Clap! Clap! Clap!
William is great for ignoring facts that disagree with his opinions.
This doesn't really have much of an impact on us anymore, as we have
switched to a Registrar that protects our interests in the case of charge
backs. The only reason we monitor this list is that we still have a large
number of clients registered with Tucows.
However, we are offering them a special renewal rate of $10 if they agree to
transfer the domain to our current Registrar, so we suspect that we will not
have many, if any, clients left with Tucows by next June, when all the
renewals have been processed.
I should also point out that we are fairly small when it comes to domain
registrations, only doing 200-300 per month of new domain registrations.
Our primary business is hosting, not domain name registrations.
However, starting January 1, we are offering all our current and new hosting
clients free domain registration or renewals as long as they host with us.
So I suspect we shall pick up a lot of transfers during January and February
when we make this offer to existing clients.
And of course if they ever decide to leave our hosting service, we will have
them for domain renewals for future business. So it is a win-win
proposition, for them when we give them free domain renewals or
registration, for us in renewal fees if they leave our hosting service.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek J. Balling
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 8:07 PM
To: William X. Walsh
Cc: Marc Storck; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re[5]: deleting a ca domain
At 5:46 PM -0800 12/8/00, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> No, actually, while I might "consider" the consumer the registrant, in
the
>> absence of a "reseller" distinction in the ICANN agreement, the
registrant
>> is the person who pays a registrar for the registration of a domain name.
>
>Then that makes you responsible for all aspects of that domain name,
>under the law.
So be it.
>>>Because that makes you liable for the domain name as well. This means
>>>that if that domain name is found to be infringing on a trademark,
>>>that you are the one responsible, not your customer.
>
>> Only if I actually register the domain.
>
>Earlier you said that if you paid the registrar, you are the
>registrant. That means you registered the domain.
Correct. But, of course, you completely ignore (with this statement) the
example I give in the below paragraph.
>> If my customers chooses to register
>> famoustrademark.com, I'm certainly (as the initial registrant and
temporary
>> holder of the domain) welcome to not accept the transaction. I can say
"No,
>> I won't register famoustrademark.com for you, its too much of a risk."
>
>Yes, but if you accept it, you accept 100% of the risk. Better
>increase those prices, Derek, to cover those legal fees.
Only that risk for the timeframe in which I hold it. Or, alternatively, I
could not "increase those prices" and just not be a gimp and register
peoples' trademarks that belong to big companies with legal budgets. Or I
could just say that I abide by the UDRP (I have no vested interest in the
domain after all) and surrender the domain to the trademark owner if need
be. Not seeing a lot of financial risk here, William.
>>>> If there are only two "people" in the equation, "registrant" and the
>>>> "registrar", can you enlighten me (and all of us) why the person
>>>>paying the
>>>> registrar ISN'T the registrant?
>>>
>>>See above. ICANN doesn't say so.
>
>> Cite the appropriate sections of the agreement that say "The person who
>> pays the registrar for the domain is not the registrant." I challenge you
>> to do so. I don't think it can be done. I've not read the ICANN
agreement,
>> but you're making the claim that the person who has actually engages in
the
>> transaction with the registrar is NOT the registrant, and I'd like to
know
>> by what logic you come to that conclusion. Vague statements like "ICANN
>> doesn't say so" don't prove your point. Common sense logic agrees with my
>> position.
>
>No, common sense logic does not agree with your position in any way.
>But then I've read the agreements I signed when I become an RSP. I
>really wonder if you did based on what you said above.
Have I read the agreement between ICANN and its registrars? No. So I can't
say for certain how IT defines Registrant. However, I'm willing to bet a
six pack of your favorite beverage that it doesn't say its the end-user,
but that it says its the person doing business with the registrar, which,
in this case, is the RSP.
I'll also note that you were unable to back up your statement with any sort
of actual excerpts from the ICANN/Registrar agreement.
>>>Your logic is not only wrong, but it is not well thought out as to the
>>>full consequences of this line of thinking.
>
>> The consequences fall into the "cost of doing business" line. If you opt
to
>> be a reseller there are certain things you accept. The first being that
you
>> are RE-selling something. To RE-sell it, it must first be sold -- to YOU.
>> Thus, Tucows SELLS it to you, and you RE-sell it to your customer.
>
>Read your agreements.
My agreements are irrelevant. What's now being discussed, really, is
whether - by not assigning the domain directly to the RSP for reassignment
- Tucows is actually violating ITS agreement with ICANN, and that's an
agreement I'm not privy to.
>> We're not talking Quantum Physics here, William. :)
>
>No, we are talking common contract law.
>
>And I really do not think you want to be the registrant for all these
>domains, you seem to want to pull an Al Gore, and want to be the
>registrant in situations that you see to be in your benefit, but not
>in situations where it would not be to your benefit.
No, actually, a better analogy is I want to be the car dealer who places an
order for a custom Mazda Miata. The manufacturer (Tucows/Mazda) will ship
the car to the dealer, charge the dealer, and transfer ownership to the
dealer (Dealer == RSP), and then upon presentation of suitable payment, the
dealer/RSP transfers ownership/title of the item to the requester.
>The agreements are clear, Derek. I really suggest you read them. That
>you admit to not having read them prior to getting into this business
>is rather disturbing to me, and should be to your customers as well.
William, to me personally this really is a philosophical argument. I have
precisely three customers, and if any of them stiffed me, they know they'd
be facing reconstructive surgery on their knees. ;-) I'm trying to figure
out why the average RSP gets shafted in this process, and you seem to want
to just play kiss-ass without actually invoking any sort of logic in your
argument whatsoever. Do you get extra credits in your RSP account for how
brown your nose gets or something?
D
