At 4/1/00 7:05 PM, sys@zanmai.com wrote:
>You too can implement a written contract in *addition* to TuCows/ICANN
>rules and regs, it's a free world/country (mostly) and the law of contracts
>between consenting individuals rule. So draft up an agreement/contract
>that states that if for any reason the registrar/reseller is not paid
>by the consumer, that all right title and interest in said domain shall
>transfer to the registrar/reseller.
Good idea, but how would you get the name actually transferred to you if
the person had changed the password and was still using it? OpenSRS isn't
about to just give it to you, so I think you'd have to go through the
ICANN dispute process or get a court order, which would certainly be a
bigger pain in the ass than it's worth.
>And it doesn't operate or happen that way. Cite one single example
>of a registrar getting charged back AND the consumer getting to keep
>the product i.e. domain name(s).
Ummm, actually someone from OpenSRS specifically said it WILL operate
that way, even in the case of a chargeback. The root name service won't
be turned off, and the customer is free to transfer it to another
registrar, keeping the accumulated credit.
>Think about it, would this really fix/solve this issue/problem?
>Some boxo registers $5000 worth of stupid speculative domains, fails to pay
>for whatever reason ... and you will find some value in reposessing these
>wortheless domains?
Nope. I don't want the domains myself, I'm not going to spend thousands
on lawsuits to get them, and I'm under no illusions that any of this will
cause me to get paid. However, if the thief was prevented from using the
domains because I could put them on hold, that would perhaps discourage
him and his friends from doing it again, which would lessen the amount of
fraud we'd all experience later.
Or maybe not. What do I know? It's just a suggestion that fits in with my
understanding of human psychology. Most theft occurs simply because the
opportunity is there, not because people are hardened criminals. The
police say if you make it harder for someone to profit from theft (mark
your valuables, get a deadbolt, make stolen domains worthless...), people
are less likely to do it.
>No credit card company is
>going to allow a "dispute" like this, where the customer gets to keep the
>product they don't want to pay for, and gets off paying for it. It's one or
>the other, pay for it or return it.
My fault; I wasn't clear the first time. When I wrote the customer
"refuses to pay", I meant that he would claim the charge was fraudulent
-- that he'd never heard of you and that someone else used his card.
If the credit card wasn't physically present in such a case, the
chargeback is automatic. I have been ripped off by dozens of people in
exactly this manner over the last five years, I'm sorry to say. Cost of
doing business? Yeah. Do I want to minimize that cost if I can, without
resorting to filing lawsuits? You bet.
-- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:28 EDT