His website also includes a notice in red letters at the top of page one
that reads "News Flash 4.2.00 : Coming soon .... $15 Domain Names!"
While I may not agree with Mr. Ross' emails, I can't fault him for fighting
to keep the financial model that he must be planning his new venture on.
Geez, I'm tired of getting half the story in every post lately. There sure
seems to be a lot of backbiting going on lately...to what purpose?
Regards,
Eric Longman
Atl-Connect Internet Services
----- Original Message -----
From: ECS <edseward@cmpsource.com>
To: <lists@tigertech.com>; <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: Transfers: A bit of an explanation
----- Original Message -----
From: <sys@zanmai.com>
To: <lists@tigertech.com>; <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: Transfers: A bit of an explanation
> At 04:54 AM 4/3/00 -0400, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 sys@zanmai.com wrote:
> >
> >> Wouldn't it be nice if, in this thread especially, only those
> >> businesspersons who have had direct, actual experience with CC
chargebacks
> >> and theft/fraud loss
> >> reply ... and the dreamers and perfect-worlders keep the delusions to a
> >> minimum.
> >
Has anybody else took a look at the site of Eric Ross, QuickNames.com?
After reading his comments in a large number of messages, I got curious and
looked at quicknames.com. The first thing I saw as banners, for Believe it
or Not, "Network Solutions!". The next thing I read was that his sites
services were free as a public service. I must admit at this point I was
even more curious.
So I then looked at the source code for the site. Ah Ha! I found that he
is an affiliate member of Network Solutions, drawing a commission for domain
name sales from Network Solutions. So first fib, his service is not free,
he's getting a commison from Network Solutions for sending customers to
them.
However, the I noticed the following in his source code : "meta
name="Description" content="$15 Domain Name Registry! - Lowest Priced
Domains anywhere - Free DNS - Free Email Aliases - Free Domain Name
Service - Register Your Name Instantly" What? How could this be if he is
selling through Network Solutions? Is he misleading the search engines to
draw traffic to his site? He would never do that! This must be the proper
description of his site.
Now I was really, really curious. I mean, how could he be offering domain
name registration as an affiliate of Network Solutions for $15? Had
Network Solutions lower their price or made special arrangements for him?
So I went through the process of registering a domain name through his site
to see. I admit that I was extremely curious at this point. Had Network
Solutions finally seen the light on domain name pricing?
Needless to say, I did not get to register a domain name at his site for
$15.00. After filling in the information for the Network Solution form on
his page, I was told it was $70.00 for the two years, not $15 as his page
Description stated.
So that was another fib on the part of his site. I did not get the lowest
priced domains anywhere nor did I get a $15 domain name.
Of course, at this point I cancelled the transaction. I may be extremely
curious, but I'm not stupid.
I only bring this up for one reason.
Mr Ross has made numerous posts on this issue, arguing with anybody and
everybody, keeping a thread going that should have died. Yet he is not a
reseller and does not have any interest in the good of OpenSRS, since his
site sells domain names for Network Solutions for a commision.
This to me is a prime reason why these lists should be restricted to valid
resellers.
Just my 2 cents worth.
P.S
And before he responds, yes, we do sell domains name for a low price. We
match the competition, as our prime interest is attracting new clients for
our hosting service. We matched the competition at $20 per year, we will
match them at whatever it takes.
It is an advertising cost for us.
----- Original Message -----
From: <sys@zanmai.com>
To: "Tiger Technologies" <lists@tigertech.com>; <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: Transfers: A bit of an explanation
> At 02:54 AM 4/3/00 -0700, Tiger Technologies wrote:
> >At 4/3/00 12:23 AM, sys@zanmai.com wrote:
> >
> >>No, that's not the purported aim of this plaintive thread. The thread
> >>started off with a straw man argument, the specious request that OpenSRS
> >>should give the resellers ownership/control over the domain names to
> >>prevent/reduce "thieves".
> >>
> >>Of course the plaintiffs didn't listen when it was pointed out the even
if
> >>they
> >>did have ownership/control of bogus names, it would not put one single $
> >>back into their RSU account, so their argument was rendered moot from
the
> >>start ...
> >>but they keep clamoring ... and tilting at mythical windmills.
> >
> >
> >Hey, hey, please be careful. I'm the one you accused of tilting at
> >windmills, but you were wildly misrepresenting my argument then, and
> >you're still doing it.
> >
> >I'll say it for the fourth time (I've been counting): My goal is NOT to
> >recover the stolen money, but to shut off any stolen domains and make
> >them worthless in order to discourage the person from bothering to steal
> >the NEXT TIME.
>
>
> This falsely assumes, as many laws do unfortunately, that you can "teach a
> lesson" to criminals by example. You can't, otherwise with the 1,000,000s
> of laws and statutes in this country, and the 2 million humans in prison
in
> the USA, if this logic model were even remotely true, there would be
little
> or no crime in society today. Criminals don't "learn" nor do they take
head
> of "messages", that's why they are criminals.
>
>
> >I believe this will be helpful because I think people who
> >don't get any benefit from acts of theft are less likely to do it again.
>
> Whether "they" do it again is irrelevant, because the next criminal will
do it
> as he has yet to receive the "lesson". And it's been pointed out before,
> that if there is any benefit to the domain name, the clown will pay the
> lousy $20 and resell or use it for profit. Most of the dreck will be
> abandoned names
> that the customer got "buyers remorse" after realizing mistake, and then
> weasels out of paying, so no "lesson" taught by you will cure his
stupidity.
>
> Again, check out the worthless names at GreatDomains.com that various
fools
> think have any market value. Notice how many different individuals list
> names there and assume that they all hit you once, and only once, because
> you teach them a lesson by turning off the name. Now how many RCUs have
you
> recovered,
> even though you claim that isn't your goal, which is merely to reeducate
> and teach the small percentage of miscreants and idiots as to the error of
> their ways.
>
>
> >
> >If you'd like to argue that this won't make any difference, I hope you'll
> >share your opinions so I can listen and learn something. But please stop
> >claiming I'd like to change the policy because I think I'll get the money
> >back. That's simply not the case. Straw man, indeed....
>
>
> My arguments above. If you are not about recovering RCUs, then your
> proposal is
> even less logical, since you will not re-educate society as a whole. The
> percentage of people who use credit cards, get buyers remorse over the
> purchase, *AND* are willing to lie and commit credit card fraud to weasel
> out of the purchase will remain at a relative tiny % of the population. If
> you are affraid of them, and beleive the danger from them outweighs the
> benifits of taking credit cards, then don't take credit cards.
>
> Or complain to the Credit Card merchant bank that you want them to change
> their ontract with you and remove the ability of customers to chargeback
on
> your account.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>Wouldn't it be nice if, in this thread especially, only those
> >>businesspersons who have had direct, actual experience with CC
chargebacks
> >>and theft/fraud loss
> >>reply ... and the dreamers and perfect-worlders keep the delusions to a
> >>minimum.
> >
> >Sure -- since you asked: I've been accepting credit cards on the Internet
> >since September of 1994 for about 37,000 transactions. In that time,
> >about 2,000 people have attempted to steal from me by such clever
> >stratagems as using the name "Mickey Mouse" in the online order form.
> >
> >Those are easy to catch, but I have also had 220 chargebacks where the
> >transaction went through, AVS matched, and everything looked reasonable,
> >but the cardholder later stated he or she had never heard of my company.
> >These are the kind of chargebacks that cannot be fought.
>
> 222/37,000 = .00594 This is what it is all about?
>
> And what product or service were these for? Something tangible that was
> delivered to the customers address that they later returned? Out of those
> 220, how many do you feel were true claims vs. people whom you knew were
> lying about the Denial of Knowledge because they didn't want to pay?
>
>
>
> >This represents about $4,400, which is indeed what I consider my "cost of
> >doing business". It's not much. However, each time it happens, I shut off
> >the service that has been fraudulently purchased in an attempt to
> >discourage others from trying it.
>
> And your attempts at social re-education are futile as you will see that
> your chargeback ratio will remain stable in a given product/service field.
>
> Now if you were delivering a product, and not a service, and you did ship
> the product to the client, denial or not, the credit card merchant bank
> *will* require that the consumer return this tangible product they claim
> they did not order before they will credit the customer's Visa/MC.
>
> And the same think will happend with the "domains they didn't order", they
> will be required to return/release control to effect the chargeback, and
> you will get what you claim to want, a giant pool of worthelss domain
names
> that you can use to socially educate the next cretins that come down the
> ethernet pipe ...
>
>
>
> >
> >I believe the number would be higher -- perhaps much higher -- than
> >$4,400 if I hadn't been able to turn the service off, because the thieves
> >would have told their lowlife teenage friends they can get away with it
> >(I speak from personal experience as an ex-lowlife teenager). I'd guess,
> >but can't prove, it would be in the multiple tens of thousands of
dollars.
>
> The problem is there are millions of fresh lowlife teenagers created every
> year, and they don't all network their bad experiences together, or else
> the juvenile detention centers would not be full of teens who comitt the
> exact same stupid crimes, year after year after year ...
>
>
>
> >
> >And you?
>
>
> Been ther, done that, and nothing that happened to anyone else ever
> nuanced my teenage behavior ... after all, teenagers are invincible.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Eric Ross
> QuickNames.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:28 EDT