While we are all on it again anyway, let me re-iterate my point of view: The current agreement with OpenSRS/Tucows is in direct ciolation of several laws, one of them being the law that says that when you seel something, OR deliver a service you have a right to payment, if the "buyer" does not pay, you can wihtold the service, or safeguard the goods, until such payment is received. Besides payment one can also claim that the transaction was not completed and therefore void so no "deliverance" is due, or that the goods remain in your posession untill payment is received and finally you can claim the goods back, or the service.
When returning the goods is impossible then due compensation can be claimed. What problems are we facing: To small an amount to go to court, people are not real, addresses insufficient verified and lo and behold, stolen credit-cards, or refunds on cc's. The latter two are the ones that hurt, the previous ones can be pretty minimalized. Since the CC companies make a huge profit out of the chargeback on fraudulent cards, we will hold this situation for a long time, I would not throw several hundred million dollars worth of business out of my company and most certanily not if most of that was profit. So we have to look at our agreement with Tucows, to change, or to leave or to "swallow". Change is a matter of insight, how is the buyer in Tucows position; the reseller or the final client. Considering the fact that the ICANN agreement does not recognise anyone else but the buyer, Tucows went for buyer over re-seller, however the reseller has to pay upfront, which is causing the problem. By viewing the reseller as the client and not the reseller's client as such, Tucows would be "out of the pen" straight away, because we are then responsible for and towards our clients. I personally think that such is a much cleaner solution then we are facing now, despite all good intentions. Perhaps it is worth the effort to do some research on that Elliot / Ross ? After all if I register 500 domains with Verisign ,and then "sell" them to 3d parties, what am I ? I can keep the domains in my name, transfer them to the client, or keep them. Either way I remain a re-seller. Just to think it over would be nice:)) Kind regards Abel -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-discuss-list@;opensrs.org] On Behalf Of Elliot Noss Sent: 05 November 2002 19:50 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Changing Admin Info after Refund Support comes in many different forms. This has to do with who you, the reseller are dealing with as customer. That is something we rely on you for. We count on you to be close to your customers and to take responsibility for their behaviour. An example of an area where we take a fair amount of responsiblity would be renewals. We are responsible for providing you with robust, extensible tools that (should) make managing renewals easier. Growth does not necessarily come with loss of customer contact. The most successful Internet services companies have been, almost without exception, "super-regionals" that have as many customers as possible in as small a geographic area as possible. I say most successful here on an operating basis, not on a public markets basis. We are partners. The areas of responsiblity are important to remember. Perhaps I should do a long email on this another day. Regards Elliot Noss Tucows inc. 416-538-5494 > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc St-Pierre [mailto:marc@;cyberlogic.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Changing Admin Info after Refund > > > > Chargebacks are a known issue in business. Until the credit card > companies and the banks do something to make e-commerce "safe" for > everyone, we are stuck with this fact. > > My issue here is the fact that we are considered "smaller the reseller > or supplier". I see my distributors as "partners" and they do the > same. The more support they give me to grow, the more money I make > them. > > Here, if we all stay small and run the mom & dad shop, everything is > fine. But if we want to grow and go after these big contracts, we are > doing so at our own risk. It's fine. As long as we know. It's sad > that we can't get a little more support in this area. A little > comfort for our partner TuCows. > > Otherwise, let me say TuCows does a great job and I am happy to be a > TuCows Authorized Reseller. > > Marc > > P.S. There was a suggestion that we could change the DNS on a domain > that was not paid for. I'm a little confused on that option. > > > This misses the other side of the "weird mix". Now let's look at the > > following: > > > > i) you buy concert tickets by credit card, go to the show and a week > > later charge back the tickets; > > ii) you buy software online, download it, copy it and charge back the > > purchase; or > > iii) you eat a meal in a restaurant and charge back on > your credit card > > a week later (assume you somehow paid online so "no card present" > > making the chargeback easier). > > > > Seizing the "goods" is alot more difficult or is impossible and the > > situations above are MUCH more like domain names. > > > > Remember that i) no one is saying the bad actor should have > > use/control of the domain. They don't, and ii) the smaller the > > reseller or supplier, the higher the degree of direct customer > > contact, the lower the incidence of fraud. Believe me, most of you > > guys know a much higher % of your customers than Go Daddy does. This > > is a big advantage in this regard. > > > > Lastly, at the end of the day, these things are both subject to > > interpretation and evolve over time. I am happy to (have Ross > > (hehe)) bring this to ICANN for a clear interpretation. Stand by. > > > > Regards > > > > Elliot Noss > > Tucows inc. > > 416-538-5494 > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:owner-discuss-list@;opensrs.org]On Behalf Of POWERHOUSE > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 12:16 PM > >> To: Ross Wm. Rader; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund > >> Importance: High > >> > >> > >> I HIGHLY disagree, with the most effective way, as described by > >> you. Sorry to differ, but If this happens to a person who committed > >> fraud, they will NOT pay you again. > >> Would YOU? that would be like admitting your wrong in front of a huge > >> crowd, > >> most THIEVES AVOID THAT. So, we just take it away, then it sits > >> there until > >> it expires, wow, that really did help us get our money back. > >> > >> Ok, you opened yourself up to this: >physical asset > >> If you bought a car, and stopped payment, on it, they WILL > >> REPOSSESS THE CAR. If it's a house, THEY WILL FORECLOSE ON THE > >> HOUSE. If it's a CREDIT CARD, THEY WILL CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT AND TAKE > >> BACK THEIR MONEY(CREDIT). > >> > >> All these people have ways to get their money back, at least in > >> part, not always in whole. So, ICANN, or you, or OpenSRS, or > >> whoever, is saying we must not have a way > >> to get > >> ANY OF OUR MONEY BACK. > >> > >> That is just not right. > >> It's not a good business practice. > >> > >> Geeze, if you came to my store, and you bought a bunch of > >> merchandise and used a check, then 10 days later, I get it back in > >> the mail, as a STOP PAYMENT I can send it to the District Attorney, > >> who will TAKE THEM TO COURT TO GET ME MY MONEY BACK. THAT IS FRAUD. > >> No way around it. PLUS, I CAN CHARGE THEM UPTO $35.00 in fee's!!!! > >> > >> That is ONLY RIGHT. If they did it on PURPOSE, why SHOULD IT be any > >> different? > >> > >> It's not fraud to take it away from them, no matter HOW YOU LOOK AT > >> IT. They cannot own it, if they did NOT PAY FOR IT. PERIOD. > >> > >> Richard. > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "POWERHOUSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:48 AM > >> Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > And I draw attention here: "the obligation to pay becomes final > >> and non-revocable by the Registered Name Holder > >> > > upon activation of the registration" > >> > > > >> > > So, the REVOKE their payment, we HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO TAKE THAT > >> DOMAIN > >> > AWAY. > >> > > >> > All this clause states is that the registrant *must* pay for the > >> domain > >> name > >> > once it is registered - ie - that this obligation does not go > >> away for any > >> > reason. It does not say that Registrars or Resellers can seize a > >> domain name. In the case of non-payment the correct course of > >> action (like all other services) is to cease providing service, not > >> to seize the asset. Domain names are a weird mix of intellectual > >> property (almost like a physical asset) and a service. The safest > >> course of action, and the one that > >> > *is* completely legitimate within all of the relevant contracts, > >> > is > >> to > >> stop > >> > providing the service component until the customer pays. Putting > >> > the > >> domain > >> > name on hold or modifying the DNS record to point to a > >> > non-payment > >> page > >> are > >> > the most effective ways of guaranteeing this. > >> > > >> > > >> > -rwr > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore > >> > like > >> an idiot." > >> > - Steven Wright > >> > > >> > Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog > >> > > >> > Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: > >> > http://www.byte.org/heathrow > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: "POWERHOUSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:00 AM > >> > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund > >> > > >> > > >> > > HELLO... > >> > > > >> > > http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm states > >> this: 3.7.4 Registrar shall not activate any Registered Name unless > >> and until > >> it > >> > > is satisfied that it has > >> > > received a reasonable assurance of payment of its > >> registration fee. For > >> > this > >> > > purpose, a charge > >> > > to a credit card, general commercial terms extended to > >> creditworthy customers, or other > >> > > mechanism providing a similar level of assurance of payment > >> > > shall > >> be sufficient, provided > >> > > that the obligation to pay becomes final and non-revocable by > >> > > the > >> > Registered > >> > > Name Holder > >> > > upon activation of the registration. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > And I draw attention here: "the obligation to pay becomes final > >> and non-revocable by the Registered Name Holder > >> > > upon activation of the registration" > >> > > > >> > > So, the REVOKE their payment, we HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO TAKE THAT > >> DOMAIN > >> > AWAY. > >> > > We should be allowed > >> > > to put that in our agreements, to where if they revoke payment, > >> > > in > >> any > >> > way, > >> > > shape or form, we will become > >> > > the registrant as a RSP, and NOT A REGISTRAR, and we shall > >> take steps to > >> > > recoup our funds which > >> > > they revoked. > >> > > > >> > > If they AGREE TO IT, then NO HARM DONE. It would be COMPLETELY > >> LEGAL. ICANN acknowledges that, according to what I posted, they > >> use the words > >> > > FINAL and NON-REVOCABLE > >> > > > >> > > So, why again, can't we do this? > >> > > Do you actually think ICANN would frown upon this??? Do they > >> > > like their seats in the board? Because if they are > >> going to side > >> > > with the people committing fraud they will be replaced in a > >> heart beat, > >> > > they are not that dumb. This is after all a form of politics, > >> > > so > >> they > >> > would > >> > > not be willing to commit POLITICAL SUICIDE, in my mind. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Richard. > >> > > > >> > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > To: "POWERHOUSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:44 PM > >> > > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Agreed - which is why we need a way to limit the problem to > >> those that > >> > > > aren't committing fraud without having to resort to fraud > >> ourselves. A > >> > > clean > >> > > > registrar_hold facility that resellers can use on an ad hoc > >> basis > >> seems > >> > to > >> > > > be the cleanest way to address the problem. It will either > >> decrease chargebacks or increase the number of fraudsters that do > >> business > >> > > elsewhere. > >> > > > My biggest problem with the issue is the tendency to take a > >> short term > >> > > > approach with the solutions - like seizing domains. It > >> doesn't address > >> > the > >> > > > bigger issue, nor does it minimize the economic impact - > >> which I why I > >> > > like > >> > > > the registrar_hold solution so much better... > >> > > > > >> > > > -rwr > >> > > > > >> > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > > From: "POWERHOUSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 23:38 Moo! > >> > > > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I agree, that anything you do might get abused, but > >> chargeback's are > >> > > > > PROVABLE, > >> > > > > since we get notices of them, returned checks same thing. I > >> think > >> that > >> > > we > >> > > > > should > >> > > > > just have to PROVE it if it is challenged. Not hard to > >> do. Just make > >> a > >> > > > form > >> > > > > that > >> > > > > the "CUSTOMER" affected can fill out. It sends a UNIQUE > >> tracking > >> > number > >> > > > > to the customer, where they can "login" and keep track of > >> > > > > this > >> > > complaint. > >> > > > > It then sends a notice to the "registrar", RSP, or > >> whomever took it > >> > > > offline, > >> > > > > they have so much time to submit PROOF of WHY they took > >> it offline, > >> > > > > and can fax it in, mail it in, or whatever. If the RSP, > >> registrar, > >> or > >> > > > > whomever > >> > > > > FAILS to do this, remove them from being a RSP, registrar, > >> > > > > or > >> > whatever. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Seems easy to me. I just don't see how an HONEST person > >> > > > > would > >> MIND this being a probable issue, since they don't set out to > >> defraud > >> > > companies > >> > > > > for their domain. ONLY people trying to defraud the > >> company will be > >> > > > > affected, > >> > > > > and should not get ANY help in doing this, from ICANN, or > >> any other > >> > > > company. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Just my 2 pennies worth. > >> > > > > Richard. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > > > From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > > To: "John T. Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:40 PM > >> > > > > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I don't disagree with the sentiment that there needs to > >> > > > > > be a > >> better > >> > > way > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > deal with situations such as the one that you describe, > >> > > > > > but > >> claiming > >> > > the > >> > > > > > domain name for sale isn't it. Chuck will kill me for > >> saying this, > >> > but > >> > > > > > extending a subset of the registrar_hold functionality is > >> likely > >> the > >> > > > best > >> > > > > > way to address this - takes the name out of the zone, > >> locks it for > >> > > > editing > >> > > > > > and makes sure that the customer gets the point. > >> Counter-problem > >> is > >> > > that > >> > > > > it > >> > > > > > might be prone to abuse, but I'm thinking that it would > >> > > > > > be > >> > "blatantly > >> > > > > > apparent" abuse that we could easily police and > >> control...Comments? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -rwr > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > ps - chuck - better start filling out that PCR ;) > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > > > > From: "John T. Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 22:36 Moo! > >> > > > > > Subject: RE: Changing Admin Info after Refund > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Ok, like I said I'm playing by the rules I agreed to. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But let's take what you've said. You have a fellow > >> bulk-buy his domains from you, say ten at $200. Then he backs out > >> so you've paid at least 3% both ways to your merchant account at > >> this point - plus your time. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Let's say he backs out because he found he could > >> > > > > > > register > >> them for $7 somewhere else and save himself $130. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If you then delete them, he CAN now register them and > >> > > > > > > save > >> himself the money. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > You, however, are now out the $100 to OpenSRS plus the > >> > > > > > > 6% > >> (say $12) to merchant accounts and by getting the domains deleted, > >> you will never see a penny of that $112 - not to mention > >> compensation for your time in good-faith registering those names. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > That is not a fiscally responsible handling of the > >> > > > > > > situation! > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > At point in time does the registrar or the reseller > >> > > > > > > > have any claim of "ownership" to the domain name. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Who ever does? That's a misnomer. And I'd state again, > >> > > > > > > if > >> I paid for the domain name and they didn't, I should! If they pull > >> their payment, then they have pulled their right to what that > >> payment bought as well. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > John > >> > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > > > > > > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@;tucows.com] > >> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:14 PM > >> > > > > > > > To: Donny Simonton; 'Charles Daminato'; 'Mark > >> > > > > > > > Petersen' > >> Cc: 'John T. Jarrett'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > At point in time does the registrar or the reseller > >> > > > > > > > have any claim of "ownership" to the domain name. If > >> > > > > > > > it hasn't been paid, the "right" thing to > >> > > > > > > > do is delete it. The registrar has no superior > >> > > > > > > > claims to a domaim...we are > >> > > > > > > > also just "pass-throughs"...section 3.5 of your > >> > > > > > > > registrar accreditation > >> > > > > > > > agreement is pretty specific about this. Besides, > >> > > > > > > > you should know better > >> > > > > > > > than to let other registrars set a bad example > >> > > > > > > > for you. If this was the best > >> > > > > > > > way to proceed, then we'd all suck as much as > >> > > > > > > > Network Solutions - and be > >> > > > > > > > charging $35 a year for the privilege. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Can't say that I like it much, but the rules are > >> > > > > > > > there to be played by - except by those that don't. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -rwr > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > > > > > > From: "Donny Simonton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > > > > > To: "'Charles Daminato'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Mark > >> > > > > > > > Petersen'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > > > > > Cc: "'John T. Jarrett'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > >> > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 21:29 Moo! > >> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Changing Admin Info after Refund > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Chuck, > >> > > > > > > > > Don't want to make this any worse, but we do > >> > > > > > > > the same thing at > >> > > > > > > > > directNIC. If a customer charges back on us, > >> > > > > > > > they did not pay for the > >> > > > > > > > > domain, I did. Not only did I pay the > >> > > > > > > > registration fees, but I paid the > >> > > > > > > > > chargeback fees. So we take the domains and > >> > > > > > > > put them up for sale. If I > >> > > > > > > > > could I would redirect them to some horse porn > >> > > > > > > > site, but the owners > >> > > > > > > > > wouldn't let me. :) > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > So I do understand why register.com and godaddy > >> > > > > > > > confiscate domains. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Donny > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > > [mailto:owner-discuss- > >> > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Daminato > >> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:47 PM > >> > > > > > > > > > To: Mark Petersen > >> > > > > > > > > > Cc: John T. Jarrett; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Precedence does not make it "right". I don't > >> > > > > > > > fully understand the > >> > > > > > > > > > legalities of it (Ross would have to explain > >> > > > > > > > - Ross?), but I > >> > > > > > > > > > believe Register does not take control of the > >> > > > > > > > domain (i.e. they > >> > > > > > > > > > don't assume ownership and sell to soemone > >> > > > > > > > else). They simply > >> > > > > > > > > > "hold" it, if it's not paid it stays on hold > >> > > > > > > > until the day it > >> > > > > > > > > > expires (then it goes up for deletion) > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Charles Daminato > >> > > > > > > > > > TUCOWS Product Manager > >> > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Mark Petersen wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Stand on precedence. Register.Com is > >> > > > > > > > allowed to seize domains on a > >> > > > > > > > > daily > >> > > > > > > > > > > basis. > >> > > > > > > > > > > The routinely change registrants WHOIS > >> > > > > > > > information from whatever > >> > > > > > > > > *was* > >> > > > > > > > > > there > >> > > > > > > > > > > to: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > register.com > >> > > > > > > > > > > Unpaid Names Department-R > >> > > > > > > > > > > 575 Eighth Avenue > >> > > > > > > > > > > New York, NY 10018 > >> > > > > > > > > > > US > >> > > > > > > > > > > Phone: 212-798-9200 > >> > > > > > > > > > > Fax..: 212-594-9876 > >> > > > > > > > > > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > If they can do it, why shouldn't we be able to? > >> It's supposed to be a level playing field, right? > >> Good luck, > >> > > > > > > > > > > Mark > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Mark Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > > > > > Planet Nic http://www.planet-nic.com > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > > > > > > > > > From: "John T. Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > > > > > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:45 PM > >> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Changing Admin Info after Refund > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Paul over in compliance says it is > >> > > > > > > > against ICANN reg's for > >> > > > > > > > > > > > me to change admin info after a customer > >> > > > > > > > refunds on the > >> > > > > > > > > > > > domain name registration: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > "I hate to tell you this but you are not > >> > > > > > > > allowed to change > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the whois information - ICANN rules. It > >> > > > > > > > appears as though > >> > > > > > > > > > > > you are trying to take away someone > >> > > > > > > > else's property." > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly, I couldn't care less how it > >> > > > > > > > looks. I've offered the > >> > > > > > > > > > > > refund codes from the merchant account > >> > > > > > > > holder LinkPoint > >> > > > > > > > > > > > themselves so there's proof behind > >> > > > > > > > > > > > appearances. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Can y'all point me to what he's talking > >> > > > > > > > to? I can't find it > >> > > > > > > > > > > > in the UDRP or the Reg Agreement. I don't > >> > > > > > > > mind complying > >> > > > > > > > > > > > with written rules if I can find them, > >> > > > > > > > but I'd rather not > >> > > > > > > > > > > > let this woman steal three domain name > >> > > > > > > > registrations if I > >> > > > > > > > > > > > don't have to! > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > John > >> > > > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > -- > Cyberlogic > 4545, rue St-Denis, Montreal (Quebec) H2J 2L4 > Tel: (514) 844-9946 Fax: (514) 844-9799 > e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web: http://www.cyberlogic.ca > >
