On 1 Apr 2000, at 15:13, William X. Walsh wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 01-Apr-2000 Tiger Technologies wrote:
> > I know these are tough issues that OpenSRS has to deal with, especially
> > since some of the rules are imposed by ICANN. But a solution like
> > allowing the reseller to be able to change the password on an account,
> > effectively repossessing it until the registrant/reseller resolve the
> > issue, would solve the problem.
> >
> > It sounds like this is what Domain Direct does, and I'd like to
> > respectfully request that OpenSRS consider giving resellers the same
> > power.
>
> I certainly hope they do not do this. The domain registrant has no assurance
> that you are legitimate, or any of the other many things that ICANN accredited
> registrars are screened for. You were not screened by Tucows, and there is no
> assurance that you will always act legitimately. For example, some on this list
> think that the ISP should be able to suspend someone's domain if they are owed
> money for hosting fees. That is not the case, nor should it be the case.
This is exactly what Domain Direct does according to what we have been
told here on the list.
> The power you want it is wrought with possible abuse, and until some system is
> worked out that would prevent that possibility of abuse from occuring, I can't
> see opensrs doing anything along these lines.
Life is wrought with possible abuse. Just because abuse is possible
doesn't mean the we are going to abuse our customers. It would be nothing
short of stupid and criminal to do so. There is NO system that can not be
abused. It simply does not exist. Honor and character are the only true
protections from abuse. No degree of regulation, rulemaking, or contracts
will ever create honor and honesty. If you are looking for the perfect
protection, crawl into a cave and roll a rock over the entrance.
> And you can't just say "Buyer Beware" because the registration agreement makes
> Tucows a party to the contract as well. Tucows could face some serious
> liability for the inappropriate actions of a reseller if they give them this
> kind of power.
Interesting twist here. On one hand the argument is that the reseller is
protected by the end user agreement. On the other hand it is claimed that
Tucows has no protection. What an interesting view. If anyone has bothered
to really read the reseller agreement, Tucows has as much if not more
protection by contract than any reseller could ever hope for. They have
even more protection in the fact that the reseller has to pay in advance
for the registration.
As resellers, we are asking for two very basic things. One is the ability
to provide superior service to our legitimate customers and the second is
to have some level of recourse against thieves. Both very basic and
legitimate business needs.
As the current policies stand, we are more like when I had a newspaper
route as a youngster. I had to pay for the newspapers whether the customer
paid me or not, but if I refused to deliver to someone because they didn't
pay me, the newspaper company would deliver to them directly and still
charge me for the newspaper because it was on my route.
Under the current policies, we are not true resellers because we never
have title or control of the item being sold, We are not simply
commissioned sales people because we have to pay for the product sold
regardless of the ability to collect from the end user. We are left
hanging somewhere in the middle. In many ways it reminds me of government
welfare programs where those of us who work hard to get ahead have the
product of our labors taken away and given to some slimey sucker who is
too lazy to work.
--Richard
------------------------------
Richard B. Pyne, KB7RMU
rpyne@kinfolk.org
http://pyne.kinfolk.org/rbp2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:28 EDT