Since when is taking back something you gave someone in consideration for
payment(that they later got back), something YOU paid for, stealing? I
KNOW laws are crazy. If I serve GOOD food, and an EMPLOYEE leaves the door
open to the refridgerator and serves spoiled food, *I* am to blame, and
must pay. Okay, that is a cost of business, and the customer didn't REALLY
get what they ordered. If I fall off a ladder in my OWN home, I must pay.
Okay, that is my OWN negligence.
YOU are saying that this is like the stupid precedent of a criminal falling
through a skylight in an attempt to steal from the owners where THEY must
pay for HIS accident. And why should I PAY for a crooks "cost of business"
when the honest person suffers?
BTW, in such a case, *I* would be the honest registrar that just paid for
that domain I can't use. So I am out the money, and they still have the
domain? In a way, they just stole the money from me.
Are the police later to pay for his time, car, etc... for the inconvienience
of a car chase? That IS the next logical step.
The concept of a return upon physical return has been present in the physical
world for tens of thousands of years! It has been true for ALL situations
where control was maintained. They are FINALLY starting to do this with
Ebooks. Why now say that that is THEFT? If everyone considered that theft,
the world economy would collapse, and there would be less made to steal.
I guess I didn't make it clear. I meant that I would make it so that I
would have control after it was registered. That doesn't mean they have
any less control. NOR would I ask for any extra payment. HECK, prices
could be LOWERED because of less fraud. HECK, I have a unified login system
that logs you into everything, EXCEPT this. One customer just couldn't
understand that THIS was where he had to log in. If I DID get another customer
like him, I would like more control.
In the case of the refund, you could let her do anything. When she asked
for a refund, you could repark the domain, give her the refund, and hopefully
resell the domain. Of course, reselling the domain is not necessarily the
easiest thing. Some are worth a LOT, but others are worth nothing. At
least she would be FORCED to pay for the domain if she wanted it. This
way, she gets it for free, and the only recourse you have is to refuse administration
after it expires.
How does tucows handle this? I bet THEY get rid of the domain! If not,
maybe *I* should ask for a refund, and transfer all the domains to another
sucker(ahem registrar). Just kidding folks, but maybe I made my point.
As for the possibility of a registrar offering a refund to gain use of that
domain(If it is thought to be very valuable), maybe the domain industry
could require use of a standardized form to be sent to the registrar and
an independent party. If the form doesn't arrive, they could tell the credit
card agency "HEY, this is a simple process to prevent registrar fraud, and
the registrant didn't comply, so we can't offer a refund". That way, if
a refund IS issued, the registrar can't be accused of fraud. I expect refunds
don't happen very often anyway.
Steve
Return-Path:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received:
from www.opensrs.org (216.40.33.61) by mail.san.yahoo.com
(6.5.029) id 3DC7891C00003A64; Tue, 5 Nov 2002
02:09:35 -0800
Received:
(from majordomo@localhost) by www.opensrs.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)
id FAA13717 for discuss-list-outgoing; Tue, 5 Nov 2002
05:01:03 -0500
Received:
from carrierdown.bribed.net (carrierdown.bribed.net
[213.239.44.242]) by www.opensrs.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id
FAA13714 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 5
Nov 2002 05:01:02 -0500
Received:
(qmail 27479 invoked by uid 0); 5 Nov 2002 10:00:20
-0000
Received:
from unknown (HELO buffy) (80.253.107.135) by
carrierdown.bribed.net
with SMTP; 5 Nov 2002 10:00:20 -0000
From:
"Andy Coates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
"'Charles Daminato'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:
RE: REFUNDS, ETC...
Date:
Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:00:56 -0000
Message-ID:
<000001c284b2$3bf8c740$876bfd50@buffy>
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
X-Priority:
3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:
Normal
X-Mailer:
Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Importance:
Normal
X-MimeOLE:
Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
In-Reply-To:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence:
bulk
X-Mozilla-Status:
0000
X-Mozilla-Status2:
00000000
X-UIDL:
108271
> There's another side to this...
>
> You cannot "force" yourself to be the Administrative contact.
> The Registrant must agree to have you as the Administrative
> contact, and even then you're only empowered (as the Admin
> contact) to administratively handle the domain. You are not
> allowed to "steal" the domain away from someone for non-payment
> (they must still be listed as the legal registrant).
How dodgy is the area of registering the domains in your name, but
"leasing" the adminstration of the domain? i.e. giving them control over
the domain via tools, but they're not listed anywhere on the domain
registrar.
I think this is basically what Go Daddy are doing IIRC.
Andy.
