At 01:09 PM 3/4/00 -0600, James H. Cloos Jr. wrote:
> >>>>> "Coolfred" == Coolfred Internet Services <coolfred@coolfred.org>
> writes:
>
>Coolfred> My point
>Coolfred> here was that since "WE" paid for it, "WE" should own
>Coolfred> it... simply put it you pay for it , it is yours. What part
>Coolfred> of that is unreasonable???
>
>Give the agreement Tucows had to sign with ICANN a read.
>
>It is very unlikely they could ever allow us to take ownership of a
>domain just because the customer failed to pay us. Just as the CC
>companies give the consumers 'all' the rights at the expense of the
>merchants, ICANN gives the registrants 'all' the rights at the expense
>of the registrars and their resellers. (For some definition of 'all'
>in each case. :)
I thought I read all the information, in the various areas, but evidently I
was too red-eyed to catch this.
What I want to do is this:
Modify my contract to state that any fraudulent CC charge, or returned
check constitutes a breach in contract between the registering party and my
company. In the case of a breach, domain ownership reverts back to the
Registar (me in this case). I can then resell the domain, to cover my
expenses.
I'm not commenting on rouge RSP's here. I know my heart, and ethical
background, and am looking for a legal/ethical safety net for my own piece
of mind. So please refrain from comments related to how a rouge RSP might
look for a hole in this approach for their own gain. Unless of course your
overwhelmingly convinced that such comments relate.
Personally, I can't see a person buying a desired identity/domain name and
using a fraudulent card to do so, but I guess it may happen. I've only had
on occasion in three years of that happening, and that was to cover a
hackers true intent. To get on my machine, and run a couple dozen IRC bots
and host a hacking page. All were gone in less than 48 hours.
Those with a legal background or department care to comment on this approach?
>However, it *would* be reasonable to put the domain in registrar-hold status.
>
>And it would also be reasonable to refund (to us) any deletes where
>NSI refunds them.
>
>As for what happens to an undeletable domain which is in registrar-
>hold due to non-payment by the (alleged-)resistrant, I am not sure.
>I suspect the UDRP comes into play, but none of the specified terms
>for a valid complaint are really applicable....
>
>Or at least that is how I see it, NAL and all that.
>
>-JimC
>--
>James H. Cloos, Jr. <URL:http://jhcloos.com/public_key> 1024D/ED7DAEA6
><cloos@jhcloos.com> E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6
> Like this email? Click here: <URL:http://jhcloos.com/twocentsworth>
> Save Trees: Get E-Gold! <URL:http://jhcloos.com/go?e-gold>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:23 EDT