William, it as reasonable to talk to a brick wall as to try to have a
meaningful discussion with you.
However, I will make one final attempt.
You have read all the messages relating to this subject. This is a
reasonable statement, since you have replied to many of them.
The remedy that has been discussed is returning the domain name to the RSP,
not just placing the domain on hold. It has been stated several times that
placing the domain on hold without returning it to the RSP is not
acceptable. As you are well aware since you have read all these responses,
but in your usual manner, you ignored these facts as it would counter your
point.
Obviously, neither I nor any of the others who have questioned this consider
putting the domains on hold as being adequate.
Using the previous magazine example, this is equivalent to the magazine
publisher saying I've been paid for a year's subscription, but I am not
going to deliver the subscription to anybody. I have my money, why do I
care if my clients receive anything for the money they paid me.
How does putting the domain name on hold help the RSP recover his loss? It
provides a revenge factor, but revenge does not pay the bills. Returning
the domain name to the RSP would allow the RSP the opportunity to recoup
part of his loss. Even if it was a totally worthless domain name, the RSP
would still have the opportunity. Under present policy the only thing the
RSP gets is the shaft, both from his client and from Tucows.
Tucows, like the magazine publisher, does not have a loss. The RSP paid
them.
However, Tucows has a different type of loss. The loss of RSPs who are
unwilling to accept these actions by Tucows. It cost them our business. We
paid them several thousand dollars in domain name registrations the first
part of this year. They now get zero from us, as our business is going to
another Registrar.
It will cost them additional thousands in renewal fees each year as we
transfer our current clients away from them.
Is the problems with charge backs that serious? We receive 2-3 charge back
attempts per month on domain name registration and about one every six
months on our hosting business. To date, we have collected on all but one
of the domain name registration charge backs, but only because we disable
the domain names ourselves. But we still have the administrative costs of
responding to our merchant account, notifying the client of the charge back
and their domain being disable while the issue is resolved. So the thieves
do cost us money.
We now charge a fee to return a domain to a client after a charge back
dispute. And yes, this is clearly stated in the registration agreement. We
even state the amount of the fee. Why should we or our honest clients pay
the costs caused by thieves trying to steal the domain names?
We also clearly spell out that they will lose the domain name registration
and the use of the domain name if they initiate a charge back against
payment for the domain.
Sorry you do not agree with this, William. It has always surprised me how
you could argue on the side of the thieves who try to steal domain names by
using charge backs to recover their money after they received the domain
name.
-----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:42 PM
To: easygoing
Cc: Derek J. Balling; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re[7]: deleting a ca domain
Hello easygoing,
Friday, December 08, 2000, 6:28:31 PM, you wrote:
> Clap! Clap! Clap!
> William is great for ignoring facts that disagree with his opinions.
> This doesn't really have much of an impact on us anymore, as we have
> switched to a Registrar that protects our interests in the case of charge
> backs. The only reason we monitor this list is that we still have a large
So what do you call putting domains on hold and suspending them when
you have a charge back?
Do you call that unreasonable?
And you talk about other's ignoring facts selectively?
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
