-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02-Apr-2000 Richard B. Pyne wrote:
> 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.
Domain Direct is Tucows. They have gone through the screening process of
accreditation. You have not.
>> 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.
Tucows can't do that. It is quite simple. They have an agreement with ICANN,
and to keep their accreditation they simply can not ignore the risk to the
domain name registrant.
It isn't an issue of won't, it is really an issue of can't.
>> 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.
Tucows has protection under the current agreement, but if they did what you and
others wanted on this issue, they would have a large increase in liability,
including putting their accreditation at risk.
> 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.
That's all fine and dandy. As an accredited registrar, Tucows HAS to protect
the interests of the domain holder as paramount. I suggest if you cannot live
with those terms, you seek accreditation yourself.
> 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.
Can we say taking things to an extreme?
- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
iD8DBQE45+Rh8zLmV94Pz+IRAiLQAJ98fjm+HbPdRRQoWjnpDNpx65aCWQCg3Bqq
4mqZ2amKgZKENU8UhWO1xoA=
=DlRC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:28 EDT