At 11:14 AM 8/15/01 -0700, Kris Benson wrote:
>If possible, it would be good for there to be two possible locks on a
>domain, both of which lock it in the registry: one available to the
>registrant, one available to the reseller. This means that if the
>customer is being belligerant and hasn't paid bills, the domain can be
>'locked' to prevent them from taking off with their services.
These are issues we will need to consider when designing this service.
> > Note that worrying about you names being stolen is like worrying about
> > getting hit by a car when you cross the street, it rarely happens. If and
> > when it happens, the most damage (which we recognize as bad) is a small
> > period where service for this name do not work. The name is always restored
>
>That seems like a very appropriate analogy.
Thanks - I specialize in analogies. :) Sometimes, I can really miss though...
> > to it's rightful owner (in our experiences with this), especially if it is
> > an operational name with services attached to it. Our enhanced transfer
> > notification now alerts registrants when a name is requested to be moved to
> > another registrar, so, if your contact info is good, you can really
> > mitigate your risks. We are still going to extend "locking" functionality
> > as we do see it as having value, and revenue potential.
>
>Do you mean OpenSRS will be charging for domain-lock actions, or that
>resellers can charge for them without an added cost?
Well, there is no decision on this yet. We are certainly considering all
options... we do feel it is service that has value, as to where it falls in
the chain, we have to study this carefully.
sA
Scott Allan
Director OpenSRS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
