I am reposting this as I did not see discussion on the issue of
renewal/extension at time of transfer between RSPs which to my mind should
be essential.
I am intrested on Tucow's/others' take on this.
Regards
A. I. Sinclair
------------------
My previous post :
The concept here should be simple and consistent with current market
practices.
The proposed system is based on renewal (through other RSP site) triggers
transfer - that is not how it works today.
If we stay consistent and if a customer does not like my service, all he has
to do is transfer to another RSP and the transfer triggers the renewal (just
as is the common practice today when transferring between registrars). From
a registrants perspective there should be no difference in events when
tranferring between RSPs or registrars - it should be the same.
A "straight" renewal (no transfer) should always only be possible with the
current RSP.
If a customer prefers a cheaper or whatever RSP, he does what he normally
does today, and that is to effect a tranfer to another RSP or registrar.
Transfers between RSP's should also carry the same min one (max ten) year
renewal period conditions (sothat cutomers don't tansfer for the sake of
the transfer). This will keep OSRS "internal" transfers consistent with the
market.
It is not a matter of trying to own customers, they (registrants) will
always have choice.
My point being a transfer between RSPs should always automatically initiate
a renewal and never the other way round.
A. I. Sinclair
At 11:06 PM 1/2/01 -0500, Chuck Hatcher wrote:
>Please accept my vote for this to become an issue.
Accepted.
>I think the only way an RSP other than the one who registered the domain
>name should be able to renew it is if the domain name is transferred to
that
>RSP. (I think there should be an automated process for this that makes it
>at least as easy to change RSP's as it is to change registrars. This is in
>OpenSRS's best interest, because if an end user wants to leave their RSP,
>and it is difficult to move to another OpenSRS RSP, they will find another
>registrar.)
Agreed.
Again, as I think back as to why this approach was taken, it probably had a
lot to do with not having automated RSP to RSP transfers. So, it was
certainly a compromise based on missing functionality. Not a good thing.
While I have no problem adding in the restriction, I think it might be best
to wait until RSP to RSP transfers are automated, which is near the top of
list of things we are to work on next. Fair?
Personally, I do not see the *real* threat in keeping this open,
realistically no one would sanely attack this market. The advantages the
"sponsoring" RSP has blow this right off the concern meter of real issues
for me personally (although I do realize many of you are concerned, and I
respect that). In my mind, I do appreciate (if I think as an RSP) that
there seems to be little value in this open-ness, and there is a perceived
threat, but I can not (as an individual RSP) bring myself to be worried
about it - if my customers are that easy to poach, or want to leave that
badly, I deserve to lose them. The open-ness of this policy is
"pro-registrant", and IMHO we should all keep those registrants in mind,
since it is to them who we are delivering value.
However, if we have made a wrong judgement call on this issue, lets fix it!
I have been wrong before... :)
>"Renew Anywhere" is going to cause a lot of problems with recordkeeping.
>For instance, if my customer adds two years with another RSP, how will I
>ever find out about it?
Again, I do not see this being a problem in that many registrants would
renew with other RSPs. The odds of them renewing with another registrar are
far greater. Why would they renew elsewhere? Again, my personal views may
be different from yours, and as such we may need to adjust our policy to be
reflective of what the majority of out RSPs want and need (and there is no
problem with this) - but I always personally cringe when policies are put
in place that try and make the customers desires difficult for them to
fulfill; sound like NS^H^H anyone you know?
Trying to *own* customers through restrictive policies is bad
(short-sighted) business. IMHO, the only way to *own* a customer is to
*earn* their business continually. Earning their business means giving them
value continually. Granted, not all customers appreciate this, but, I
maintain the strongest long term customers (the most valuable customers) do.
>The biggest part of the work is in the initial registration, dns setup,
>hosting or forwarding configuration. A lot of business models count on a
>stream of future renewals to make money.
Absolutely, us included! However, anyone who thinks they can control
customers through policies as opposed to continually earning their business
not do well in the long term.
It should be noted that in no way do I consider OpenSRS a perfect model. We
have lots of work to do and much room for improvement wrt *earning* our
business. I do assure you that we are aware of it, and will continue to
work hard to earn your support.
Regards,
sA
Scott Allan
Director OpenSRS
sallan@opensrs.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:36:12 EDT