I recently had a chargeback problem with a domain renewal with Tucows as the
registrar.  Tucows placed the domain on hold when I faxed Tucows the proof
of the chargeback.

As a result the domain owner agreed to pay the renewal fee again and the
chargeback fee that I paid my merchant account provider in order to have the
domain name returned to their use. He wasn't happy about paying the
chargeback fee but then I wasn't happy about paying it myself.  And he
caused the fee to be charged when he filed the chargeback.

So placing the domain name on hold does help if it is an active domain that
has been charged back.

Chargebacks on renewals appear to be coming more common.  We just recived
another one Friday. In the past we have never recieved chargebacks on
renewals, just on original registrations.

If we can not convince the client to pay the fees this week we will again
request the domain be placed on hold.  The domain is active so hopefully the
client will pay when he realizes he is about to lose the use of the domain
name.



-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:owner-discuss-list@;opensrs.org]On Behalf Of Robert L Mathews
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:23 PM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: REFUNDS, ETC...


At 11/5/02 8:42 AM, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

>Tucows' Domain Expiration Policy
>From the date of registration, a domain belongs to the Registrant for one
>year plus the 'grace' period specified by the respective Registry.  During
>the 'grace' period or at any time during the registration period, the
domain
>cannot be purchased, edited, or resold by the Reseller.  At the end of
these
>periods, the domain, if it is not renewed, is returned to the Registry and
>only becomes available after the Registry releases it.


The rule against "editing" seems to prohibit resellers from locking a
domain name for nonpayment (e.g., chargeback or bounced check) by
changing the password, pointing the nameservers to a non-payment page,
and locking it against transfers.

You said earlier that doing so is the right way to handle it (leaving it
in the registrant's name but denying access to the service), so I'd like
to see that stated as acceptable under the policy.

Unless you're only talking about editing the ownership (and not speaking
to the issue of editing nameservers/password/lock status), in which case
maybe you can just clarify that.

------------------------------------
Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies

Reply via email to