So True... Luckily w haven't had this problem yet. but I sympathize with all that have...
-- 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: "John T. Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:11 AM Subject: RE: REFUNDS, ETC... > What, you have the computer beeping you in the bedroom?!? > > *I* would have thought that refunds could be denied, given the item. I > verify that the billing address on the registration matches that on the > card. A customer said he thought the SAME was true. Heck, even airlines > will not refund a ticket after 1 day, even if the plane doesn't leave for > a month. Even though they haven't lost any money. They oversell anyway. > > Of course, certain visa processors, etc... May not understand this. REFUND, > as I see it means to RE (do again) FUND (Put money into). This should CLEARLY > work all the way around! If *I* PUT MONEY INTO the customers account AGAIN, > Tucows should put it back into mine! If they do that, then network solutions > should disable the name, and give the money back to tucows. THAT way, I > and tucows are out less than a buck, and verisign is out NOTHING! They > COULD limit that period to 30 days. I have seen NOTHING actually obligating > me to over 30 days. > > If a credit card gets too liberal with discounts, It will lose CREDIbility, > and cease to be worthwhile. So there should be some latitude. > > Steve > > >-- Original Message -- > >From: "John T. Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: REFUNDS, ETC... > >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 05:52:31 -0600 > > > > > >It is 5:30 in the morning and this thread has gotten me out > >of a perfectly good bed well before the sun is expected to > >come up. > > > >Ross, Charles and Paul have all three said separately that > >it is against the rules. > > > >The only rule I've been pointed to so far is the Registrar > >Agreement (para 2.4) with Tucows, not ICANN. > > > >Can anyone on the list point me to an appropriate document? > >I've looked and I can't find one on the ICANN site, but then > >again I don't claim to be a lawyer with a doctorate in Comp > >Sci which you seem to need to be to understand all of them. > > > >Not that a good answer is going to let me get back to sleep > >I'm sure. > > > > ;-/ > > > >Thanks, > >John > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:owner-discuss-list@;opensrs.org]On Behalf > >> Of Andy Coates > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:01 AM > >> To: 'Charles Daminato' > >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: RE: REFUNDS, ETC... > >> > >> > >> > 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. > >> > >> > > > >
