And.....please.....if you're going to defame someone, get the name right. Ken
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Spy OpenSRS Mail > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 9:43 AM > To: zxcvb; 'Scott Allan'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Scott Allen is full of x- that is way out of line > > > Dude, biting the hand that feeds you is way out of line. > Especially in such > a crass way. > > No one minds that you want to argue the point. That is what most lists are > for. A subject heading such as this is offense and rude and if > you plan on > posting like this again I'd prefer you leave the list. > > You will now take all attention away from your topic which is important to > you and take it towards your subject header. > > On this list anyone can walk up to the line, it is obvious. You > are the only > one to cross it as I can recall. In my humble opinion Scott is owed an > apology. Personally I was offended because I think a lot of Scott. Scott > may schlep it off but I can bet the TUCOWS crew didn't take it lightly. > > Regards, > Lars Hindsley > SpyProductions > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of zxcvb > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 3:00 AM > To: 'Scott Allan'; [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] >
