Does past discussions still make that policy right? Doubt it.. The registry and 2Cows need to get a better agreement.
-- Mike Allen, 4CheapDomains.Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.4CheapDomains.Net Need Advertising? Try DeerSearch.Com http://www.DeerSearch.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "ezgoing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:26 PM Subject: RE: Changing Admin Info after Refund > This has been discussed many times before and Tucows position has changed > very little. If you check the history of this discussion list you will find > that the only change has been an increase in the willingness to place the > domain on hold after proof of chargeback. Initially they did not even want > to place the domain name on hold. > > Tucows has always made it clear that they will not refund any portion of the > registration fee when a chargeback occurs nor will they return the domain to > the reseller who paid them for the domain registration. > > Tucow has made it very clear in this discussion and previous discussions > that they regard the end user as their client, not the reseller. By words > and actions. > > The end result is that Tucows receives their payment regardless of whatever > action is taken and the reseller loses when a client defaults on payment. > > If the domain remains viable, the end user and Tucows both gain, the > reseller loses. This apparently does not happen now, as it appears that > Tucows will at least place the domain name on hold after proof of > chargeback. > > If the domain is placed on hold, Tucows gains the fees, the end user and the > reseller loses. > > As I stated this is a known conditon for resellers who elect to register > domain names using Tucows. Since it has been discussed many times before > with the same end results each time I don't see anything to be gained by > this discussion. > > If you do not like this policy then you should resell for a Registrar that > allows you to take control of the domain after a chargeback or other method > of non-payment by the end user. There are several of them that allow this. > > Otherwise you should accept the fact that you are going to lose the fee that > you pay to Tucows and merchant account fees if the client charges back the > domain name registration fee against you. After all you made the decision > to continue to use Tucows to register domain names knowing this was their > policy. > > In my personal opinion this discussion has gone on way too long, given that > the same discussion and final results are available in the archieves, as > this issue has been raised many, many times. > > Just my personal opinion. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:owner-discuss-list@;opensrs.org]On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:48 AM > To: POWERHOUSE; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
