At 06:29 PM 1/5/2002 -0800, Robert L Mathews wrote: >Okay. What evidence do you have of that? It seems an extraordinary claim, >as I'm sure you'll concede that SnapNames and their competitors clearly >have the ability to check the registry for expired domains more often >than the little guy, making them more likely to be the "first come" (and >hence first served). > >If you're correct that average people have a reasonable chance of getting >a name via their own efforts directly from a registry, then you're >absolutely right -- there is no problem. But I'm skeptical of that claim >without any evidence being provided; forgive me, but it sounds absurd.
You answered this yourself. "SnapNames AND THEIR COMPETITORS". The "Competitors" part gives the consumers a choice, more avenues to pursue a name, and a large majority of those competitors only charge for a successful aquisition, unlike SnapNames. The current "Proposal" takes away any and all choice currently available to the consumer. Harold Whiting
