Hi Robert, --- Robert L Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree. I didn't say the registry should get the extra profits; to > the > contrary, I said they shouldn't.
I apologize if I had misunderstood. I don't think anyone can in good faith can argue that Verisign should be making extra profits from this, but that's exactly what they're attempting to do (and huge ones, at that, at the expense of everyone else). > I'd really like to see the registry operated as a regulated monopoly > like > the electric company (although perhaps that's a bad analogy as I'm in > > California). But in theory, if the registry were only allowed to make > a > certain amount of profit, like utilities once were, the profits could > be > used to lower prices on other services or do some other public good. That's the way it was supposed to work. The $6/yr was supposed to reflect a return on the investment in the development of the registry system. Many have argued that it should be even lower (as some "partners" of Verisign/NSI had been offering up renewals for $4/yr). At some point, Verisign will continue to raise anti-trust interest (this issue to me is bordering on anti-trust, if it's not over the boundary), and US DoJ might have to pursue them, and split them up. With their purchase of foundering registrars (NameEngine and some others recently), Verisign might be buying back their monopoly. > Since that's unlikely to happen, a second option is that the extra > profits go to the registrars, where at least there is competition. > Verisign Registrar could fight it out with OpenSRS and everyone else. I don't think the extra "surplus" (i.e. true value of the name minus the $6 registration cost) should go to all registrars either, in the sense that there should be a competitive split between registrars and ultimate consumers. Surprise, surprise, but this is the situation that exists right now! With at least 20 of the 96 registrars (maybe more, I'm not sure) actively going for drops, using different business models there is open competition and everyone is fighting it out, making competitive profits. What we really have is a group that's losing (SnapNames seems to be falling behind, as other registrars gear up their own technologies and offerings to the public) seeking to win through politics, instead of a better business model, consumer offering, or technology. By teaming up with a monopolist like Verisign, they can take the whole pie for themselves, instead of competing for it like everyone else has been doing. Every other competitor is out competing, and not sending out press releases labeling competitors as abusive speculators. Did SnapNames' "virtually guaranteed chance at getting the name you want" get the holder Beijing.com, compare.com, ifree.com, 993.com, canary.com, electronics.net, or 121.com? Nope, others got them, successfully in a competitive market (those are all generic words, should be no trademark issues). To put it simply, SnapNames gets its butt kicked regulary (although they have caught some good ones, e.g. Jose.com -- I even use them for some names). Competition is healthy, and if SnapNames can't stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. SnapNames should prove their business model by being in business for at least 2 years without being another dot-bomb, before holding themselves up as the model we should all aspire to. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
