Ok, that is all fine and dandy, but the fact of the matter is, Those companies can still take you to court. They get their money back in judgments. By this policy, we cannot even do that. PLUS, it would not be worth it to go to court over losing my 12.95 fee for domain registration and possibly 5.00 chargeback fee.
So I just lose. I lose too many of those, and I'm in the red. 12.95 is only 2.95 PROFIT, so I LOSE 10 bucks. PLUS any chargeback fee's. Does that make it right that someone can chargeback a concert ticket, thus see a concert for FREE? So, I have to lose money on domain registration, because Bon Jovi probably lost a few tickets? Those are ONE TIME ISSUES. a domain name is an EVERYDAY type of product, something that you CAN RE-POSSESS, and get part of your money back. Let's Say... Joe Shmoe comes to me and registers blowmeorwhatever.com for 2 years. He uses a STOLEN Credit card. No, better yet, he uses HIS credit card. Now, he has the domain. He goes to his bank in 30 days after he gets his statement, and says, "HEY, I NEVER DID THIS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS IS." they say, Ok, we'll do a chargeback. he signs a FALSE STATEMENT and they do a chargeback. Now, I am over my 5 chargeback limit, so I get hit with a small chargeback fee of 5 bucks. No, this domain has cost me 25.00. 20.00 to OpenSRS and 5 to my Merchant provider. So, I go and take this domain away, and I send a notice to my customer of WHY I took it away. He ignores me. So I send him a second notice, this time a "NOTICE OF INTENT". I state that since I have not heard from him, that I will give him 15 days to respond, via email, phone, or whatever. If on xxx, 16th(the 16th day), 2003 I have not heard back from him, I will sell the domain to re-gain our money, and he will lose all chances of recovering the domain he registered. And that by failure to respond he is giving his full consent of such action, and it is backed up by his INITIAL AGREEMENT in the RA to do so. He then does NOT respond. So I sell it for $20.00 which will more then likely be HARD to do. I take ONLY a 5 dollar lose. How can ICANN or TUCOWS be mad about that??? I followed EVERYTHING to the letter of the law. I can NOT be sued, for such action. ESPECIALLY if I send it by CERTIFIED Mail, where I have his signature of receipt of such a notice. So, Elliot, Ross, or whomever, why do you disagree with this so much? What FLAW is there in that? Thank you, Richard. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elliot Noss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "POWERHOUSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:51 AM 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
