I certainly feel the practice should be banned by ICANN. However, I am a realist, and I would not count on ICANN to 'do the right thing' in any circumstance.
And I think that even if it were banned by ICANN, NSI would find a loophole. So IF it is a practice that NSI can use against us, and it is, I'm all for an ATTEMPT to level the playing field. in the long run, this does without a doubt benefit NSI because they have the largest pool of expiring names to steal... But they are doing that already, and unless tucows can get that stopped (and I have a feeling Tucows would be the ONLY registrar wanting to do that) then I think they should provide us with any and all tools they can to help us offer value to our customers. On Friday, December 21, 2001, at 07:52 AM, Ken Joy wrote: > 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 >> >> >
