Loren,

I think you have a good point here.

I haven't participated in a Pool auction for some time but one of the things
that I used to like was that they only allowed those who actually reserved a
name prior to the auction to participate in the auction.  More recently, I
think they have opened up auctions to late comers as well for a fee.  I don't
like that but if the market will bear it, it won't be up to me or any of us.

And that's where Tucows might have an opportunity.  There is a balance where
the methods used in an auction are no longer desirable for the most number of
people.  If Tucows can figure out that balance, maybe a new, more successful
service can be created.  It won't be the first time that someone came up with
a better idea in the business.

Joe Alagna
Centralnic, Ltd.
http://www.centralnic.com

Huh? Just what don't I get here? You think I'm against the drop market? That's
nonsense. I love it. Defend it.


What I'm suggesting here is that Tucows engage in the drop market in a way
that empowering users, rather that simply extract maximum value for themselves
as does Pool, Snap, and Enom. What ever happened to loyality?


You realize that Enom already has a high bidder at the drop, yet they continue
the auction afterwards to ensure THEY gain maximum benefits. Who are they
REALLY thinking of?


Loren


----- Original Message -----
From: "JB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: SnapNames switches to auction-based system -- any OpenSRS
opportunities?


Yea right... I think TUCOWS should stay out of the drop market. It will
"empower" to many citizens to join the fishfry and drive up the prices.

Welcome to capitalism.



Loren Stocker wrote:

  > This, too, is self-serving. Like Pool, "two or more bidders" enter a
private
> auction after enom grabs the bait. Like Lemmings, they are, all driving
into
> the "Pool.com"
>
> What I like to see is a service that EMPOWERS users, rather than yet
another
> service designed to extract maximum revenues at the expense of convenience.
>
> Best, Loren
>

Reply via email to