Chuck Hatcher wrote :
>
> The renewing RSP is debited, but the domain does not move to the renewing
> RSP's list.
If this is correct, it makes no logical sense - to me anyway.
> Name servers do not change.
>
> I think this needs to be changed so that no RSP other than the current one
> can renew, without an actual RSP change.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A. I. Sinclair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Chuck Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 7:23 PM
> Subject: RE: renewals
>
>
> > The whole discussion as far as I know has been the fact that if
> a renewal
> is
> > made at another RSP the domain would move to the renewing RSP's list of
> > active domains and the renewing RSP is debited for the renewal - that
> > effectively equates to an RSP transfer.
> >
> > Are name servers affected during an RSP renewal transfer if the renewing
> RSP
> > has default name servers set up - anyone?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > A. I. Sinclair
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of Chuck Hatcher
> > Sent: Friday, 05 Jan 05, 2001 11:02 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: Scott Allan
> > Subject: Re: renewals
> >
> >
> > Currently an OpenSRS domain name can be renewed at any OpenSRS RSP. As
> far
> > as I know, a renewal at an RSP other than the "current" one
> does not cause
> > an RSP transfer (except in a "de facto" sense). For instance, I don't
> think
> > it will cause the domain name to move to the renewing RSP's reseller
> > interface.
> >
> > I wouldn't have a problem with an RSP-to-RSP transfer requiring adding a
> > year to the registration, and I agree with you when you say 'A
> "straight"
> > renewal (no transfer) should always only be possible with the current
> RSP.'
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "A. I. Sinclair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Scott Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Chuck Hatcher"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 4:37 PM
> > Subject: RE: renewals
> >
> >
> > > I am reposting this as I did not see discussion on the issue of
> > > renewal/extension at time of transfer between RSPs which to my mind
> should
> > > be essential.
> > >
> > > I am intrested on Tucow's/others' take on this.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > A. I. Sinclair
> > > ------------------
> > > My previous post :
> > >
> > > The concept here should be simple and consistent with current market
> > > practices.
> > >
> > > The proposed system is based on renewal (through other RSP site)
> triggers
> > > transfer - that is not how it works today.
> > >
> > > If we stay consistent and if a customer does not like my
> service, all he
> > has
> > > to do is transfer to another RSP and the transfer triggers the renewal
> > (just
> > > as is the common practice today when transferring between registrars).
> > From
> > > a registrants perspective there should be no difference in
> events when
> > > tranferring between RSPs or registrars - it should be the same.
> > >
> > > A "straight" renewal (no transfer) should always only be possible with
> the
> > > current RSP.
> > >
> > > If a customer prefers a cheaper or whatever RSP, he does what he
> normally
> > > does today, and that is to effect a tranfer to another RSP or
> registrar.
> > > Transfers between RSP's should also carry the same min one (max ten)
> year
> > > renewal period conditions (sothat cutomers don't tansfer for the sake
> of
> > > the transfer). This will keep OSRS "internal" transfers
> consistent with
> > the
> > > market.
> > >
> > > It is not a matter of trying to own customers, they (registrants) will
> > > always have choice.
> > >
> > > My point being a transfer between RSPs should always automatically
> > initiate
> > > a renewal and never the other way round.
> > >
> > > A. I. Sinclair
> > >
> > >
> > > At 11:06 PM 1/2/01 -0500, Chuck Hatcher wrote:
> > > >Please accept my vote for this to become an issue.
> > >
> > > Accepted.
> > >
> > > >I think the only way an RSP other than the one who registered the
> domain
> > > >name should be able to renew it is if the domain name is
> transferred to
> > > that
> > > >RSP. (I think there should be an automated process for this
> that makes
> > it
> > > >at least as easy to change RSP's as it is to change
> registrars. This is
> > in
> > > >OpenSRS's best interest, because if an end user wants to leave their
> RSP,
> > > >and it is difficult to move to another OpenSRS RSP, they will find
> > another
> > > >registrar.)
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > Again, as I think back as to why this approach was taken, it probably
> had
> > a
> > > lot to do with not having automated RSP to RSP transfers. So, it was
> > > certainly a compromise based on missing functionality. Not a
> good thing.
> > >
> > > While I have no problem adding in the restriction, I think it might be
> > best
> > > to wait until RSP to RSP transfers are automated, which is
> near the top
> of
> > > list of things we are to work on next. Fair?
> > >
> > > Personally, I do not see the *real* threat in keeping this open,
> > > realistically no one would sanely attack this market. The advantages
> the
> > > "sponsoring" RSP has blow this right off the concern meter of real
> issues
> > > for me personally (although I do realize many of you are
> concerned, and
> I
> > > respect that). In my mind, I do appreciate (if I think as an
> RSP) that
> > > there seems to be little value in this open-ness, and there is a
> perceived
> > > threat, but I can not (as an individual RSP) bring myself to
> be worried
> > > about it - if my customers are that easy to poach, or want to
> leave that
> > > badly, I deserve to lose them. The open-ness of this policy is
> > > "pro-registrant", and IMHO we should all keep those
> registrants in mind,
> > > since it is to them who we are delivering value.
> > >
> > > However, if we have made a wrong judgement call on this
> issue, lets fix
> > it!
> > > I have been wrong before... :)
> > >
> > > >"Renew Anywhere" is going to cause a lot of problems with
> recordkeeping.
> > > >For instance, if my customer adds two years with another
> RSP, how will
> I
> > > >ever find out about it?
> > >
> > > Again, I do not see this being a problem in that many
> registrants would
> > > renew with other RSPs. The odds of them renewing with another
> registrar
> > are
> > > far greater. Why would they renew elsewhere? Again, my personal views
> may
> > > be different from yours, and as such we may need to adjust
> our policy to
> > be
> > > reflective of what the majority of out RSPs want and need
> (and there is
> no
> > > problem with this) - but I always personally cringe when policies are
> put
> > > in place that try and make the customers desires difficult for them to
> > > fulfill; sound like NS^H^H anyone you know?
> > >
> > > Trying to *own* customers through restrictive policies is bad
> > > (short-sighted) business. IMHO, the only way to *own* a customer is to
> > > *earn* their business continually. Earning their business means giving
> > them
> > > value continually. Granted, not all customers appreciate this, but, I
> > > maintain the strongest long term customers (the most valuable
> customers)
> > do.
> > >
> > > >The biggest part of the work is in the initial registration,
> dns setup,
> > > >hosting or forwarding configuration. A lot of business
> models count on
> a
> > > >stream of future renewals to make money.
> > >
> > > Absolutely, us included! However, anyone who thinks they can control
> > > customers through policies as opposed to continually earning their
> > business
> > > not do well in the long term.
> > >
> > > It should be noted that in no way do I consider OpenSRS a
> perfect model.
> > We
> > > have lots of work to do and much room for improvement wrt
> *earning* our
> > > business. I do assure you that we are aware of it, and will
> continue to
> > > work hard to earn your support.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > sA
> > > Scott Allan
> > > Director OpenSRS
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
