You have your opinions. I don't think it is right to pass domains on to someone else without them being dropped and free. OpenSRS should have done these tests themselves, and not let Davey get all the traffic. How in the world did Davey get all the traffic? Who is he friends with at OpenSRS? Hell, it can't be too hard to write a script to monitor the hits for a site. 10 lines maybe for a simple script, more if you want to add bells and whistles. All I was basically stating in my messages is that time will tell. I can't wait to see the outcome of this entire discussion. I am done. I have better things to do (Make an income) than write 5 page letters about the discussion and testing.
Another 2 cents from nobody. Mike Allen, 4CheapDomains.Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.4CheapDomains.Net (812) 275-8425 - Office (815) 364-1278 - Fax ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kris Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mike Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 2:06 PM Subject: Tucows expired names (was: Re: maxi.org -- an example of the "new" deletion procedure) > Mike Allen wrote: > > > > It's funny though.. If SRS had asked everyone before they started it would > > have eliminated these scripts on here. However, I will be surprised if > > OpenSRS does stop this program. More than likely it will be under a > > different name and they will try to say they are not involved, but keep > > following the trail and you will find they are apart of it. All companies do > > this practice, and I doubt SRS will stand up, be proud and be any different. > > The way the company will look at it, it is more income. However, that's not > > the bottom line. The bottom line is they are just allowing more people to > > sell for them and cutting the normal resellers out, also the bottom line is > > harmony and knowing you are not a malicious company like the rest. Any > > company that plays by the rules will be rewarded, all those that don't will > > live in hell for eternity. Just watch... Time Will Tell No Lies. > > Ok, this is where I have to jump in. > > Mike, I think you crossed a line here. There is currently a lot of > mud-slinging going on with this topic, probably without foundation. Yes, > Tucows is developing new products. This is one of the things we like > about being Tucows resellers -- they develop new and innovative products > that few others are involved in and are difficult (read: huge resource > requirement) to get a small company involved in and have no desire to > compete directly with their resellers. They have stated this several > times when people have asked on this list to develop xxx or yyy. > > To OpenSRS's credit, this is the first time I have seen even a *hint* of > impropriety. They fight the good fight -- when the competitor punches > below the belt, they double over momentarily, then get up and start > fighting the guy -- still above the belt. To suggest that "all companies > follow [an undisclosed relationship] practice" is a little too broad of a > statement. Tucows and OpenSRS are good companies, I have yet to be > convinced otherwise. > > In addition, I have heard complaints about NSI's process that is similar > to described about Tucows' development. Only thing is, NSI does not > follow past-practice, nor do they publish their qualifications. They may > pick up a domain the day after expiry and put it up on greatdomains, or > they may wait six months. > > In the case of how Tucows has laid out this potential product, there is no > harm to the original owner of the domain -- they couldn't renew it anyways > after 40 days, and it is only beneficial to the reseller & customers. I > assume that Tucows would charge very little (compared to current market > value) for this service (like their other offerings) and that it would be > as available as its resellers made it. > > I do not see anything wrong with doing it this way -- it allows for the > reseller of a good company to get some perks. If a unique product is only > offered to customers of a single company, there is nothing wrong with > this. > > For example, there is one copy of, say, a Harry Potter signed, > mint-condition manuscript (assuming such an item exists, I'm sure it would > be widely popular). The owner wants to sell it. You have to be a > customer of that person to get it, right? Now, say the owner wants to > sell it, but *only* if you go through eBay. Do we see a problem with > that? No. > > Why do we see a problem with domains? Probably because we're looking at > them as an object that we *buy*. The registrant is not an owner, but a > lessee. When you register a domain, you essentially acquire a lease on > some Internet "real estate" for a fixed period of time, with the > right-of-first-refusal when renewal time rolls around. Renewal time rolls > around and your building manager (registrar) comes by to collect the next > year's lease payment. You say "naw, not this year" and he goes away. It > is within his right to resell that space to someone else, providing the > property owner (registry/ICANN/Internet-at-large) still gets paid the > rental fee. > > I understand that there is something despicable about the expired-names > market. I'm not sure I'd even participate in such a market, however, that > doesn't mean it is bad. Nor does it mean that it could not be made > something pure and good when exposed in the right way by a company like > OpenSRS. > > Assuming that 'maxi.org' is indeed an appropriate example (can someone > from Tucows verify this?), Tucows has made some errors in the development > stages of this product, and I think we can see those here. First, we see > the registrant as 'PTI' and the contacts as "Frank Schilling". Then we go > to the site and find a lot of ads for nothing. > > This is what is bothering me: if Tucows was developing this product why > did they involve someone else? Do they not have the ability to "play" > with their own reseller accounts in order to test stuff? Why was Mr. > Schilling involved? > > I think that's it. Unless we see some serious, provable impropriety that > compromises our position in the market, I see no problem with what Tucows > is developing here. > > -kb > -- > Kris Benson > ABC Communications > +1 (250)612-5270 x14 > +1 (888)235-1174 x14
