I guess I should jump in here and state that we vastly prefer honest
feedback to silence, even if it is not always flattering. Granted there
are reasonable limits to our tolerance, but generally speaking these have
not been regularily breached by members of this list, at least not without
other members jumping in.
Your honest feedback helps us make things better, it's as simple as that.
Posts from this list are often forwarded to our entire team. It is also
not uncommon for staff to agree with specific criticisms given here, and
from time to time a good thread is the catalyst for getting action.
I honestly believe we have much room for improvement around communicating
our priorties, as well as engaging you to help us set them. We have made
some small steps to improve this (like releasing draft specs etc) but have
a long way to go.
Regards,
sA
Scott Allan
Director, OpenSRS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, easygoing wrote:
> Asking that a problem be fixed that can cause ill will among our customers
> for ourselves and OpenSRS is not hateful nor flaming. Especially when this
> problem has been discussed in the past and we were told it would be fixed
> before it was a problem.
>
> Guess what? It is now problem time and it has not been fixed.
>
> Calling a manager of the company to task when he attempts to gloss over the
> request, as long as it is done in a polite manner, is not hateful.
>
> We do not want our reputation tarred with the same brush that has been used
> in this forum against Network Solutions for billing for domains once they
> are no longer in Network Solutions. Which will happen if OpenSRS sends
> notices to expiration notices to clients that are no longer with OpenSRS or
> to clients who's flags have been set to let the domain expire.
>
> A simple solution has been proposed, but not commented on by Charles or
> anybody in OpenSRS. Until the problem is fixed, OpenSRS should not send any
> expiration notices direct to the client, but rely strictly on their RSPs to
> handle this issue.
>
> So far, I have not seen anything hateful in this discussion.
>
> Until you become involved in the discussion. This message of yours is the
> only hateful message so far that this topic has generated.
>
> People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. (Don't you just
> love these clich�s?) :)
>
> Don't send a hateful message accusing others of being hateful when you are
> the only one who has stooped that far.
>
> It is not necessary to go to ICANN and spends thousands, there are other
> registrars that offer lower prices than OpenSRS. I don't believe price is
> the issue here, it's quality of service. Which unfortunately has been
> deteriorating lately as OpenSRS has become involved in a large number of
> extra activities which has stretched their resources too far.
>
> You should be apologizing to the members of this list, for this email.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John T. Jarrett
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: disgusting list
>
>
> This is one of the most hateful discussion lists I am sorry to be required
> to take part in.
>
> If you don't like OpenSRS, go to ICANN, spend your $10,000s of thousands
> getting approved and do it yourself.
>
> defn FLAME
>
> (n) A searing e-mail or newsgroup message in which the writer attacks
> another participant in overly harsh, and often personal, terms. Flames are
> an unfortunate, but inevitable, element of unmoderated conferences.
> (http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/f/flame.html)
>
> (I apologize to Charles, Mark, William and others who maintain their
> composure in the face of this enturbulance)
>
> John
>
>
