First of all we still do not have an answer about the question as to whether domains were transferred directly to DurectSeek.com. I can going forward with the assumption that the answer is yes. The first issue that comes up is that all such domains have to be deleted and put back into the pool of available domains.
As for the claim that Tucows addressed this issue with 24 hours is completely false. I contacted Tucows last Monday about this. When I started asking questions my salesperson stopped responding to my e-mail. Ross Rader on this list told me to contact him by telephone and I did. He did not return the phone calls or e-mails I sent. The only way I was able to get any kind of response (which, to this point, is still unacceptably vague) was to come on list and argue for days. I suspect we would still be in the same situation if I didn't publicize this. I don't have a huge account but I have spent more than $100,000 on domain registrations via Tucows. Hopefully the stock will peak again soon do I can dump that before the whole company goes under. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Scott Allan Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 7:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MEA CULPA: Tucows domain deletions Howdy - First of all, thanks again for everyone's patience wrt this issue. Clearly the timing of it has been a challenge for us, and we have not been able to jump all over it like we would if it weren't more or less the last working day before the holidays, with many senior staff out of the office (including myself), and the eve of an extremely important technical move (moving our systems from Exodus to IBM), not to mention the .biz litigation. I appreciate everyone who has been patient and not jumped to conclusions, as well as those who have sent messages of support off-list. I believe we have made a judgement error, and for that I apologize. I can report that we have stopped all our "testing" as of this afternoon, pending further review. Now, the details... We have been watching and exploring the "expired" name marketplace for a very long time. Some of you will remeber us inviting Snapnames to post their value proposition here way back in the day. There is no question that: - expired names are in demand by many people with different motivations (including noble registrant interests and speculators) - expired names have not been properly defined ot treated within ICANN's policies - expired names are handled in a dramatically different ways by different registrars - CNO expired names are not handled well by the registry (understatement) - there are real "un-resolved" issues wrt expired names It is important to distinguish between what we call "internal" expired names and "external" expired names. "Internal" names were registered or transferred to Tucows and expired, and "external" names were registered or transferred to other registrars, expired, and then "deleted" making them availaible for "re-registration". We have been exploring service offerings whithin both of these markets, and have conducted tests (interviews with resellers registrars, and registries, as well as technical trials of "skunkworks" (pre-product) solutions) to evaluate the best way to address these opportunities/challenges over at least the last year. The batch pool (a full service offering all resellers have equal free access to) is a good example of our progress. Most recently, we have given further attention to "internal dropped names", and have conducted some tests with third parties (who have been very helpful in providing data and tactical advice for a long time) to examine the possiblities of a service offering within this space. In one of these trials, it was possible *under certain conditions* for these third parties to get access (for registration) to our deleted pool (after day forty). I will state that this particular trial has been underway for a very short period of time, has been suspended as of today, and had a barely perceptible impact on the number of names we "dropped". Regardless, it is clear to us that this was not a good judgement call, and that we had to do what we could to immediately stop it until we had more clearly communicated with our resellers. This was a mistake, and we have have corrected it, within 24 hours of our "realization". I hope you can appreciate our intentions are good, and I assure you that we will learn from this painful experience. Essentially, this was a test that did not benefit from full consideration of the implications. We will continue to pursue a "dropped names" service offering, as we know (from your feedback) that there is demand for it. We need to be more careful in "bringing along" our channel with us as we explore these issues (which really was always our intention), so that our offering closely reflects the kick-ass and fair service offerings you have come to expect from us. My guests are starting to arrive, so I gotta run. I will be away for the next few days, but will read (and stimulate) further discussion on these issues so that we can get to where we need to be; delivering service offerings that are enthusiastically supported by our partners, and that kill the competition. My very best wishes to you and yours for the holidays - Regards, sA Scott Allan Director, OpenSRS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
