Tucows is a little behind the curve here but I have no doubt they could
find enough registrars to make them competitive. They would have to
invest in serious development but it's something I'm sure they can handle.
Enom is competing, if not beating pool in the drop business (for now),
because they are using current technology in a very smart way.
Besides I trust tucows a lot more then I trust NSI. They could quickly
become a major player.
~jb
Loren Stocker wrote:
> Aside from costs, Auctions are great until you have to find Internet access at
> 7 am, Sunday morning while on vacation:(.... I just went to breakfast.
>
> Pool and Snapnames organized dozens of Registrars. It's too late to do a
> competing service in a big way, but never too late to launch an internal
> service with a self-pricing model that doesn't involve a summons. For sure,
> there are ways to beat Pool and Snapnames;)
>
> Best, Loren
>
> JB <info@bwp.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I think the auction model is ok. I would like to see tucows enter the
>>market in the same fashion as pool and offer a resellers an interface to
>>the drop list and backorders. The auction would be handled by tucows but
>>the reseller could build a custom interface to find / search and resell
>>the backorders.
>>
>>I would suggest looking at enom. Not so much the interface but the
>>auction drop model. They are catching a lot. A recent article eluded to
>>an optimized the request system. I think they are using .net to
>>coordinate the request to NSI across multiple registrars.
>>
>>Loren Stocker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Elliot,
>>>
>>>Interesting that Snapnames is now eager to shun their own EXCLUSIVE
>
> option
>
>>>(Snapback) in favor of increased revenues. The free market has spoken --
>>>volumes in regards to the WLS option. What's next? An auction at the
>
> Registry
>
>>>level with all proceeds going to the Evil Empire?
>>>
>>>I do think Tucows can add value here. Clearly, joining the many involved
>
> as
>
>>>Snapnames or Pool agents would change nothing. However, allowing us
>
> on-demand
>
>>>bandwidth or perhaps a more effective drop service would help us compete
>
> with
>
>>>Snapnames and Pool.
>>>
>>>There is now few ways to avoid auctions for good domains, those we might
>
> have
>
>>>secured for $50 from Snapnames will now go for hundreds, even thousands.
>
> I'd
>
>>>rather pay for bandwidth and take my chances upfront. At least I won't be
>>>summoned to some stupid auction -- against robots! --and some
>
> inconvenient
>
>>>date and time (unless I lose at Tucows).
>>>
>>>Any hope? Anyone else have ideas?
>>>
>>>Best Regards,
>>>
>>>Loren
>>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:58 EDT