Does anyone actually *like* the idea of getting access to 'dropped names', assuming the whole channel had the access. Ross asked the question, I'd like to see it answered.
Thanks, Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Harris > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 10:04 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Re[3]: maxi.org -- an example of the "new" deletion > procedure > > > > William 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. > > First let me say: all we have are assumptions and sketchy-third-party-info > about what OpenSRS is actually doing. > > We have all freaked out somewhat because OpenSRS has not given us > a straight > answer yet. I agree, I would like to have a straight answer up front, > instead of these vague references to a "testbed" and "new secondary market > products." Not having a straight answer makes me feel out-of-the-loop as a > reseller. (Which is itself a problem for a "channel focused" company.) But > lets give OpenSRS time to get their act together -- it is a holiday week. > > Ok, now that I've said that: I totally agree in hoping that the > allegations > of allocating soon-to-be-dropped names to new registrants are not true. I > thought we all agreed that it was sleazy for Verisign to do stuff > like this > with their "auctions," etc. I'd love to have a clear statement > from OpenSRS > that they agree that this re-allocation is out of the question. (They can > then take their time to explain what is actually happening in the > testbed.) > > > This is quite serious if true. This is the kind of thing that becomes > > a deal breaker. I really thought OpenSRS would continue to stick to > > higher standards than other registrars as far as doing the "right" > > thing, and in doing so, develop a real strong loyalty among their > > resellers, which would end up being more profitable for them in the > > long run than engaging in the kind of shenanigans that we have come to > > expect from the more sleazy registrars, like Register.com and > > Verisign, to name just two. > > Agreed: if these allegations are correct, then that does > seriously change my > relationship with OpenSRS. > > Ross said (talking about Scott): > > His team is attempting to put together a service that will allow our > > resellers to offer a product bundle more similar to that > offered by other > > industry players. > > This sounds OK and nice on first cut, but then I think about how much I > dislike the other registrars and some of their unethical (IMO) > practices and > products. I don't want OpenSRS to become more like "other registrars" in > their sleezy offerings. > > Be bold! Be different! Be better than all the others! :-) > > David > >
