I am concerned that asking for a chargeback is in effect an accusation of fraud. If Netsol chose to argue the chargeback on the basis that it was Tucows that did not honour the renewal date, I have no evidence in any direction. I merely have contradictory assertions. That is why I am looking for some kind of objective evidence.
At 18:31 16/01/2002, Robert Rivers wrote: >We can send you the Registry report from Verisign. Let NSI argue with >itself :) Do please, Robert, thank you very much. >FWIW, this happens all the time. It is a limitation of the Registry. We >avoid it by allowing domains past due to be transferred. On the other hand, Bill@daze said: "The Registry protocol automatically adds one year to the current expiration date during a registrar transfer. The gaining and losing registrars have no control over this." Is the Registry protocol documented somewhere I can access? But as you can see, even here we have different accounts of what the automatic behaviour is. That is why I cannot rely merely on assertions, I need evidence. I cannot simply rely on a stated general *policy* of Tucows of extending a renewal date. Netsol can produce an invoice showing a renewal date of 2002. I could argue that that is an invoice, not a transfer record, and is a different system. If I am claiming on the basis of a system failure, I have no proof on which side the failure was. Thank you all very much for your detailed responses. Regards Patrick O'Beirne Patrick O'Beirne, Director. Systems Modelling Ltd., Ireland. http://www.sysmod.com/
