I certainly feel the practice should be banned by ICANN.
However, I am a realist, and I would not count on ICANN to 'do the right
thing' in any circumstance.
And I think that even if it were banned by ICANN, NSI would find a
loophole.
So IF it is a practice that NSI can use against us, and it is, I'm all
for an ATTEMPT to level the playing field. in the long run, this does
without a doubt benefit NSI because they have the largest pool of
expiring names to steal... But they are doing that already, and unless
tucows can get that stopped (and I have a feeling Tucows would be the
ONLY registrar wanting to do that) then I think they should provide us
with any and all tools they can to help us offer value to our customers.
On Friday, December 21, 2001, at 07:52 AM, Ken Joy wrote:
> Does anyone actually *like* the idea of getting access to 'dropped
> names',
> assuming the whole channel had the access. Ross asked the question, I'd
> like
> to see it answered.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org
>> [mailto:owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org]On Behalf Of David Harris
>> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 10:04 AM
>> To: discuss-list@opensrs.net
>> Subject: RE: Re[3]: maxi.org -- an example of the "new" deletion
>> procedure
>>
>>
>>
>> William Walsh wrote:
>>> Hmm, I don't know how much credenance to give this, but I've received
>>> an out of band report on this subject that bothers me.
>>>
>>> That OpenSRS is currently letting a reseller pay a fixed monthly fee
>>> for first option on all names being deleted from OpenSRS.
>>>
>>> I really hope this is not true.
>>
>> First let me say: all we have are assumptions and
>> sketchy-third-party-info
>> about what OpenSRS is actually doing.
>>
>> We have all freaked out somewhat because OpenSRS has not given us
>> a straight
>> answer yet. I agree, I would like to have a straight answer up front,
>> instead of these vague references to a "testbed" and "new secondary
>> market
>> products." Not having a straight answer makes me feel out-of-the-loop
>> as a
>> reseller. (Which is itself a problem for a "channel focused" company.)
>> But
>> lets give OpenSRS time to get their act together -- it is a holiday
>> week.
>>
>> Ok, now that I've said that: I totally agree in hoping that the
>> allegations
>> of allocating soon-to-be-dropped names to new registrants are not
>> true. I
>> thought we all agreed that it was sleazy for Verisign to do stuff
>> like this
>> with their "auctions," etc. I'd love to have a clear statement
>> from OpenSRS
>> that they agree that this re-allocation is out of the question. (They
>> can
>> then take their time to explain what is actually happening in the
>> testbed.)
>>
>>> This is quite serious if true. This is the kind of thing that becomes
>>> a deal breaker. I really thought OpenSRS would continue to stick to
>>> higher standards than other registrars as far as doing the "right"
>>> thing, and in doing so, develop a real strong loyalty among their
>>> resellers, which would end up being more profitable for them in the
>>> long run than engaging in the kind of shenanigans that we have come to
>>> expect from the more sleazy registrars, like Register.com and
>>> Verisign, to name just two.
>>
>> Agreed: if these allegations are correct, then that does
>> seriously change my
>> relationship with OpenSRS.
>>
>> Ross said (talking about Scott):
>>> His team is attempting to put together a service that will allow our
>>> resellers to offer a product bundle more similar to that
>> offered by other
>>> industry players.
>>
>> This sounds OK and nice on first cut, but then I think about how much I
>> dislike the other registrars and some of their unethical (IMO)
>> practices and
>> products. I don't want OpenSRS to become more like "other registrars"
>> in
>> their sleezy offerings.
>>
>> Be bold! Be different! Be better than all the others! :-)
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:36:55 EDT