RE: [DNS] moderator

RE: [DNS] moderator

From: Saliya Wimalaratne <saliya§>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:24:33 +1100 (EST)
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Sasha Sudakov wrote:

> david
> >I'm sure Jacqui can speak for herself on this, but it sounds to me like she
> >must be fairly frustrated by an apparent unlevel playing field to offer to
> >even it up by allowing the competition to have the data.
> you want a level playing field, life is not fair
> and just because we at ING work smarter then others does not


'smarter than others' does NOT mean 'preying on the naivete of customers'.

'smarter than others' does NOT mean 'diminishing the credibility of our

Don't make the mistake of thinking that ING is doing something 'new and
innovative' with respect to querying domains for expiration. The only new
and innovative thing that ING is doing is using scare tactics on other
people's customers.

This is only new and innovative in the DNS industry because nobody else is
low enough to do it. Similar tactics have been used in other industries
(most of these tactics are *illegal* in other industries; or banned by the
relevant Code of Practice for the industry concerned).

ING stating 'if you do not renew your domain, it will be deregistered' is
factually correct. However, the IMPLICATION is that 'if you do not renew
your domain with ING, it will be deregistered' AND 'your current registrar
is going to allow this to happen': both of these implications are
incorrect and are, IMHO, deliberate misrepresentations to the customers. 

This is the problem that the people you accuse of working dumber have with
ING. Not with the fact that ING are offering competing services; or that
they are marketing directly to customers (as long as ING aren't spamming,
which is another issue entirely). It is because of the way that the
marketing is done; ING's implication is that unless the customer deals
with ING, their domain will be deregistered (which is, of course, untrue).

I don't think that banning companies from marketing using the information
that is freely available to all is a proper solution. 

A potential solution: perhaps do not permit any registrars to use tactics
which could bring the industry into disrepute.

For the ING-specific situation; perhaps this could include the following:

'ING are not your current registrar'
'ING are offering a competing service to <xxx>, your current registrar'
'you can renew your domain with either of ING or <xxx> equally well'

or even simply the removal of the implication that unless the customer
deals with ING, their domain will be deregistered.

Then, the customer can make the decision based on 'real' criteria; like

	* service
	* speed
	* cost

of the product, rather than scare tactics or naivete.

If ING's product is really that good; it will win ING customers even with
this (very pertinent) information included.

And if ING continues to act in the manner which they have to date: well,
that pretty clearly demonstrates the confidence that they have in their
product (i.e. even *they* don't think it's a good product). 

So, ING, care to put your money where your mouth is ? Is your product
*really* that good ?


Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:05 UTC