Modify your registration agreement along the following lines:
In the event of non-payment of the registration fees or a charge back by a
credit card company (or similar action by another payment provider allowed
by registering RSP) in connection with the payments of the registration fee
for your domain name registration, you agree and acknowledge that the domain
name registration shall be transferred to the RSP processing your order as
the paying entity for that registration to the registry.
This isn't rocket science. I'm sure you have good attorneys on your staff
who could address this issue if you made the decision to protect your RSPs
against fraud on the part of the cardholder.
I doubt that ICANN requires you to provide the domain name to the end user
if the end user does not pay for the domain name registration, either with a
bad check or a charge back after the fact.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:47 AM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: deleting a ca domain
<
<
< It is not reality, as I can name two registrars that do assign
< ownership to
< the reseller, who then assigns it to their client. If the
< client reneges,
< then the ownership returns to the reseller.
The sad fact is that the reseller is not an entity recognized by the
ICANN/DOC/NSI operational contracts. Faced with this reality, we adopted a
compromise position that we felt best supported the interests of all
involved. I'll be the first one to admit that it is not perfect, but it
certainly pushes the boundaries of the model and doesn't risk the standing
of anyone involved.
Personally, I question the efficacy of the above policy. As stated, it puts
the end user in the position of being a secondary market purchaser and opens
up a whole can of worms related to ownership, dispute resolution and
standing related to ICANN.
<
< The difference is that Tucows wants the best of both worlds.
< They wish to
< claim the person ordering the domain is the reseller's client
< when payment
< is concerned so that Tucows can be protected against financial
< loss if the
< person ordering the domain defaults on payment, while claiming
< that person
< is their client for all other instances.
Incorrect. We faced up to the reality that ICANN does not formally recognize
resellers in any way shape or form and then created a framework that worked
around it. ICANN has mandated that the end user is our client and that we
must support them to the best of our ability. Our position is such that we
delegate this responsibility to the reseller because they can best support
the end users. There is nothing nefarious about this and, in fact,
represents a structure that actually scales to deal with the reality of the
namespace that we work within today. I question whether or not the policies
that you describe as being have adopted by others do.
With that being said, we are open to revisiting these policies. ScottA's
post of this morning is yet more evidence of this. If you have substantive
recommendations as to how we can proceed with modified policies in a fair
and equitable manner, then please bring them forward.
-rwr
