Ok -
Lets look at this policy again... here are my desires (pretty much in this
order):
- RSPs are happy
- ICANN's agreements are met
- the policy does not discourage RSPs to be less vigilant in their CC
transaction checking - I remember when this came up before that several
people posted that they employ methods that reduce their charge backs to
effectively zero - I do not want to reduce the motivation for RSPs to have
these checks in place
- the administration of the program does not cost more than the savings
Look forward to your suggestions -
sA
At 01:52 PM 12/8/00 +0100, Marc Storck wrote:
>But TUCOWS still got paid for the service.....!!!! (Very important)
>So I think it's not that bad to the domain to the RSP....
>I think what you are doing right now is:
>Selling lewd magazine subscription, let the customer pay and then you don't
>deliver..... (it's far away from what we are doing, but I did want to
>re-use your
>example)
>
>Cheers
>
>Marc
>
>Charles Daminato wrote:
>
> > You're not purchasing a tangible object here - domains are services. That
> > makes things a little different.
> >
> > Charles Daminato
> > TUCOWS Product Manager (ccTLDs)
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> >
> > > At 11:16 PM -0500 12/7/00, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > > >This has been hashed out a million times on this list - the issue is
> that
> > > >the RSP is *not* the registrant. Tucows cannot assign ownership of a
> domain
> > > >at will under any circumstances. It's a crappy reality, but reality
> > > >nonetheless.
> > >
> > > But just like a car that you sell, but have to repossess (... and
> have the
> > > RIGHT to repossess) when payment doesn't come through, domain sellers
> need
> > > the ability to repossess what has not been paid for. If this means
> that SRS
> > > needs to put such in the terms/agreement, so that the buyer acknowledges
> > > the right-of-repossess, then let's push on and make that happen.
> > >
> > > D
> > >
> > >
Scott Allan
Director OpenSRS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
