For Sale Are you for or Against WLS

[bidawinner]

Originally posted by kidkool


I think it shows that the liberal PRO-WLSers are more waffly, like a bunch of women who don't know what they want.

The class just oozes out you kidkool..

But lets just stick with the facts..the facts those against WLS have lost nearly half their supporters..

you can look the other way, you can make insults .. but you cannt deny that according to this poll .. support against WLS has dropped off dramatically..

 

[hiOsilver]

Originally posted by Bob
Against leading the race:

Against: 22
For: 14
Undecided: 7

-Bob

Bob,

You miss the point. The point is that sentiment is shifting toward being in favor of WLS. As more people figure out the future without WLS, they realize that the existing system is shifting the profits in expiring names from us domainers to the registrars and the domain expiration industry. As more and more domainers realize this, opposition to WLS is reducing.

Howard

 

[Kid Kool]

Originally posted by bidawinner


The class just oozes out you kidkool..

But lets just stick with the facts..the facts those against WLS have lost nearly half their supporters..

you can look the other way, you can make insults .. but you cannt deny that according to this poll .. support against WLS has dropped off dramatically..

I don't think its an issue of those against WLS losing support. Its just that there are so many newbies now diluting the drops thinking they are simply entitled to a fair shot at the names. If you wanted to start up a video store franchise today it would be very difficult to compete with Blockbuster (who had the foresight to do it many years ago) day one. There is an advantage in pioneering an industrybefore everyone else and grabbing a significant marketshare. People like Chad, Gregr, Michele Dinoia, GeorgeK, Sportacle, etc were all rocking the drops years ago which is why they have so many great names and are positioned so well to compete in the current climate.

Next time you sell something on ebay are you going to sell to the first person who bids or the person who bids the highest. According to your logic the person who bids first should get the name because it isn't "fair" that he could be outbid by someone who's willing to pay more for the item.

It's also noteworthy that many of the people who are for WLS like yourself are part of the .biz, .us crowd, and appear to have seething with bitterness about the fact that they missed "the .com rush". Get over it. If you want the great names than get your wallet out and bring it on.

 

[hiOsilver]

Originally posted by kidkool


I don't think its an issue of those against WLS losing support. Its just that there are so many newbies now diluting the drops thinking they are simply entitled to a fair shot at the names. If you wanted to start up a video store franchise today it would be very difficult to compete with Blockbuster (who had the foresight to do it many years ago) day one. There is an advantage in pioneering an industrybefore everyone else and grabbing a significant marketshare. People like Chad, Gregr, Michele Dinoia, GeorgeK, Sportacle, etc were all rocking the drops years ago which is why they have so many great names and are positioned so well to compete in the current climate.

Next time you sell something on ebay are you going to sell to the first person who bids or the person who bids the highest. According to your logic the person who bids first should get the name because it isn't "fair" that he could be outbid by someone who's willing to pay more for the item.

It's also noteworthy that many of the people who are for WLS like yourself are part of the .biz, .us crowd, and appear to have seething with bitterness about the fact that they missed "the .com rush". Get over it. If you want the great names than get your wallet out and bring it on.

Well, I own 1800 names, and only a few of them are .biz and .info (mostly 3-letter). The vast majority are .com with some .net. Most of these have been acquired as dropping names. And, the names are good enough that I get multiple offers every day. So you are totally wrong about me personally.

This has nothing to do with bidding on Ebay. This has to do with making money off of expiring domains. A year ago I was not so sure about the desirability of WLS. However, it is now easy to see where things are going. The opposition to WLS can be broken down into a number of arguments. However, the absolute STUPIDEST one is: Well, you must be doing poorly now (or you missed the boat), so what makes you think that you will make money under WLS? I picked up 6 expiring names today from various sources (and I am eligible to bid on Pool on a few more). However, what I am having to pay and the quality of the names is not nearly as good as they would have been under WLS or even under the environment of 1 year ago.

Another argument against WLS is: In one milisecond, BD and Ult will buy 100,000 WLS each and there wont be any good ones left. There have been some great suggestions here. For example: make it like signing up for Snapbacks at Snapnames (type in a validation code) to limit WLS purchases to one at a time. Well, at Snapnames, you can sign up for up to 100 Snaps at a time. I could see WLS at 10 at a time, which should allay a lot of the opposition.

 

[bidawinner]

Originally posted by kidkool


I don't think its an issue of those against WLS losing support. Its just that there are so many newbies now diluting the drops thinking they are simply entitled to a fair shot at the names. If you wanted to start up a video store franchise today it would be very difficult to compete with Blockbuster (who had the foresight to do it many years ago) day one. There is an advantage in pioneering an industrybefore everyone else and grabbing a significant marketshare. People like Chad, Gregr, Michele Dinoia, GeorgeK, Sportacle, etc were all rocking the drops years ago which is why they have so many great names and are positioned so well to compete in the current climate.

Next time you sell something on ebay are you going to sell to the first person who bids or the person who bids the highest. According to your logic the person who bids first should get the name because it isn't "fair" that he could be outbid by someone who's willing to pay more for the item.

It's also noteworthy that many of the people who are for WLS like yourself are part of the .biz, .us crowd, and appear to have seething with bitterness about the fact that they missed "the .com rush". Get over it. If you want the great names than get your wallet out and bring it on.

what HIosilver says.. plus I might add ..bite me ..

The bottom line is WLS is coming..you can whine about it all day but it isnt going to change anything..you sound bitter that you will no longer just beable to buy your way to the top but that you actually will have to WORK your way there.. get over it ..

 

[DomainGoon]

Originally posted by bidawinner
you sound bitter that you will no longer just beable to buy your way to the top but that you actually will have to WORK your way there..

That's a funny way to look at it considering that the people who have worked the hardest in this industry are the ones making the most money.

Those who have worked, and continue to work, the hardest, are against WLS. Those who can't, or aren't willing to, figure out how to catch a name under the current system generally support WLS.

 

[DomainGoon]

Originally posted by kidkool


I think it shows that the liberal PRO-WLSers are more waffly, like a bunch of women who don't know what they want.

It's strange that you call pro-WLS people liberals. I actually know a few liberals at the top of the domain food chain who are against WLS and there are plenty of conservatives pushing for WLS. I thought you might have some strange belief that "liberal" is a bad word, instead of a good one.

Here are some famous "liberals" from history, just in case you care:

Jesus
Gandhi
Martin Luther King Jr.
John Kennedy
John Lennon
Bill Gates (Democrat, socially liberal)

 

[Kid Kool]

Originally posted by DomainGoon


It's strange that you call pro-WLS people liberals. I actually know a few liberals at the top of the domain food chain who are against WLS and there are plenty of conservatives pushing for WLS. I thought you might have some strange belief that "liberal" is a bad word, instead of a good one.

Here are some famous "liberals" from history, just in case you care:

Jesus
Gandhi
Martin Luther King Jr.
John Kennedy
John Lennon
Bill Gates (Democrat, socially liberal)

Liberals oppose free market competition in favor of socialism because they don't believe people can achieve success on their own. You can spot the liberal argument in that the Pro- WLSers use the classic euphemisms such as "the system isn't fair to the little guy" and that the power of government must be harnessed to "level the playing field".

Conservatives who are for WLS are not fiscal conservatives or libertarians but more likely fall into the "theocon"(religious conservatives), protectionist wing or are just part of the "war party".

None of the liberals you mentioned are heroes of mine. I don't think of any of them too fondly. John F Kenndy certainly would not be considered liberal by today's standards. Nevertheless we have him to thank for Vietnam, the bay of pigs, the berlin wall and his brilliant idea of giving away foreign aid to every ungrateful rag tag country in the world.

 

[clemzonguy]

hiOsilver I have earned a lot of respect for your very well thought out and argued posts. You are definitely a learned person and awake to what's going on.

I don't think being pro-WLS makes anyone a liberal, especially me. That's like looking at a christian and labeling him as baptist when he may in fact be non-denominational. I like to think for myself, not subscribe to a party belief. Myself and others have come to the belief/knowledge that the current system is going to the dogs (registrars, buydomains, people with power and money). Sure WLS will be a radical change but it's only the next step to stop registrar abuse (which was bound to happen). A year ago not as many people went after names and I had my pick over anything I wanted after just doing a search on deleted domains. If we could go into a time capsule I'd be against WLS but now the scenery has changed and we do not live in those days. Slowly but surely information has leaked out through exody, domainstate, and this board about expired domains and even the profitability in traffic. People are about to realize the dot-bomb was just a lie everyone bought into so others could take advantage of what they did not have the vision to see or wait long term for. k:

 

[DomainGoon]

Originally posted by kidkool

Liberals oppose free market competition in favor of socialism...

Liberals are not socialists any more than conservatives are fascists. There are more liberals than conservatives who support socialism. There are also more conservatives who support facism. However, that doesn't mean that either one equals the other.

I see what you're trying to say, but I think you would be better served using the term "socialist" if that's what you mean.

 

[Kid Kool]

Originally posted by DomainGoon


Liberals are not socialists any more than conservatives are fascists. There are more liberals than conservatives who support socialism. There are also more conservatives who support facism. However, that doesn't mean that either one equals the other.

I see what you're trying to say, but I think you would be better served using the term "socialist" if that's what you mean.

Fair enough.

 

[hiOsilver]

Clemzonguy,

Thank you. I have appreciated and admired many of your posts. I even appreciate the well thought out ones by others that are opposed to WLS, even if I disagree with them.

Kidkool,

Your Liberal/Conservative slant on WLS is only so much gibberish. I totally support free markets, except when the free market degrades into an UNREGULATED monopoly. VeriSign has a regulated monopoly on managing the .com & .net registries. WLS would be a regulated monopoly on an extension of the registry. Other companies & organizations have monopolies on managing registries as the alternative would be chaos and inefficiency.

I take the position that expiring domains should be equally available to anyone, since domains are a public good that were created by a program funded by the US Government. That is not a liberal or socialist position. Expiring domains can be distributed through many systems and means.

The current system favors a few. WLS will give Joe End User who really wants a particular name the opportunity to try for that name at a relatively modest cost. It will give all speculators, subject to their financial ability to purchase subscriptions, an equal chance to go after the best expiring domains (many expiring domains will never be wait listed, as they are not even worth a discount registration).

I hope that the US Congress does not try to involve itself in WLS. If it did, I think that many conservatives, centrists & liberals would look at the current dropping domains situation and say that it is (1) not very transparent (2) not equally available to all people (subject to their financial ability) (3) creating windfall profits for Pool, NW and the registrars.

It is not necessary to classify everyone you disagree with as a liberal.

 

[Bob]

Originally posted by hiOsilver


Bob,

You miss the point. The point is that sentiment is shifting toward being in favor of WLS. As more people figure out the future without WLS, they realize that the existing system is shifting the profits in expiring names from us domainers to the registrars and the domain expiration industry. As more and more domainers realize this, opposition to WLS is reducing.

Howard

I did not miss the point. There are several ways to interpret any data. Just becuse I intepreted the data in a way which is not consistent with your view does not mean "I missed the point".

When I made the post, I was well aware the sentiment has shifted. I merely chose to make a small post about the **CURRENT** sentiment toward WLS.

-Bob

 

[Anthony Ng]

56 members have voted in less than 24 hours, adding up to 14.5% of our 386-strong Platinum membership. Not bad as a start, as most local elections are deemed a success with like 30% turn-out. Have you voted?

 

[hiOsilver]

Here is another way of looking at the poll results, with 62 votes in so far:

All results in %

------------------------Year Ago----Now

Anti WLS--------------62.9--------48.4
Undecided-----------19.4---------11.3
For WLS--------------17.7---------40.3

The result is pretty much what I predicted before the poll started, namely that opposition to WLS is shrinking and support is growing among the people on DNForum.

Speaking for myself, I shifted from Undecided (last year) to For WLS for several reasons. The one that I think is most relevant to others is the shift in domain success to the auction based domain catchers who are driving my cost for domains through the roof. I also am tired of doing the research, figuring out the likely good names to expire, only to lose them to BD or Pool. Several times I have been first at Pool, only to be outbid by someone willing to pay 10 times what I am willing to pay. I am still successful at this game, but nearly as successful as I expect to be once WLS is implemented.

 

[mole]

Originally posted by kidkool
If you want the great names than get your wallet out and bring it on.

Don't we all? :huh:

 

[mole]

Originally posted by hiOsilver
For example: make it like signing up for Snapbacks at Snapnames (type in a validation code) to limit WLS purchases to one at a time.

Excellent suggestion! This will help stop the WLS system crashing. I'll email this suggestion to Snapnames.

 

[affordablehosting]

The registry system is owned by the people. This has been established by acts of congress, as well as a recent court ruling. It's like a national park, your state's DOT, or as one judge said, a land ownership registry.

Businesses are supposed to be involved in the domain registry system, but they don't own it. To say, first come with the biggest $100 Million computers that can register in nanoseconds, first serve is ridiculous.

This analogy isn't perfect, but allowing UltSearch or BD to take all of the best domains is like selling Yellowstone National Park to the first lumber company who comes along for $6/acre. As I've said before, the system needs to change, and a WLS with a few modifications for a level playing field would solve that.

The Registry isn't a charity, but it isn't a business either. If most of the people who own it (the people of the US, and possibly the world) want it to be "fair", they have every right to ensure that it is.

 

[mole]

Hello Snapnames,

Re : Please forward to the people who can make a difference

One member of a domain community suggested that it might be a good thing to introduce a validification code system for the WLS system to prevent the big players from monopolising the system with a 100,000 system queries per sec. This could crash the system when WLS goes live. I think it’s a excellent idea to dispell why people fear the WLS will result in massive hoarding by the so-called big players.

The small player community appreciates attempts by Snapnames to make the WLS a fair and transparent system to all and not one ruled by, and favored for, the big-time players with insider connections to registrars.

Yours Sincerely,

mole

 

[affordablehosting]

Originally posted by hiOsilver

Another argument against WLS is: In one milisecond, BD and Ult will buy 100,000 WLS each and there wont be any good ones left. There have been some great suggestions here. For example: make it like signing up for Snapbacks at Snapnames (type in a validation code) to limit WLS purchases to one at a time. Well, at Snapnames, you can sign up for up to 100 Snaps at a time. I could see WLS at 10 at a time, which should allay a lot of the opposition.

I can feel a very annoyed post coming. It probably contains the following two sentences:
"THAT'S RIDICULOUS (or LAUGHABLE)! THIS IS A BUSINESS, NOT A CHARITY!"

Before anyone posts something like this, please remember that this system is neither a business nor a charity. It's owned by everybody, and therefore, a political institution.

It is the job of Congress, ICANN, and ourselves to ensure that it's fair. Requiring validation codes (that, by the way, a CS Professor at Carnegie Mellon proved could not be interpreted by bots or anything UltSearch could develop) is one way to make sure that it's fair. Another way is having accounts with a limit on WLS's.

The only thing laughable is giving away all of the good domains to BD and UltSearch. 130 years ago, the U.S. was giving away land in Kansas. Wouldn't it be even more hillarious (or at least sad) if two gigantic real-estate companies got all of the arable land?