David -
As usual, you do an excellent job of summarizing the issues. I will try and
respond inline where appropriate below.
At 01:55 PM 9/10/01 -0400, David Harris wrote:
> > It is also a case of facilitation, not many resellers keep local copies of
> > the passwords as it requires extra work. It has it's own barriers to
>entry.
>
>Interesting. I thought more people did it.
Well, I am know some resellers do it. I know many resellers who would like
to do it, but do not given the technical hurdles involved.
> >
> > Well, the theory is that in order you to have lots of registrations, you
> > must conduct yourself in a responsible manner. I certainly concede that
> > this is not bullet proof. None of these requirements is ICANN mandated or
> > sanctioned, in fact most of these challenges exist as a result of ICANN
>not
> > understanding the market.
>
>OK -- that makes some sense. Just make sure you run it by your lawyers. :-)
You can be sure of that!
>I understand that ICANN does not recognize us resellers in any way. Even
>though we pay for the domain, the end user is viewed as the real owner of
>the domain. I would like ICANN to recognize us resellers as a valid part of
>the service chain in some way, but I feel that the domain name most be owned
>by the end-user at all times.
We are working on getting recognition for resellers form ICANN.
>To justify my access to my customer's domain name records and clearly state
>the bounds in which I will operate, I've added the following to the
>registration agreement:
>
>}} 30. GRANT OF ACCESS. You grant DRH Internet Inc. access to
>}} modify the details of your domain registration on your behalf. DRH
>}} Internet Inc. expressly denies any claim of ownership to your
>}} domain name which may be implied from this access. Customers
>}} which have their domain registration and website hosted with
>}} DRH Internet Inc. expressly grant DRH Internet Inc. permission
>}} to modify the nameserver and technical contact information in
>}} conjunction with the hosting service.
>
>Since this registration agreement is actually between Tucows and the
>registrant, it may be improper for me to have added this extra section. I
>did run it by someone in OpenSRS a while ago and they thought it was a good
>idea. Perhaps I should have a separate agreement between the registrant and
>DRH Internet for their using my services that allows this grant of access.
Our counsel would have to comment on this - I will get this done.
>I believe if us resellers are going to have access to modify domain details
>(through a password database or a "trusted RSP" status), then I feel that
>this legal text is important. Something needs to state that we are "helpers"
>or "agents" for the end-user in dealing with Tucows (who is the actual
>registrar) and define our actual role and permissions.
Agree.
> > Reseller deletes are different from end user deletions indeed.
>
>I'm not understanding why they are so different. Why would the reseller ever
>need to delete a name without the permission of an end user?
>
>The following reasons for deletes have been brought up:
>
>(a) Registrant typo in registration -- RSP and registrant agree.
>(b) Registrant no longer needs name or must delete for legal reasons -- RSP
>and registrant agree.
>
>Well, the last reason breaks the pattern:
>
>(c) Registrant has made bad on payment through credit card chargeback -- RSP
>wants to delete, registrant will not agree.
>
>Chargebacks become a hot issue whenever discussed. I'm not sure if the RSP
>should be able to delete a name because of a chargeback. This is a thorny
>issue I will leave to other more knowledgeable and braver souls to work out.
>:-)
I like you separation of the cases. Makes a strong case for joint
registrant approval. Why should the reseller agree?
The big risk in extending delete to manage, is that if an account is
compromised, it would make it easier to delete the name.
>Thank you for listening and interacting! This is what helps keep me at
>Tucows.
We are both glad you are here!
Regards,
sA
