John,
Your analysis is insightful, but it assumes that the premium from SnapNames
is greater than the premium from the original subscriber.
In today's world of free domain names and below cost pricing, this certainly
doesn't invalidate your arguement, but there is still a strong case to be
made for those of us that have a distinctly long term view of business. What
I mean is, those registrars that understand what side of their bread is
buttered by whom won't be in the position that you describe. Hopefully that
includes Tucows ;)
-rwr
<
<
< From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<
<
< > Discovery of change in status is not new, the temporal
< characteristics (as
< > you point out) are.
<
< What is also new is an economic incentive on the part of the
< registrar contrary
< to the interest of the registrant. I don't know how frequently
< this sort of
< thing happens with registrars other than NSI, but there are more
< than a few
< instances where NSI fails to match up a renewal payment with the
< correct domain
< name. I regularly hear from people who say that they sent NSI a check in
< response to a paper invoice, the payment was not credited, and
< the domain name
< dropped.
<
< Now, if the registrar is getting a cut of the premium that
< SnapNames obtains for
< snagging an expired name, then the registrar has an incentive to
< avoid notifying
< a current registrant that a payment is approaching the due date.
< After all, why
< collect a renewal payment from a current registrant when the
< registrar can
< obtain a higher payment from a new registrant via SnapNames.
<
< I'm not suggesting that any particular registrar would
< intentionally do that
< sort of thing, but the incentive is there. So if, woops, the
< registrar doesn't
< issue a reminder to the current registrant, then the registrar collects a
< premium when the domain name is registered to someone else.
< It's not the kind
< of thing that inspires customer confidence.
<
<
<
<
