Robert-- We're the good guys here.... Think of "Mom!"
Please remember that none of us are lawyers here, and even if we were, these would only be opinions anyway, not facts. As a practical matter, only NSI has launched this service in utter disregard to user rights. Not Tucows. Elliot, there's no reason to not update the User Agreement right away to allow for this. At the very least, you'll have consent for all renewals even if the program is not launched fon an eternity! Best, Loren Elliot Noss wrote: > maybe I am missing something. put the RAA aside for a minute (not > because I am ignoring it but because I want to focus on another element) > and help me with "this would be (snip) unethical". Nice try, but no, I won't "put the RAA aside". That document is what controls your obligations to the community. It is as close as you can get to the legal expression of (some of) a registrar's ethical obligations. The very fact the RAA requires you to return expired domain names to the registry makes it unethical to do otherwise. (I trust that intentionally violating both the letter and spirit of a contract you signed would still be considered unethical over there? And that taking things you have explicitly been told you have no right to take is also considered unethical?) Anyway, if Tucows still doesn't "get" why this is not acceptable behavior, I don't see why I need to keep trying to explain it. Why shouldn't I just keep pointing out that it violates a contract you signed, and leave it at that? > the previous registrants rights are exactly what they were before except > IN ADDITION to what they were they will also have the opportunity to > realize the benefits from names the do not expire that are currently > accruing to, essentially, the pros in the gray market. The key term is "previous registrant". When a domain name expires and is not renewed, it no longer belongs to the previous registrant. Neither that registrant, nor Tucows, nor anyone else has any right to profit from that domain name. This is made absolutely clear by ICANN consensus policy, which requires that the domain name be returned to "the public", where anyone theoretically has the chance to obtain it for $6 or so. In practice, aftermarket sharks usually get valuable ones instead, and therefore the results of returning it to the community are often unpleasant (I certainly don't like it), but that's a completely separate issue that needs to be resolved by community consensus. I would have no problem with auctions if consensus policy decides that expiring domain names should be auctioned and specifies the disposition of the funds. In fact, auctions are an *excellent* solution to the problem. But you CANNOT decide to do it unilaterally and set your own terms about how much money you keep, etc., ESPECIALLY when a recent ICANN policy explicitly forbade registrars from doing so. There are good reasons for that policy, which I'm sure you're aware of; if you don't think they really are good reasons, go argue that point with ICANN. If you want to auction expiring domain names, get a consensus together that agrees with you. I'll gladly join you in pressing for it if the auction is structured in a fair way (I want to see the majority of the profits benefit the entire community, not a single registrar, registry, or previous name holder). But you can't just start taking valuable property that doesn't belong to you on the basis that "it's more fair than what will probably happen instead"; that's just not the way life works. -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies http://www.tigertech.net/
