Robert, I support the Tucows approach because ALL user rights are preserved. Are they not? What am I missing?
"In addition," what I think Elliot is saying here is that, "It's far better to share a pot of gold than to view from a distance." My only reservation is that of consent. It may indeed be illegal to do this without consent, but by the next renewal cycle that's mute as well. Best, Loren ------ Original Message ------ Received: 01:23 PM PST, 03/08/2005 From: Elliot Noss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Robert L Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Cc: discuss-list@opensrs.org Subject: Re: NSI-- What Arrogance! maybe I am missing something. put the RAA aside for a minute (not because I am ignoring it but because I want to focus on another element) and help me with "this would be (snip) unethical". the previous registrants rights are exactly what they were before except IN ADDITION to what they were they will also have the opportunity to realize the benefits from names the do not expire that are currently accruing to, essentially, the pros in the gray market. I know what I would want from my mom's supplier which, for me, is the ultimate litmus test of it being "unethical" or not. see http://enoss.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2004/9/27/150241.html for much more on this point. anyone else want to weigh in here? thanks. nice to see a little heat again :-) Regards Robert L Mathews wrote: > James M Woods wrote: > >> This scenario is the one that gets played out if the previous >> registrant is >> AWOL during the renewal process and has not explicitly asked for the >> name to >> be auctioned. > > > Gosh, I certainly hope Tucows is not considering such a thing, because > such behavior is expressly forbidden by Section 3.7.5 of the Registrar > Accreditation Agreement (aka the EDDP), a legally binding contract that > Tucows has signed: > > "3.7.5 At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on > behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be > renewed within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, > in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of > the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although > Registrar may choose to cancel the name earlier). > > 3.7.5.1 Extenuating circumstances are defined as: UDRP action, valid > court order, failure of a Registrar's renewal process (which does not > include failure of a registrant to respond), the domain name is used by > a nameserver that provides DNS service to third-parties (additional time > may be required to migrate the records managed by the nameserver), the > registrant is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, payment dispute (where > a registrant claims to have paid for a renewal, or a discrepancy in the > amount paid), billing dispute (where a registrant disputes the amount on > a bill), domain name subject to litigation in a court of competent > jurisdiction, or other circumstance as approved specifically by ICANN." > > Perhaps my eyes are getting bad in my old age, but I don't see "Tucows > didn't hear back from the registrant so they decided to grab it and > auction it off" listed as an extenuating circumstance. In fact, it > explicitly says that "failure of a registrant to respond" is NOT an > extenuating circumstance. > > Tucows has no right to auction off a domain name and change the > registered name holder unless the registrant gives explicit consent for > that. And as I've said before, burying "we have the right to auction off > your domain name" eighteen paragraphs deep in Exhibit A does not count > as explicit consent. Anyway, Tucows obviously can't insert terms into > the end user agreement that conflict with the RAA. > > Even if the EDDP didn't require that domain names be deleted when not > renewed by the original registrant, other parts of the RAA would still > prevent Tucows from changing the registered name holder without the > registrant's consent. > > I'm not going to bother to further retype the reasons why this would be > both unethical and a violation of ICANN policy; they're all in this > thread if anyone is interested: > > http://www.opensrs.org/archives/discuss-list/0409/0094.html > > You know, I honestly can't believe we're still discussing this. What was > the internal Tucows discussion after the last time this came up? "Our > resellers overwhelmingly think this is a terrible, unethical, possibly > illegal idea, but we're going to do it anyway because we can make some > money on it?" Tucows should be ashamed that I need to post this message. > > I would like to hear Elliot say (on this list) that Tucows will not > auction any domain name and change the registered name holder unless the > registrant gives explicit consent for Tucows to do so. > -- Elliot Noss Tucows Inc. 416-538-5494
