On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:22:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Thanks for the responses to my bringing up this subject. Essentially what I > gather is that some people feel that Tucows is a White Hat organization while > others feel that Enom is a cesspool. There are disagreements about the > veracity of both sides but neither has given any facts to support either > position. So that brings me back to my original question of What > distinguishes Tucows these days from Microsoft or Verisign?
This is a questions to which the answer is long, involved, and subject to interpretation. What most people here will agree on is that in their experience, Tucows has behaved with ethical standards relatively close to their own. But the same may be said for Enom, because the ethical standards of their customers may be different from, well, mine. Technology (i.e. API), and customer service aside, I am still very happy to pay $2 more per domain at Tucows than I would at Enom, because the folks at Enom have demonstrated that their ethical standards are incompatible with my own. I will not do business with spammers. I will not act as their service provider, and I will not act as their customer. My reasons for this position are the subject of too many debates for me to detail in this email or this thread, or even to rehash on this list. Take it as given that I subscribe to a belief that spammers are in an ethical class a few notches below paparazzi and insurance salesmen, and we can move on. > Saying that they are ethical is an opinion. Showing in what way (what would > be useful for me and others) is what I'd like to hear if possible. Because > an organization started out one way does not mean it has remained true. There exist a number of ways to approach this. I can demonstrate the widespread awareness that certain companies (Enom, Verisign) are spamming through links to searches on NANAE, which I've already done. Compare the numbers of complaints regarding Enom versus Tucows, and you'll see that the segment of the industry which complains about abuse seems to feel the same way about these companies as I do. But as you say, comparison of ethics is based on opinion. If you feel that spam is perfectly acceptable and a valid way to promote one's business then I need a recap on what information you're looking for. > I would consider working with a good organization a benefit and I'd probably > pay more to do so. But everyone says they are good guys - even Microsoft has > their evangelizers and I've seen people shill for large companies on > newsgroups before. "Ethical business practices" is great but in real life > what are specific examples of this? You will probably not be able to find a mailing list message from an employee of Tucows/OpenSRS which even mentions ethics. At least, I've never seen one. All the talk of ethics is from Tucows customers who are pissed off at Enom/Register.com/Verisign spam. > Getting past the mudslinging and forgetting about enom for the moment, what > is so great specifically about Tucows/OpenSRS? I don't want to start any > futher flaming. I'd just like to know if anyone has any specific examples > from present day? Anecdotal stuff such as about spamming or not spamming is > not really a specific example unless specifics are provided. What kind of examples? How about this.... The absolute *worst* thing I've ever seen Tucows do was back in December 2001. For the whole story, you should read the list archives from about December 19th on, starting with references to "Tucows domain deletions" and "DIRECTSEEK.COM". In summary, IIRC, Tucows was experimenting with a new product they were hoping to develop, perhaps something along the lines of Snapnames. The problem was that they didn't announce to their resellers what they were developing, and they started "testing" things on domains which were just about to be deleted, with the effect that 45 days after expiry, a domain would suddenly have content for a day relating to the development project. The RSPs were in an uproar. Without rehashing the entire story, the Tucows reaction was to ask the RSPs (their customers) what they (Tucows) should do, and make a decision based on the response. The debate pretty much ended on December 21st at 7:30PM when, after hundreds of messages on discuss-list, Scott Allan posted a long and detailed explanation which satisfied everyone who was about to jump ship on ethical grounds, myself included. The way OpenSRS dealt with this issue made me even more a fan than I had been before. They made a mistake, acknowledged it, fixed it and apologized. If you're really interested and can't find list archives, let me know off-line and I'll forward you some of the "choice" posts which describe the issues and attitudes of both the RSPs and Tucows. Wow, I didn't mean to run off at the finger this much. As I said, the answer is long and involved. You will interpret things as you see fit. -- Paul Chvostek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Operations / Abuse / Whatever +1 416 598-0000 it.canada - hosting and development http://www.it.ca/
