verisign representative decided not to comment on any of the =
proposals.&nbsp; I
like the concept of the WLS, but not the current implementation!&nbsp; =
IMHO,
there is no reason for Snapnames to be involved with this system.&nbsp; =
There
is no need for their &#8220;technology&#8221;; it&#8217;s a very simple
process.&nbsp; Without their technology, Verisign would still have to =
create
another registry/company, since ICANN won&#8217;t allow Verisign to sell
domains to registrars for more than $6.00.&nbsp; So they could funnel =
the
deleted domains through the other company and do it that way.&nbsp; This =
is why
we have a &#8220;technology partner&#8221; with this =
proposal.</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I say Verisign should just buy =
Snapnames
and get this all over with!</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Donny</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 =
face=3DTahoma><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original =
Message-----<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> =
[email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] <b><span =
style=3D'font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Ron Wiener<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> </span></font><font =
size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>Tuesday,
 January 15, 2002</span></font><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> </span></font><font size=3D2 =
face=3DTahoma><span
 style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>10:24 =
AM</span></font><font
size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'><br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> [icann-delete] =
WLS Input
- - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 =
face=3DVerdana><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>Rather than respond to =
individual
response documents and e-mail posts, please find attached aconcise =
document,
in&nbsp;PDF format.</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&nbsp;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 =
face=3DVerdana><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>Cheers,</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 =
face=3DVerdana><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>Ron</span></font></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0172_01C19DE9.0737C200--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:28:43 -0800
From: Cameron Powell <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefit s of the  Few

Dear George,

To keep the misinformation at a minimum, allow me to point out your two most
recent errors.  First, as we said several days ago on this very list serv
(in response to a post by Clint Page of Dotster):

Mr. Page is in error in alleging that we have ever stated that the growth in
our revenues will be "a direct result of the new WLS arrangement with
VeriSign."  Mr. Page is apparently reading press reports, but not, as he may
be implying, press releases by SnapNames itself.  SnapNames has never
claimed that its annual revenues would increase from $3 to $20 million "as a
direct result of the new WLS arrangement with VeriSign" because it is not
true; SnapNames has, in fact, a wide variety of new products and services,
as well as partnerships, that it plans to unveil in 2002.  All of these
initiatives together are expected to lead to the cited rise in revenue.
Such niceties get lost in breathless headlines.

Second, while I'm not sure it was we who used the term "abusive speculator"
(I note that we did recently quote Bruce Tonkin of MelbourneIT on the
subject), and while we are under no obligation to respond to your
interrogations, I'll point out for the other members of the list that we
have, in fact, discussed repeatedly what might be termed "abusive" tactics
of speculators.  Pages 16-17 of the October "State of the Domain" list
several, from intentional credit card fraud to abuse of the 5-day grace
period.  See http://www.snapnames.com/downloads/StateoftheDomainOct2001.pdf.
Page 20 of the August edition further discusses a distinction between
speculators who have superior foresight in being the first to register a
name, versus speculators who have superior access to other customers due to
their preferential treatment by registrars -- a state of affairs into which
we would invite congressional oversight.  See
http://www.snapnames.com/downloads/StateoftheDomainAug2001.pdf.  We have
also recently written that some registrars are violating the terms of the
regular, site-oriented Registry pool of connections by sending through it 5-
to 10-minute bursts of high-speed repetitive queries that belong only in the
third pool.  In short, abusive speculation involves secret or even
prohibited processes to register names which are not, by their nature, open
to all consumers, and which are unfair to those left out.

Aside from the obvious fact that we do not disclose information about our
customers, it should be clear from the above that customers who acquire
names through our all-comers-welcome, user-friendly service (including those
whose names end up on the Top 100) are not by so doing engaging in abusive
speculation.  And many of these customers are trademark owners re-acquiring
names in which they consider themselves to have intellectual property
rights.  See http://www.snapnames.com/corporate_clients.html.

(All contents of SnapNames' website are protected from direct copying by
applicable copyright laws.)

Sincerely,

Cameron Powell 
VP of Business Development and General Counsel 
SnapNames 
115 NW First Avenue  
Suite 300
Portland, OR  97209 
(503) 219-9990 x229    (503) 502-5030 cell    (503) 274-9749 fax 
[email-masked] 

Pioneering Provider of Secondary Market Infrastructures and Data Services
for Domain Names 

Cameron Powell 
VP of Business Development and General Counsel 
SnapNames 
115 NW First Avenue  
Suite 300
Portland, OR  97209 
(503) 219-9990 x229    (503) 502-5030 cell    (503) 274-9749 fax 
[email-masked] 

Pioneering Provider of Secondary Market Infrastructures and Data Services
for Domain Names 

- -----Original Message-----
From: George Kirikos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 5:07 PM
To: Ron Wiener; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Registrars@Dnso. Org
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs.
Benefit s of the Few

Hello,

- --- Ron Wiener <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think we'd all appreciate it if you did not regurgitate all the
> content
> everyone has already read.  I've responded to everything here already
> and
> won't do it twice.  

Since you only joined the DNSO GA list recently, and I've not seen
Chuck Gomes define an abusive speculator, perhaps you can point me to
the link where either has answered. I don't want you to answer it twice
- -- once will do. I have heard you say that the press "misquotes" you
often, so this provides you with a chance to reveal who these abusive
speculators are, once and for all. Is it NameWinner? Is it NicGenie? Is
it UltSearch? Is it BuyDomains? Is it me, with my fairly small
portfolio of names??? Who exactly is abusing the system, and by what
definition (and of course, show us how that definition does not apply
to SnapNames and its registration partners)?

When I go to http://www.snapnames.com/deleteprocess.html to read about
the Deletion Cycle, I see the words "Armies of Speculators" used. Since
you purport to know the the deleted domains industry better than
everyone else, I think the community would benefit from knowing exactly
who you think these abusers are, and relate them to the list in the Hot
100 that your own company provided.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:35:05 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Answers please.

Wednesday, Wednesday, January 16, 2002, 12:18:17 AM, Harold Whiting wrote:

> At 11:57 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>>Harold, so that you don't frustrate yourself, just know that I will no
> longer respond to you or William X Walsh on the public boards.  I've
> received multiple e-mails from people who've been on the ga list for a long
> time cautioning me about you two, and from what I've seen, they speak from
> experience.  Shame on me for my naiveté in tangling with you earlier.  
>>
>>-RW

> Interesting response, considering I have only been a member of the GA list
> for less than a week and have had no problems with anyone else.
> Additionally, the questions I posed stand on thier own, no matter who asks
> them.  How convenient that you refuse to answer them.  DO you not think
> that others want these answers too?  I believe they do, and have asked as
> well.  How long will you be able to dodge the issues that we ALL want
> addressed?

The questions being asked are hitting too close to home, he's looking
for nothing but a convenient excuse to avoid them.

Understandably.  The questions can't be answered honestly without
revealing the subterfuge he has been engaged in.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:30:23 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS & back to basics

Assembly

In order to get some more clarity in the matter, I have taken the liberty to 
cut & paste a number of statements from the proposal and the GA list, to 
which i add a number of questions that are imo crucial to this matter.

First of all the reason for the plan:
<from www.icann-registrars.org/deletes.htm>
Interested parties attended an informal meeting in Montevideo, Uruguay 
(contemporaneously with the quarterly ICANN General Meetings) at the 
invitation of Verisign Global Registry Services. The purpose of this meeting 
was to suggestion solutions to Verisign's registered name deletion problems. 
For a variety of reasons, Verisign has been forced to move to an interim 
registration processing system that meets the needs of very few parties. 
Several proposals were tabled at this meeting, however it was clear to all in 
attendance that further discussion was required to fully explain and analyze 
the various propositions. As a result of this, a mailing list 
([email-masked]) was created, several propositions were 
tabled and much discussion ensued. 
</from www.icann-registrars.org/deletes.htm>

Several plans were proposed and the snapnames / versigin WLS was proposed by 
snapnames, however mr Wiener states very recently:
<paste>
" From: Ron Wiener <[email-masked]>
 To: "'Paul Stahura'" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>"
 >> WLS wasn't even announced until Dec 30th.  I agree completely Paul -
between Sept 7th and Dec 30th no registrar ever said they'd support the WLS.
Because they never heard of it.
 </paste>

In those plans he states:

<paste>
Nuts and Bolts.  The first customer to place a back-order on a name is the 
customer who will get the name if the current registrant decides not to renew 
it.  If a name is deleted and is re-registered, the now-unfilled back-order 
position could then be bought by the new owner, as a form of protection 
against inadvertent failure to renew, hijacking, or deletion.  Or it could be 
bought by someone else ? a second-generation back-order.
</paste>

however in the same email quoted here above he states :

<paste>
>> Enough with this red herring "duping" issue.  Are you seriously
suggesting that some registrars would stoop so low as to "dupe" unwitting
customers into buying a WLS subscription on their own name?  I'm sorry, I
don't buy it.  
</paste>

In that same meeting another proposal gets by far the most votes, yet nothing 
is done with it.

Despite the not so enthousiastic response, Snapnames and Verisign, who was 
charmed, decide to work out this proposal and turn it into the current WLS.

In the WLS it is written:
<paste>
Specifically, the proposed WLS is intended to provide both(1) a new, 
streamlined business opportunity for the entire registrar community, and(2) 
some measure of relief in dealing with the "deleted domains" issue.
</paste>

Yet again in the same email as quoted above mr. Wiener states:
<paste>
>> WLS was *never* put forth as a solution for the load problem.  There have
been many other good suggestions for dealing with the load problem, but they
are in no way related to the merits of the WLS.  The WLS should have a
positive impact on preventing *further* degradation as more registrars
continue to get into the secondary name marketplace, can't possibly have a
negative impact (as other proposed methods do), but was never proposed as
the solution to this problem.  
</paste>

In the same proposal Verisign says to seek feedback from the registrar 
community before January the 18th so they will have time to evaluate  and 
compile the feedback and answer it, so they can start with implementation in 
Feb.
Nonetheless Mr. Gomes states in an email to this llist:

<paste>
We would welcome feedback from such a working group with regard to our
Wait Listing Proposal if it could be provided by the end of January.
Our plan was to seek such feedback from interested constituencies after
we had received it from the registrars.  We started with the registrars
because any such service would have to be offered directly to consumers
by registrars
</paste>

And then we get down to the semantics of the system:

<paste>
All current processes would remain unchanged with one exception. A domain 
name registration that is subscribed to on WLS will be regsitered to the 
subscriber when the current domain name registration is deleted thourgh 
normal operational procedures.
</paste>
Now this is impossible.(sic)
It would mean under "normal" procedures it would be (after deletion) 
non-existant, therefore open to registration by anyone.
So changes have to be made to prevent that, since a 100% assurance is given 
to the WLS subscriber that in case of deletion he/she will get the domain.

I will still hold high my  point of view that once a domain is deleted it 
becomes non-existant and therefore the next registrant is registering a new 
domain, hence the registry in co-operation with snapnames is registering 
domain-names, something which is strictly prohibited by the agreement with 
ICANN.
There is no such thing as a second hand domain, recycled domains or whatever, 
there are only existing registrations and new regsitrations.

By weighing the market potential to price the WLS snapnames and the regsitry 
have prevented to give to any constituency a reasonable cost breakdown on the 
product, this while normally the costprice for an article for sale is the 
base for a retail or wholesale price.

by not opening up that data the proposers leave room for all sorts of 
speculation that does not support their objective.

Furthermore it is "strange" that only the registrar constituency will be or 
was supposed to be consulted, surely proposers see the importance of other 
constituencies in matters concerning the domain names registry.placed upon 
them by the ministery in her contract with ICANN.

In order to get away from key issues, such as the rightfulness of the 
registry entering the registrar playing field and selling snapnames to the 
registrars, the existence of "recycled" domains and such, the proposers go 
through geat depths, which again poses more questions then gives answers.
The emphasis of the discussion is constantly moved towards the pircing and 
profitibillity of the "product" , of course for a good reason, it distracts 
the discussion from more serious questions and as stated "this is easily 
resolved".
Snapnames adds to the confusion by feeding the constituencies with "reports" 
that hold no data but look impressive and so move again the discussion away 
from the real issues.

If however the real issues are not resolved, a discussion about 
profitibillity, customer desire, open markets, equal shares, defense of the 
little man and such are a complete waste of everyones time.
One can draw all kind of conclusions from this behaviour, one would be that 
it is indeed a done deal that needs justification, the other can be that 
parties are desperately trying to corner a market, but all are speculations, 
the truth will at any given moment be clear, but for now, we have to place 
our faith once again in the hands of ICANN who seems to be the only one 
capable of stopping this "project" since it is clear that no matter how much 
input, albeit negative, this plan gets, the proposers are dead set on 
launching and leaving us all with a "fait a complis".

regards

abel wisman

- -- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #998
************************