Hey [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dec. 12. 2001 Your opinions, tirade's, etc hold very little water with me partly because of your shrill, partly because your logic seems flawed and partly because you are an anonymous poster . Who are you?
Scott said they acted within 24 hours of their "realization". You go on about the fact that you talked to a sales rep. Monday, thus "proving" it took more than 24 hours. I don't agree. Even if a sales rep. heard you Monday, it doesn't mean your info was passed on to Scott or upper management immediately. Things sometimes take time to be transmitted. Even if the info was passed immediately, Scott clearly described their action having taken place 24 hours after their "realization". It can take time to "realize" something. The raw transmission and reception of data or info does not ensure an immediate "realization". You come across as upset about all this, and perhaps justifiably so. I am still not convinced whether you are a legitimate RSP or someone who is muckraking for possibly some alterior motive. I suggest you identify yourself to this group. If you are sincere, perhaps we might all find some silver linings in this cloudy issue. I am still giving this issue serious thought. At this point i agree with the likes of William Walsh and George Kirikos that it is a bad precedent for Registrars to not release names into the general pool if they are not renewed. Imo, Icann needs to draft new rules to prevent any registrar from doing this. I am glad to hear Scott and Tucows have suspended the testbed. I also think any names that were transferred/reassigned during this period should be released into the general pool. I support Scott and Tucows in their efforts to continue to fine tune their services. I have found that Scott and Tucows have always listened to RSP's carefully when important issues arise. For some, this issue is very serious and i am glad that Scott and Tucows have responded in a timely manner. I also hope that Scott/Ross/Elliot will release a statement of clarity around all this in the near future when the dust has settled a little more. If someone feels that they no longer trust Opensrs because of this, then perhaps another registrar would be more appropriate. Who of us here hasn't made mistakes or serious mistakes in our business and personal decisions? Imo, much of the best learning comes from mistakes. In this case, i do think Opensrs has messed up, but the fact that this project had not been widely introduced is very relevant. Scott and Opensrs's reaction to this mistake/screwup allow me to continue to feel confident about keeping my business here. Perhaps Opensrs should consider a more thorough approach to evaluating new ideas before they are tested live. One idea might be to bring in a (formal) group of 5-20 RSP's (with varying interests/acumen) that assist Opensrs in product development which might prevent/ filter out serious problems earlier on. Forward. Swerve Josh Melamed *There was more daylight today than yesterday for those who have started winter. Yes. > From: "zxcvb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 03:00:29 -0500 > To: "'Scott Allan'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Scott Allen is full of shit > > 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] > >
