I simply can't leave this unanswered. I want to come at this from three
perspectives. Our pain, what we have done and are doing and what you can do.
Our pain. It is first worth noting that our "pain" around default nack
started with RCOMs policy so the Verisign "pain" I will describe is not the
onset of same. From the time Verisign adopted their default nack policy we
have had hundreds of customer service issues relating to thousands of
domains. As a wholesaler, one of the rubs is that the first time each of you
are faced with this incredibly frustrating situation you rant (see rant
below). You should. The situation is completely inapproriate and unfair. A
conservative estimate would put our "pain" in this regard in the many 100's
of man hours. Remember, that this costs real dollars and means that people
who would otherwise be solving other problems are having to deal with this
morass, for which, of course, we take more heat. Now let me give you the bad
news. This has cost us IN HARD DOLLARS hundreds of thousands of dollars in
revenue this quarter. There is a never-ending list of customers who tried to
transfer, had the transfer fail because i) they didn't respond with exact
precision ii) they responded properly, but the request, sent out on a Friday
afternoon, was not responded to within the narrow window allowed iii) the
system put in place by Verisign simply didn't work ("oops sorry it is a new
system, you understand") or iv) sunspots. The domain then expired and they
were forced to renew with Verisign as the domain was no loger transferable.
Derek, lots of pain.
What we have done. From the time default nack first became an issue (March
or so) Tucows has been THE company out in front of the issue. We raised the
issue with RCOM immediately and worked with them, VGRS (Verisign Global
Registry System) and ICANN to try and get to a resolution. Understand that
this issue is covered by the Registrar-Registry agreement meaning it is VGRS
which must enforce this, not ICANN. VWPG (Verisign Web Presence Group or
Verisign Registrar) adopted their policy unilaterally just before the ICANN
meetings in Stockholm. I got the issue immediately on the agenda inside the
Registrars constituency and presented for roughly 40 minutes on this issue.
We immediately received huge support from virtually all Registrars with two
exceptions (guess who). I spent much of my time in Stockholm lobbying on
this point. This isssue is in the process of moving from the Registrars
constituency to the DNSO (you can follow the history and the progress of
most of this on the various mailing lists if you are interested, but if you
are I will advise finding a hobby ;-)). We have continued our complaints to
VGRS and are in dialogue there (just spoke to them again yesterday). I have
a director-level employee who spends roughly 1/4-1/3 of his time dealing
with this issue (more cost and pain). We are the CLEAR leader in the
Registrar consituency on this issue. We are the ONLY Registrar devoting
significant internal resources to the issue (which is fine because we are
the next largest and by far the leader in transfers in so we are most
affected). We ARE making progress.
Before I get to "What can you do", let me make a couple of points. RCOM has
officially changed their policy. This is progress. We have won on this
issue. by the way, RCOM deserves belated credit for recognizing that this
policy in extremely customer-unfriendly and will hurt them in the long run.
Next, ICANN has been both receptive and helpful. The last thing we would
want is them to act in a heavy-handed way and issue edicts. This may suit us
when we agree with the edicts, but there would no doubt be edicts that we
would HATE. They are proceeding as they should, which is supportive of
consensus and using "moral suasion".
What can you do. First, and most importantly, make absolutely sure your
customer(s) understand who is to blame here. They should understand that
this policy restricts their freedom of choice and that you understand that
this issue revolves around a simple principal. We say these are your
customers and Verisign says they are their customers. They will prove it by
locking them in. Next, you can complain to VWPG. Let them know what this has
caused you in terms of pain. Complain to VGRS, now that you know that it is
their contractual relationship that governs. Complain to ICANN. They are
interested in your views. Complain to the FTC. Complain to the BBB. Go to
www.nsihorrorstories.com and post. Derek if you spend 1/1000 of the effort
that Tucows has on this issue then many folks will hear your voice. Others
can add detail to this better than I can (no pun intended).
Let me close by telling you how I keep myself from going crazy about this.
First, I recognize that this is a reaction to the fact that we (us, you and
I) are hurting them. They were losing so many customers they needed to do
something. Second, what they have chosen to do is SO customer-unfriendly.
Even more appropriate, is SOOOOO reseller unfriendly. This is another in a
long line of steps that show complete disdain for your relationship with
your customer. I keep telling myself that it is behaviour like this that
will keep us in business in the long-term. They may save a few transactions,
but they will do much more damage than good. Think about that next time they
call you and offer you a $0.50 price break or co-marketing dollars! You can
even expect to see some interesting justifications of this policy in the
near future.
Enough for now. It is a beautiful Saturday, my kids want to play, as does my
dog, and I have sufficiently vented. Derek, I hope you understand that we
understand. When we are doing what we are doing, and dealing with what we
are dealing with, I could not leave your comments unresponded to. To have
our policy perceived as "too bad" was, for me, too much. Thumbs up our ass!
Uh-uh. I want to reiterate that each and every one of you can help by adding
your voice to the din in the various ways described above. When you are
complaining to us you are simply preaching to the converted. Have a good
weekend.
Regards
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Balling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 10:36 AM
Subject: NSI, SRS, and a rant
> OK, I'm going to vent, because NSI has completely fucked our
> customer, and near as I can tell, SRS policy is "too bad, even though
> we're the only ones who have a cause under the ICANN agreement, we're
> going to lodge our thumbs up our ass"
>
> 1.) Customer has NSI domain (several)
> 2.) Customer's ISP is going out of business or some such
> 3.) Customer changes ISP to us
> 4.) Customer has <n> days of service before $OLD_ISP throws the power
> switch on them
> 5.) Customer requests domain transfer
> 6.) SRS sends token to e-mail (still working). life is good.
> 7.) For some reason, 12 days later, transfer is still "Pending
> Registry Approval"
> 8.) $OLD_ISP has now terminated service
> 9.) Thus, old contact address no longer works
>
> So now, even if the process starts all over again, the customer will
> have to go through significant hurdles because Tucows will send the
> token to a (now) non-existant address. If all had gone the way ICANN
> says it should, we'd be in business already, because NSI wouldn't
> have had cause, life would have been good, etc. etc.
>
> I contend that Tucows should be picking up the ball and running with
> it, as the registrar of choice, and with an authorization in hand,
> saying "this is our domain, not NSI's". Instead, support was
> uniformly unhelpful (telling me it would time out automatically in 10
> days and to try again, even though as the registrar of choice, its
> SRS' job to make the transfer happen, and if it ISN'T happening - and
> there isn't an ICANN-approved reason for the losing-registrar-NAK,
> for them to immediately go after NSI via ICANN... if they're NOT
> doing that, then what the heck are they collecting fees for?)
>
> I give up... are there any registrars who are actually willing to do
> the work you pay them for, or is it just "SRS has the lowest Lovelace
> Factor[1] of the registrars, all of whom suck"?
>
> D
>
> [1] The Lovelace Scale is a commonly used unit of measurement for
> "suckage". If you have to ask why its named that way, you're too
> young to be asking.
> --
> +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Conan! What is best in life?" |
> | Derek J. Balling | "To crush your enemies, see them |
> | | driven before you, and to hear the |
> | | lamentation of their women!" |
> +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
