Amen...
-- Mike Allen, 4CheapDomains.Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.4CheapDomains.Net Need Advertising? Try DeerSearch.Com http://www.DeerSearch.com ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 7:02 AM Subject: RE: REFUNDS, ETC...: > 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. > >
