William,
I've read that our attitude toward the world mirrors our
actions toward the world. The man who sees a thief around
every corner carries a thief within himself, so he knows
better than to trust his fellowman.
Glad I don't live in your world.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 11:51 AM
> To: easygoing
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re[2]: SUDDEN DEATH!!!, aka "Helping
> Resellers with delinquent
> names"
>
>
> Hello easygoing,
>
> Same old mantra.
>
> It must be nice to live in your little ideal world.
>
> Welcome to the real world.
>
> This mantra gets very tiresome
>
> Friday, April 27, 2001, 8:39:31 AM, easygoing wrote:
>
> > I get sick of hearing this non-trust of RSPs by
> OpenSRS. If
> > you are so frighten about the low quality of
> your RSPs, why
> > don't you tighten up the system as to who you
> accept or do
> > away with the RSP system?
>
> > What RSP will not sent the end user the 60 and 30 day
> > notice? And in our case, a 15 day notice.
>
> > The goal of the RSP is to earn the renewal fee.
> No notice,
> > no renewal, no fee.
>
> > It is the responsibility of the RSP to notify
> the end user.
> > It is the responsibility of the end user to act on this
> > notice and to keep their email address up to date.
>
> > To claim to be victims because the domain lapsed due to
> > non-payment is asinine, given the OpenSRS system.
>
> > Please note that I did not endorse the sudden
> death cut off
> > of BulkRegister, I state a reasonable time frame
> > deactivation was five days. If they are using
> the domain,
> > they will take action within the five days. If
> they are not
> > using it, most will not take action within the 40 days.
>
> > My point is that the end user and the RSP must
> take personal
> > responsibility instead of blaming the Registrar
> for the loss
> > of the domain due to their non-payment.
> Whether it's zero
> > tolerance or 40 days tolerance it is still the
> > responsibility of the end user and the RSP to
> act to renew a
> > domain name before it's expiration.
>
> > We have over 300 domains for which we are personally
> > responsible. We have never allowed one of them
> to elapse.
> > We have client domains that we maintain. We do
> not allow
> > them to elapse.
>
> > Perhaps OpenSRS should require one snail mail
> letter be sent
> > by the RSP to give notice to those who were too
> > irresponsible to keep their email address up to
> date or who
> > register the domain with a fake email address.
>
> > And yes, we get those. We sent an email
> receipt for every
> > domain registration, some bounce back to us
> because we were
> > given a bad email address to register the domain name.
> > Perhaps the RSP should be required to telephone
> those with
> > bad email addresses to notify them?
>
> > Perhaps OpenSRS should do away with RSPs and just run
> > everything themselves to ensure responsible behavior.
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> >> Of Charles Daminato
> >> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:49 AM
> >> To: easygoing; Loren Stocker; William X.Walsh;
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: RE: SUDDEN DEATH!!!, aka "Helping
> >> Resellers with delinquent
> >> names"
> >>
> >>
> >> Hold on a second...
> >>
> >> The RSP gets 60/30 (etc) day notices. The
> >> end-user gets ONE notice - day 0.
> >> That's why we give them a little time, in case
> >> their RSP hasn't been acting
> >> responsably.
> >>
> >> Charles Daminato
> >> OpenSRS Product Manager
> >> Tucows Inc. - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> >> Behalf Of easygoing
> >> > Sent: April 27, 2001 9:37 AM
> >> > To: Loren Stocker; William X.Walsh; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > Subject: RE: SUDDEN DEATH!!!, aka "Helping
> >> Resellers with delinquent
> >> > names"
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This is absolute nonsense.
> >> >
> >> > A domain holder receives notification 60
> days prior to
> >> > expiration, 30 days prior to expiration and in
> >> our case 15
> >> > days prior to expiration. Plus a final email
> >> is sent on the
> >> > day of activation.
> >> >
> >> > If a domain holder ignores all these notices
> >> and allows the
> >> > domain name to expire, then it is willful
> >> neglect on their
> >> > part and they have no room to complain.
> >> >
> >> > However, OpenSRS has stated on many
> occasions that the
> >> > domain holder has 40 days from deactivation
> to renew the
> >> > domain. Frankly I would like to see that
> >> shorten to 5 days
> >> > and then the domain make available for
> re-registration.
> >> >
> >> > If a domain is being used, it will be renewed
> >> by the time
> >> > the holder receives three warnings. If it
> is not being
> >> > used, it should be returned to the general pool
> >> so somebody
> >> > else can use it.
> >> >
> >> > This issue here is individual responsibility.
> >> The domain
> >> > holder has the responsibility to renew the
> >> domain within the
> >> > renewal period if they wish to maintain the
> >> domain. And at
> >> > the low prices charged today, they have no one
> >> to blame but
> >> > themselves if they can not raise enough money
> >> to renew the
> >> > domain for another year within 60 days of renewal.
> >> >
> >> > How can you claim that you or the domain
> holder has been
> >> > victimized by cancellation after receiving so
> >> many advance
> >> > warnings that payment was due?
> >> >
> >> > We hear the same cries when we suspend a
> >> hosting account for
> >> > non-payment. I forgot, it's not fair you turn
> >> my site off.
> >> > Never mind that we send them seven warnings,
> >> one per day,
> >> > that their payment was past due and the
> account would be
> >> > suspend on the seventh day if payment was
> not received.
> >> >
> >> > It's not their fault they did not make the
> >> payment. They
> >> > are the victims, we are the bad guys for
> >> suspending their
> >> > account.
> >> >
> >> > It's time to grow up accept responsibility for one's
> >> > actions.
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> >> > > Of Loren Stocker
> >> > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 6:43 PM
> >> > > To: William X.Walsh; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > Subject: SUDDEN DEATH!!!, aka "Helping Resellers
> >> > > with delinquent names"
> >> > > Importance: Low
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Yet, what's the real issue here?
> >> > >
> >> > > It's ICANN'S thoughtless policy that creates this
> >> > > situation. As I understand
> >> > > it, ICANN requires Tucows, NSI, Bulk and everyone
> >> > > else to pay for renewals
> >> > > IMMEDIATELY upon expiration. No grace period.
> >> No refunds.
> >> > >
> >> > > If that's the case we have a HUGE conflict of
> >> > > expectation between clients --
> >> > > accustomed to getting 45 days grace (or more)
> >> > > from NSI -- and the Registrar's
> >> > > who MUST delete the domain to avoid the renewal
> >> > > fees. The result is SUDDEN
> >> > > DEATH! No grace. No "on-hold" period. No recourse
> >> > > once the domain is lost. How
> >> > > am I doing so far?
> >> > >
> >> > > Rather that talk about cost recovery, we should
> >> > > be pressuring ICANN to provide
> >> > > -- at a minimum -- a 30 day grace period. Even if
> >> > > the domain goes "on-hold" at
> >> > > expiration, the client has at least a reasonable
> >> > > time to cure. Without this
> >> > > change in policy, we're all going to see -- or be
> >> > > victimized -- by Sudden
> >> > > Death; valuable domains lost due to material
> >> > > laspe of payment, say 2 days
> >> > > late. NO ONE WILL STAND FOR THAT! We are only now
> >> > > beginning to see the results
> >> > > of this non-sensical policy.
> >> > >
> >> > > Has ICANN forgot that were selling a data record
> >> > > with an incremental cost of
> >> > > say 1,000 per $1? Is a little customer services
> >> > > too much to ask for?
> >> > >
> >> > > Best, Loren
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > "William X. Walsh"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Thursday, April 26, 2001, 11:56:09 AM,
> >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > That would be a great deal of help to all of us!
> >> > > > We do have a bunch of chargeback domains with
> >> > > no way to recover our
> >> > > > investment in those - between all of us, I am
> >> > > sure we could come up with
> >> > > > programing for a great auction site for these -
> >> > > hey we would gladly host
> >> > > > it free of charge on our servers if this ever
> >> > > catches on!
> >> > > > cheers
> >> > >
> >> > > So we do something that we've all been so
> >> > > critical of other registrars
> >> > > for doing?
> >> > >
> >> > > I don't think this is a very good idea at all.
> >> > > The bad press NSI got
> >> > > over this very issue should be a good indication
> >> > > of what would happen
> >> > > if the fastest growing registrar started
> >> doing it also.
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Best regards,
> >> > > William
> >> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
