I think the discussion has been unfairly aimed at Tucows, who actually have
to behave in accordance with ICANN's view of the world in order to maintain
their accreditation. A few observations:
1. Chargebacks happen very infrequently. If this is not the case for a given
RSP, Tucows can always boot them from the program.
2. Most domains involved in chargebacks probably won't fetch much in the
aftermarket (increasingly true now that 20 million domain names are taken).
If a domain that really matters to a registrant, he or she will likely take
steps to ensure that the registration process is completed (i.e. payment).
3. I can understand how there is an opportunity cost if a domain name like
ibm.com is put "on hold" while payment is sorted out, but given #2 above,
it's really rather money-grubbing of ICANN to artificially treat
registrations as though they were chiseled into stone tablets. Chances are
there's no authoritative DNS record in any case, but even if there were, how
much does it really cost to erase all traces of the from InterNIC if
everyone does their part?
4. With the level of automation now attained, ICANN and accredited
registrars' administrative and processing costs for domain registration are
negligible when considering a single domain registration, so why make RSPs
bear all the financial risk?
Now a simple proposal. If ICANN, accredited registrar and RSPs were in a
proper cooperative relationship, ICANN could adopt a policy as follows: up
to 100 free cancelled registrations a month by each registrar, beyond that
$2 per cancellation. No admin costs incurred in having to check
documentation proving the chargeback, etc. An excessive amount of cancelled
registrations subjects the accreditation to review.
Some people have said a domain name is not property, not tangible, etc. I
think ICANN needs to be more big hearted, and say that it does not even
exist until proper paid registration is completed. Before then, any use of
the domain name is purely a transitory phenomenon.
Cheers,
Terry
> From: "Dave Warren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "Dave Warren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 04:14:56 -0700
> To: "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Discuss OpenSRS"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Re[13]: deleting a ca domain
>
> Devil's advocate? Yeah, I've been known to play the roll once in a while.
> More importantly when I get ripped off by a would-be customer, I react very
> badly. What I see here is this: I've shown several reasons that I consider
> us to be resellers (http://RESELLERS.opensrs.org) should just about clinch
> it, eh? Either way, perhaps I am on the losing side of this argument, and
> perhaps in the long run, it won't really affect me personally. The size
> that I'm at, I deal mainly in cash anyhow, and primarily I know the person
> buying the name prior to the transaction anyway, and generally my friends
> won't try to screw me out of $15CDN.
>
> That being said, once appropriate paperwork does come down, I have a hard
> time explaining to myself why I should be liable for paying for a domain
> that my customer broke his agreement on payment for. I understand that it's
> not a refundable charge (From NSI, or from OpenSRS), and I certainly don't
> feel it's any better to ask OpenSRS to take the burden of nonpayment upon
> themselves either). All I want is some odds, no matter how tiny, of making
> back the money on that domain. If I have control of it myself, I might just
> be able to sell it for $5, then on next year's renewal of $15, I'll finally
> have broken even.
>
>
> Perhaps another quick paragraph in the terms and conditions of the end user,
> one that would say (In legalese) "If the customer refuses to promptly pay
> for the domain name purchased, or disputes the credit card charge, then it
> will return to the control of the RSP, upon the RSP submitting the
> appropriate documentation"
>
> Shouldn't a clause like that effectively prevent this from being an issue,
> it would give OpenSRS the authority to transfer the domain in a non-payment
> situation? What are the issues involved with something like this? I've
> seen it touched on during this discussion, but never really analyzed as far
> as this thread has gone.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Dave Warren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Discuss OpenSRS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 2:17 AM
> Subject: Re[13]: deleting a ca domain
>
>
>> Hello Dave,
>>
>> You may enjoy playing devil's advocate (fitting considering your
>> domain), but this won't change the facts one iota.
>>
>> And I'll rest on that.
>>
>> Like Al Gore, except instead of counting until you get what you want,
>> you want to continue twisting things until you get the result you
>> want. No matter how you reword it, or how many analogies you throw at
>> it, the facts do not change.
>>
>> No matter how often you call a A a B, no matter how badly you might
>> want the A to become a B, no matter how many arguments you find to
>> support your position that the A really should be a B, it's still an
>> A.
>>
>> Saturday, December 09, 2000, 12:53:55 AM, you wrote:
>>
>>>>> As an RSP, I am a REseller, true or false?
>>>>
>>>> No, you are a service provider. There are similarities to a reseller
>>>> relationship, but there are also limitations imposed by both the
>>>> agreements and situations.
>>
>>> What's the resellers management URL? Ohh right:
>>> http://RESELLERS.opensrs.net/
>>
>>> Then, we go back to the RSP agreement, 6.1: "...domains are registered
> by
>>> the RSP through the OpenSRS..."
>>
>>
>>> What am I missing here? We're resellers, not service providers.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>
