Please do. I don't get into many conversations but this needs to be dealt with plain and simple.
-- Mike Allen, 4CheapDomains.Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.4CheapDomains.Net Need Advertising? Try DeerSearch.Com http://www.DeerSearch.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elliot Noss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "POWERHOUSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 12:51 PM Subject: RE: Changing Admin Info after Refund > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
