For Sale Are NetSol dropping any names?

IF WLS is rolled out, it will definitely NOT be excluding names with Snaps on them.

If this ends up being the case when the WLS goes live, what is to stop Snap from taking out WLS positions on every current Snapback? It seems like this would make the most sense for them: no messy refunds or exchanges, a lot of happy customers.

I don't know that it has been made clear yet exactly how WLS orders will be added at the registry level, but of course Snapnames would know this, and is probably preparing for a land-rush type scenario right now.

I'm sorry that I can't point to a link that backs this up, but think it through and it makes sense. If you were Snapnames, would you promote a new service whose adoption would force you to issues refunds possibly into the six figure range? Even with potential future revenue of the WLS, I just don't see Snap doing this.

 

[Cartoonz]

So, names with Snapbacks do NOT go into the WLS, and Snapback holders do not get "special treatment."

WRONG!

Verisign specifically nixed that plan in Bucharest.
ALL domains would be WLS candidates.
NO domains would be excluded.
NO SnapBacks would be "grandfathered.

You can go on thinking wishfully or seek the truth. Try watching the video of the VGRS presentation to the BoD of ICANN in Bucharest and you can hear it straight from Chuck Gomes' mouth!

and no, I will not do your homework for you and find the link... if you can't find that how on earth do you expect to beat the "Big Guys" to a domain name!

 

[bigdave]

Originally posted by Cartoonz
WRONG!

Verisign specifically nixed that plan in Bucharest.
ALL domains would be WLS candidates.
NO domains would be excluded.
NO SnapBacks would be "grandfathered.

You can go on thinking wishfully or seek the truth. Try watching the video of the VGRS presentation to the BoD of ICANN in Bucharest and you can hear it straight from Chuck Gomes' mouth!

and no, I will not do your homework for you and find the link... if you can't find that how on earth do you expect to beat the "Big Guys" to a domain name!

Interesting how none of this can be found in writing. The only proposal from Verisign that can be found on the ICANN site is the March proposal. The documents referenced in other threads on Snapnames' site have not been updated to reflect what you say. The report on the ICANN meeting in SnapNames' SOTD report has no reference to what you say. Verbal statements are not a binding proposal - let's see the written proposal!

I have done research and post references to material to back up my statements. If you would read my postings, you would realize I'm not trying to beat the big boys. So I don't really care if WLS gets implemented or not - I just think it's a money making scheme for VeriSign.

If what you say is true, then it should exist somewhere in writing. If you are such an expert, that should be easy to find. How about you contribute some solid links to this discussion instead of posting insults.

BD

 

I'll be charitable and say that maybe I am not making myself clear:

Although Mr. Gomes stated that under the current WLS proposal, existing Snapbacks will not grandfathered in, what is to stop Snapnames from taking their entire list of existing orders and placing WLS subscriptions on them the moment the WLS is turned on? Of course there would be no official grandfathering of Snapnames customers, but why do you think Snapnames is suddenly much less vocal about the issue? I would argue that the current turn of events suggests that Snapnames is going to find a way to convert their orders to WLS subscriptions, even if it occurs during the first three seconds of the WLS being live.

It is interesting to me that while in most cases we are all quick to label VRSN (often rightly) as unprincipled, deceitful, incompetent, etc, in this case Cartoonz is willing to take what one of Verisign's officers says at face value. I don't know that I would grant credence to the statement by Mr. Gomes beyond exactly what he said. There is no reason why Snap couldn't take care of their customers in the manner I've outlined.

Just so we're all clear, although based in fact and suggested by reasoning from those facts, the above is MY OPINION, so lets nobody be too upset if I can't point to a link "verifying" it.

 

[bigdave]

Originally posted by grabby
I would argue that the current turn of events suggests that Snapnames is going to find a way to convert their orders to WLS subscriptions, even if it occurs during the first three seconds of the WLS being live.

An interesting speculation, which would explain a great deal.

I did some homework D ) and did find the transcript of the statement made by Verisign in June. I include it below. I find it VERY interesting that nearly a month has elapsed since that statement, and no revised proposal from VGRS can be found....

BD

===========================================
Number two, there will be no special treatment of existing SnapNames, SnapBack holders as we had originally proposed.

We had suggested what we thought was a reasonable way to deal with some customers of SnapBacks that have SnapBacks right now.

We are going to remove that from our proposal.

There will be no special treatment.

Number three, pricing will be simplified, eliminating the rebates, and offering a set price to registrars of $24 per year.

I’d be more than happy to answer questions as we proceed today or even after today, and I’ll make myself available for that.

 

[micro]

snap will definitely try to catch the wls for their clients - thats a fact - no big secret.

 

[Drewbert]

>snap will definitely try to catch the wls for their clients - thats a fact - no big
>secret.

Of course they will. And they'll be doing it from a host in the same NoC as the WLS system, probably connected via 1GHz ethernet.

So I'm expecting them to have a good success rate.

 

[morel]

I think you mean 1 Gbps, since you are referring to bandwidth, not processor speed.

Originally posted by Drewbert
And they'll be doing it from a host in the same NoC as the WLS system, probably connected via 1GHz ethernet.

 

[Drewbert]

>I think you mean 1 Gbps, since you are referring to bandwidth, not processor speed.

I'm talking Ethernet clock speed. :^)