Hi Robert... Although new to this area of the world, I have been speaking off-list to 3 other guys and they all made the claim if they don't drop this program by Monday, they are going to drop OpenSRS and I have been sleeping on it myself. I have spent money (A Lot) on advertising in the past months as I am new, but I would rather end it now before I end up with a ton of un-happy customers because they are buying names from a company with a mud-slinging reputation like TuCows... ( I don't think consumers feel that was at the moment, but they will soon once the media and papers get wind of this story - If someone tells TechTV and local news, the game is over for them)
TechTV already did a story on the ethics of advertising and the payoffs with some of these search engines and that got a few people fired. Mike Allen, 4CheapDomains.Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.4CheapDomains.Net (812) 275-8425 - Office (815) 364-1278 - Fax ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 5:04 AM Subject: Re: Re[3]: maxi.org -- an example of the "new" deletion procedure > At 12/20/01 10:54 PM, William X Walsh wrote: > > >Hmm, I don't know how much credenance to give this, but I've received > >an out of band report on this subject that bothers me. > > > >That OpenSRS is currently letting a reseller pay a fixed monthly fee > >for first option on all names being deleted from OpenSRS. > > > >I really hope this is not true. > > Indeed. > > > >This is quite serious if true. This is the kind of thing that becomes > >a deal breaker. > > Agreed; if this is true, I'll be seriously reconsidering my relationship > with OpenSRS. This crosses a line I wouldn't in my wildest dreams have > thought OpenSRS would even consider; I assumed the initial poster was in > the throes of a paranoid delusion because his accusation seemed so > farfetched. > > If true, it makes all the talk about "the domain always belongs to the > customer", "the customer always belongs to the reseller", and "we are > trying to work with ICANN to make sure that domains are allocated fairly > and dropped by other registrars in a timely fashion" look like words that > are convenient when it serves OpenSRS's purposes, but easily thrown away > when someone approaches with money. > > I've been thinking long and hard about how to articulate exactly what the > problem is here, and this is it: the only reason those expiring domains > were registered with OpenSRS in the first place (instead of, say, > Dotster) is that resellers like me worked to attract those customers. In > exchange for that work (and OpenSRS's $4 profit), they promised to keep > their hands out of the pie. According to what I can piece together from > the accusations and the vague OpenSRS responses, it looks like OpenSRS > believes they have found a "gray area" of the contracts that they think > allows them to take ownership of the customer's domain -- the customer I > got for them -- and make a profit off it without involving me. I don't > think so; I'm not paying a premium wholesale price to deal with a company > that looks for loopholes that enable it to do things contrary to the > spirit of the whole arrangement. > > I've been a consistent supporter of OpenSRS because I thought OpenSRS > believed in doing the right thing by me, by the customer, and by the > domain community in general. If this is true, I'm clearly going to have > to reconsider that. > > -- > Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
