The potential for abuse is equal to the trust in the re-sellers added to the cost of the deletion. stubborness is never an argumentwinner. Excluding Chuck's mail, since he is writing on something and I am willing to wait for that, the negative reactions are non based on facts, or simply logic reasoning, both the best solutions to an argument. If opensrs feels so strong about not extending their rights in this to their re-sellers, then there should be better arguments then the ones we had untill now. The arguments for extending these rights are strong; our market-position, competitiveness, client-complaints, loss off busines, and logical; they have it so why not share, no real extra effort, we offer to pay, no financial liability for opensrs and more. If we can keep the discusison to that level i am sure that a reasonable solution will be found. 3 for a penny answers like "see, it is that easy not to use and we fear problems" are like saying that cars should be forbidden because they might cause an accident and that forbidding them however is not needed because everybody can just not use it.
It is unlike the "if it is there then why not use it" argument , which compares to inventing electric bulbs but not lighting them of fear for fire and thus remain using candles. We trust opensrs will offer this service soon albeit in their own way and not exactly comparible with others. regards abel On Friday 09 Nov 2001 2:41 pm, Robert Rivers wrote: > Hello, > > In the example you gave, simply change the domain contact info to the > person or company who complained about the infringement. Problem Solved. > > There is no need for automating the deletion process and the potential > for abuse is extreme. -- Abel Wisman office +44-20 84 24 24 2 2 mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16 www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
