I get sick of hearing this non-trust of RSPs by OpenSRS. If
you are so frighten about the low quality of your RSPs, why
don't you tighten up the system as to who you accept or do
away with the RSP system?
What RSP will not sent the end user the 60 and 30 day
notice? And in our case, a 15 day notice.
The goal of the RSP is to earn the renewal fee. No notice,
no renewal, no fee.
It is the responsibility of the RSP to notify the end user.
It is the responsibility of the end user to act on this
notice and to keep their email address up to date.
To claim to be victims because the domain lapsed due to
non-payment is asinine, given the OpenSRS system.
Please note that I did not endorse the sudden death cut off
of BulkRegister, I state a reasonable time frame
deactivation was five days. If they are using the domain,
they will take action within the five days. If they are not
using it, most will not take action within the 40 days.
My point is that the end user and the RSP must take personal
responsibility instead of blaming the Registrar for the loss
of the domain due to their non-payment. Whether it's zero
tolerance or 40 days tolerance it is still the
responsibility of the end user and the RSP to act to renew a
domain name before it's expiration.
We have over 300 domains for which we are personally
responsible. We have never allowed one of them to elapse.
We have client domains that we maintain. We do not allow
them to elapse.
Perhaps OpenSRS should require one snail mail letter be sent
by the RSP to give notice to those who were too
irresponsible to keep their email address up to date or who
register the domain with a fake email address.
And yes, we get those. We sent an email receipt for every
domain registration, some bounce back to us because we were
given a bad email address to register the domain name.
Perhaps the RSP should be required to telephone those with
bad email addresses to notify them?
Perhaps OpenSRS should do away with RSPs and just run
everything themselves to ensure responsible behavior.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> Of Charles Daminato
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:49 AM
> To: easygoing; Loren Stocker; William X.Walsh;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: SUDDEN DEATH!!!, aka "Helping
> Resellers with delinquent
> names"
>
>
> Hold on a second...
>
> The RSP gets 60/30 (etc) day notices. The
> end-user gets ONE notice - day 0.
> That's why we give them a little time, in case
> their RSP hasn't been acting
> responsably.
>
> Charles Daminato
> OpenSRS Product Manager
> Tucows Inc. - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of easygoing
> > Sent: April 27, 2001 9:37 AM
> > To: Loren Stocker; William X.Walsh; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: SUDDEN DEATH!!!, aka "Helping
> Resellers with delinquent
> > names"
> >
> >
> > This is absolute nonsense.
> >
> > A domain holder receives notification 60 days prior to
> > expiration, 30 days prior to expiration and in
> our case 15
> > days prior to expiration. Plus a final email
> is sent on the
> > day of activation.
> >
> > If a domain holder ignores all these notices
> and allows the
> > domain name to expire, then it is willful
> neglect on their
> > part and they have no room to complain.
> >
> > However, OpenSRS has stated on many occasions that the
> > domain holder has 40 days from deactivation to renew the
> > domain. Frankly I would like to see that
> shorten to 5 days
> > and then the domain make available for re-registration.
> >
> > If a domain is being used, it will be renewed
> by the time
> > the holder receives three warnings. If it is not being
> > used, it should be returned to the general pool
> so somebody
> > else can use it.
> >
> > This issue here is individual responsibility.
> The domain
> > holder has the responsibility to renew the
> domain within the
> > renewal period if they wish to maintain the
> domain. And at
> > the low prices charged today, they have no one
> to blame but
> > themselves if they can not raise enough money
> to renew the
> > domain for another year within 60 days of renewal.
> >
> > How can you claim that you or the domain holder has been
> > victimized by cancellation after receiving so
> many advance
> > warnings that payment was due?
> >
> > We hear the same cries when we suspend a
> hosting account for
> > non-payment. I forgot, it's not fair you turn
> my site off.
> > Never mind that we send them seven warnings,
> one per day,
> > that their payment was past due and the account would be
> > suspend on the seventh day if payment was not received.
> >
> > It's not their fault they did not make the
> payment. They
> > are the victims, we are the bad guys for
> suspending their
> > account.
> >
> > It's time to grow up accept responsibility for one's
> > actions.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> > > Of Loren Stocker
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 6:43 PM
> > > To: William X.Walsh; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: SUDDEN DEATH!!!, aka "Helping Resellers
> > > with delinquent names"
> > > Importance: Low
> > >
> > >
> > > Yet, what's the real issue here?
> > >
> > > It's ICANN'S thoughtless policy that creates this
> > > situation. As I understand
> > > it, ICANN requires Tucows, NSI, Bulk and everyone
> > > else to pay for renewals
> > > IMMEDIATELY upon expiration. No grace period.
> No refunds.
> > >
> > > If that's the case we have a HUGE conflict of
> > > expectation between clients --
> > > accustomed to getting 45 days grace (or more)
> > > from NSI -- and the Registrar's
> > > who MUST delete the domain to avoid the renewal
> > > fees. The result is SUDDEN
> > > DEATH! No grace. No "on-hold" period. No recourse
> > > once the domain is lost. How
> > > am I doing so far?
> > >
> > > Rather that talk about cost recovery, we should
> > > be pressuring ICANN to provide
> > > -- at a minimum -- a 30 day grace period. Even if
> > > the domain goes "on-hold" at
> > > expiration, the client has at least a reasonable
> > > time to cure. Without this
> > > change in policy, we're all going to see -- or be
> > > victimized -- by Sudden
> > > Death; valuable domains lost due to material
> > > laspe of payment, say 2 days
> > > late. NO ONE WILL STAND FOR THAT! We are only now
> > > beginning to see the results
> > > of this non-sensical policy.
> > >
> > > Has ICANN forgot that were selling a data record
> > > with an incremental cost of
> > > say 1,000 per $1? Is a little customer services
> > > too much to ask for?
> > >
> > > Best, Loren
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thursday, April 26, 2001, 11:56:09 AM,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > That would be a great deal of help to all of us!
> > > > We do have a bunch of chargeback domains with
> > > no way to recover our
> > > > investment in those - between all of us, I am
> > > sure we could come up with
> > > > programing for a great auction site for these -
> > > hey we would gladly host
> > > > it free of charge on our servers if this ever
> > > catches on!
> > > > cheers
> > >
> > > So we do something that we've all been so
> > > critical of other registrars
> > > for doing?
> > >
> > > I don't think this is a very good idea at all.
> > > The bad press NSI got
> > > over this very issue should be a good indication
> > > of what would happen
> > > if the fastest growing registrar started
> doing it also.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > William
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
