At 03:23 PM 4/2/00 -0700, 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.
>
>> 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.
Nor are all your customers going to abuse you.
<snip>
>
>> 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.
Because THEY wrote the agreement, prepared by THEIR attorneys with THEIR
business
interests in mind. It has been suggested that you do the same with regards to
your interests vis a vis your clients.
>They have
>even more protection in the fact that the reseller has to pay in advance
>for the registration.
And what is stopping you from doing/requiring the same thing of your
customers?
This whole issue is really a "solution" searching for a "problem". No one
is forcing you to
take credit cards, you can revert back to cashiers checks and cash if you
truly believe that you are going to get ripped off so badly by charge
backs. That issue is between you
and the credit card companies/merchant banks you do business with. If you
don't like
it, or don't feel safe taking them, then don't.
Take cash or require pre-pay and you will never get ripped off, although
some counterfeiter is bound to find you one day. If you choose to take the
minuscule risk of becoming a credit card merchant, then you and you alone
should adjust your business practices to mitigate
that perceived 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.
And what makes you think that OpenSRS is supposed to protect your business
model,
at their expense and exposure, against theft. Implement your own solutions to
this problem you have invented, at your own expense. Then if they really
are needed and a value to the resellers at large, you can make a fortune
licensing the solution.
>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.
And who forced you to become a paper-boy, or do business with that particular
paper?
>
>Under the current policies, we are not true resellers because we never
>have title or control of the item being sold.
And nothing is stopping you from writing your own overlay software to the
OpenSRS
system which will give you control and/or ownership. It is only because you
want
to take the easy and cheap way out and give your customers direct access to
the OpenSRS
management system, and assume the minor risk of taking credit cards, then
expect someone else to bear that burden.
> 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.
And who is forcing you to do business with OpenSRS?
And who is forcing you to assume a business payment model where you
*could* be at risk for some non-payments?
The answer is in the mirror.
<snip>
This whole issue should really be considered already answered by OpenSRS.
The last reply was clear and to reasons and methods, and it even gave you
a few big hints how to cover yourself from this perceived threat. Of course
you would have to actually spend your time and your money to implement
these "solutions" to your
"problem".
And even if your request for control was granted, you are failing to see it
would not
achieve the ends you claim to desire, that is "forcing payment" to compensate
for your used RCUs. Nobody with a working, useful, domain name is going to
go out of their way to commit credit card fraud just to stiff you for the
lousy $20. And understand again that credit card companies will not
charge-back on a product/contract that has been
performed in full.
So this phantom problem of the significant domain name chargebacks is just
that, a non-existent ghost. And in the rare event it does happen, the
scenario will be over
a bunch of domain name(s) that the end user has found to be worthless and
is abandoning,
so "taking control" of worthless domain names will still not restore your
lost RCUs.
Best Regards,
Eric Ross
QuickNames.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:28 EDT