At 1/5/02 7:25 PM, Harold Whiting wrote: >>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.
I think you misunderstood. William Walsh was apparently claiming that people were successfully registering expiring domains without using ANY kind of SnapNames-like service (i.e., getting names directly from a registrar without making special sweetheart deals or paying a premium), and that's what I was questioning. I don't have any evidence to show he's right or wrong, but it seems a most surprising claim. I'm fully aware of the existence of competitors to SnapNames, the success of which I think reinforce my point (that it's hard to get a domain without paying a premium to one of these services to maximize your chances of being "first come" and therefore "first served"). We're actually in full agreement on the main issue here. If the market reality turns out to be that end users have to pay more for expiring domains, a free market and competition with variable pricing is a good thing for consumers. That's why I suggested that the registry not make a profit on any such scheme, instead moving it to the registrar level, where there is vigorous competition. I CERTAINLY wasn't defending the Verisign Registry WLS proposal, which is a bad thing. -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
