Right we are "Partners" so lets cut the loss in half or allow us to have control in the case of a charge back since we paid for it yet got the money taken away in the next 30 to 60 days. ;o(
-- 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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:49 PM Subject: RE: Changing Admin Info after Refund > Support comes in many different forms. This has to do with who you, the > reseller are dealing with as customer. That is something we rely on you for. > We count on you to be close to your customers and to take responsibility for > their behaviour. > > An example of an area where we take a fair amount of responsiblity would be > renewals. We are responsible for providing you with robust, extensible tools > that (should) make managing renewals easier. > > Growth does not necessarily come with loss of customer contact. The most > successful Internet services companies have been, almost without exception, > "super-regionals" that have as many customers as possible in as small a > geographic area as possible. I say most successful here on an operating > basis, not on a public markets basis. > > We are partners. The areas of responsiblity are important to remember. > Perhaps I should do a long email on this another day. > > Regards > > Elliot Noss > Tucows inc. > 416-538-5494 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marc St-Pierre [mailto:marc@;cyberlogic.ca] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:15 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Changing Admin Info after Refund > > > > > > > > Chargebacks are a known issue in business. Until the credit card > > companies and the banks do something to make e-commerce "safe" for > > everyone, we are stuck with this fact. > > > > My issue here is the fact that we are considered "smaller the reseller or > > supplier". I see my distributors as "partners" and they do the same. The > > more support they give me to grow, the more money I make them. > > > > Here, if we all stay small and run the mom & dad shop, everything is fine. > > But if we want to grow and go after these big contracts, we are doing so > > at our own risk. It's fine. As long as we know. It's sad that we can't > > get a little more support in this area. A little comfort for our partner > > TuCows. > > > > Otherwise, let me say TuCows does a great job and I am happy to be a > > TuCows Authorized Reseller. > > > > Marc > > > > P.S. There was a suggestion that we could change the DNS on a domain that > > was not paid for. I'm a little confused on that option. > > > > > 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] > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Cyberlogic > > 4545, rue St-Denis, Montreal (Quebec) H2J 2L4 > > Tel: (514) 844-9946 Fax: (514) 844-9799 > > e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Web: http://www.cyberlogic.ca > > > > >
