Hello easygoing,
Saturday, December 09, 2000, 8:46:01 AM, you wrote:
> William, it as reasonable to talk to a brick wall as to try to have a
> meaningful discussion with you.
Only when you are trying to turn A into B.
> 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.
What the RSPs posting here WANT is irrelevant. They are not the
governing authority. It really doesn't matter who posts what here
about wanting that, how many, or the quantity of arguments they throw
out trying to convince people that B is really A.
> Obviously, neither I nor any of the others who have questioned this consider
> putting the domains on hold as being adequate.
That's really your problem.
> 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.
Domains are not physical property. Any analogy that tries to draw a
conclusion by comparing them to any physical property is fallacious.
> How does putting the domain name on hold help the RSP recover his loss?
No more than the registrars who sell to the public can recover their
losses except through LEGAL means. If your logic was anything even
CLOSE to accurage, NSI would be auctioning off non-paid domains. They
aren't. And while they are not, even if they HAD been permitted to do
that, you are not a registrar. If you want to have the privileges of
being a registrar, go become on. When you use a system that lets you
work as a registration service provider, and you arne't a registrar,
there are natually limits on what you can and can't do.
Let's use a SERVICE business as an example. If you are a third party
selling webhosting services from a wholesale webhosting service, you
have great limits on what you can and cannot do. Nearly all of them
will provide some means for you to change the user's password if they
forget it, but most of them will NEVER give you access to the existing
password, no matter what your justification, absent a court order. In
the end, there is a contractual relationship between not only you and
the provider and you and the customer, but by the nature of the
service, there is also a contractual obligation of sorts between the
provider and the end customer. The services place limitations on you
which protect them from being abused to the detriment of the users,
and this makes common sense. They have a very real concern over being
tainted by your actions, and having their other resellers tainted by
your actions, because no matter to what length they go to try and hide
the real provider, their are always tell tale signs that give away
that there is some association between the various parties.
(Yes, I am sure there are exceptions, but the exceptions prove the
rule by their rarity).
> 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.
Again you ignore this:
> 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?
I am not, and I have not, argued that those who do fraudulent
chargebacks should be permited to continue use of their domains.
You again ignore facts selectively.
A is A, you can keep trying to prove that the A is more like a B, and
that it should be treated as a B, and indeed is really a B, but it
will always be an A.
Repeat after me, the domain name is not a physical piece of property.
Services are not treated as property under the law. Courts have
already ruled that domain names are not property. If you want to
change this, go to court and convince them you are right. Until then
you are just fighting against every legal precedence, the actual
documents that govern our business, and logic.
End of Story.
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
