<fact>Other reseller programs have lower prices and more
flexible policies.</fact>
<opinion>Tucows is a better resource for resellers. Smaller
margins and adherence to ICANN regs are more than offset by trust,
responsiveness and representation.</opinion>
<fact>I choose Tucows.</fact>
m2
At 03:37 PM 11/6/2002, Elliot wrote:
>Perhaps you are right. If so, ICANN will tell us and we will let our
>resellers do this. If not, we will press them to enforce the provisions.
>
>You may doubt whether we, or I, am telling the truth or not. Your
>perogative. I wouldn't, however, base my position, as you do, on the fact
>that others are letting this go on. We are taking the hard approach, not the
>easy one. We are doing it because we believe it is what we are obligated to
>do. Obligated by contract. We take our obligations seriously. Many others do
>not even read the contract (probably to their benefit more often than not).
>The same situation existed with 5-day deletes.
>
>Do you mind telling me offlist who is "allowing" you to do this? I would
>assume you would have no problem with this seeing as you doubt the problem
>is on the registry end (by this I assume you mean the contracts).
>
>Regards
>
>Elliot Noss
>Tucows inc.
>416-538-5494
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > [mailto:owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org]On Behalf Of ezgoing
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:02 PM
> > To: discuss-list
> > Subject: RE: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> >
> >
> > It doesn't make the policy right.
> >
> > I totally disagree with the policy and believe that Tucows should
> > return the
> > domain name to the reseller, since the reseller is the one that
> > paid for the
> > domain. Or at a minium, Tucows should refund $4.00 of the $10
> > fee. If you
> > check those past discussions I was very verbal on this issue of
> > chargebacks
> > and totally against Tucows policy. I still am against the policy but
> > recognize that Tucows is not going to change it.
> >
> > Tucows has made it very clear that they will not return the domain to the
> > reseller nor give the reseller any control over the domain name records.
> > They regard the end user as the owner of the domain, regardless
> > of what the
> > end user does to the reseller. While they deny it verbally, their actions
> > show that they regard the end user as their client. All the reseller does
> > is produce sales for Tucows.
> >
> > The reseller does not have any access to the domain name records once the
> > domain is registered. The reseller can not access the domain name records
> > to change nameservers, update records or anything else. Being listed as
> > tech contact means nothing with Tucows. Even Network Solutions gives the
> > reseller/tech contact more control over the domain name than Tucow.
> >
> > Since Tucows has stuck by this policy from the start I now regard it as a
> > waste of time to continue discussing the issue.
> >
> > If chargebacks are that big a problem then the reseller should switch to a
> > Registrar that returns the control of the domain to the reseller when the
> > client does not pay. There are several Registrars that do this.
> >
> > If the reseller decides to continue using Tucows, knowing this is their
> > policy, then the reseller does not have any grounds for complaint
> > and these
> > continuing discussions are a waste of time. Tucow will continue
> > to operate
> > in the manner that best serves them, not the reseller. And a reseller is
> > foolish if the reseller does not recognize this.
> >
> > <The registry and 2Cows need to get a better agreement.>
> >
> > I doubt the problem is on the registry end. The other Registrars
> > that allow
> > resellers control over the domain name would not still be in business if
> > they were violating the Registry agreement when they do this.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Allen [mailto:discusslist@4CheapDomains.Net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:15 AM
> > To: ezgoing; discuss-list
> > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> >
> >
> > Does past discussions still make that policy right? Doubt it..
> > The registry
> > and 2Cows need to get a better agreement.
> >
> > --
> > Mike Allen, 4CheapDomains.Net
> > discusslist@4CheapDomains.Net
> > http://www.4CheapDomains.Net
> > Need Advertising? Try DeerSearch.Com http://www.DeerSearch.com
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "ezgoing" <ezgoing8@bellsouth.net>
> > To: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:26 PM
> > Subject: RE: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> >
> >
> > > This has been discussed many times before and Tucows position
> > has changed
> > > very little. If you check the history of this discussion list you will
> > find
> > > that the only change has been an increase in the willingness to
> > place the
> > > domain on hold after proof of chargeback. Initially they did not even
> > want
> > > to place the domain name on hold.
> > >
> > > Tucows has always made it clear that they will not refund any portion of
> > the
> > > registration fee when a chargeback occurs nor will they return
> > the domain
> > to
> > > the reseller who paid them for the domain registration.
> > >
> > > Tucow has made it very clear in this discussion and previous discussions
> > > that they regard the end user as their client, not the reseller. By
> > words
> > > and actions.
> > >
> > > The end result is that Tucows receives their payment regardless of
> > whatever
> > > action is taken and the reseller loses when a client defaults
> > on payment.
> > >
> > > If the domain remains viable, the end user and Tucows both gain, the
> > > reseller loses. This apparently does not happen now, as it appears that
> > > Tucows will at least place the domain name on hold after proof of
> > > chargeback.
> > >
> > > If the domain is placed on hold, Tucows gains the fees, the end user and
> > the
> > > reseller loses.
> > >
> > > As I stated this is a known conditon for resellers who elect to register
> > > domain names using Tucows. Since it has been discussed many
> > times before
> > > with the same end results each time I don't see anything to be gained by
> > > this discussion.
> > >
> > > If you do not like this policy then you should resell for a
> > Registrar that
> > > allows you to take control of the domain after a chargeback or other
> > method
> > > of non-payment by the end user. There are several of them that allow
> > this.
> > >
> > > Otherwise you should accept the fact that you are going to lose the fee
> > that
> > > you pay to Tucows and merchant account fees if the client
> > charges back the
> > > domain name registration fee against you. After all you made
> > the decision
> > > to continue to use Tucows to register domain names knowing this
> > was their
> > > policy.
> > >
> > > In my personal opinion this discussion has gone on way too long, given
> > that
> > > the same discussion and final results are available in the archieves, as
> > > this issue has been raised many, many times.
> > >
> > > Just my personal opinion.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > > [mailto:owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org]On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:48 AM
> > > To: POWERHOUSE; discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > And I draw attention here: "the obligation to pay becomes final and
> > > > non-revocable by the Registered Name Holder
> > > > upon activation of the registration"
> > > >
> > > > So, the REVOKE their payment, we HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO TAKE THAT DOMAIN
> > > AWAY.
> > >
> > > All this clause states is that the registrant *must* pay for the domain
> > name
> > > once it is registered - ie - that this obligation does not go
> > away for any
> > > reason. It does not say that Registrars or Resellers can seize a domain
> > > name. In the case of non-payment the correct course of action (like all
> > > other services) is to cease providing service, not to seize the asset.
> > > Domain names are a weird mix of intellectual property (almost like a
> > > physical asset) and a service. The safest course of action, and the one
> > that
> > > *is* completely legitimate within all of the relevant contracts, is to
> > stop
> > > providing the service component until the customer pays. Putting the
> > domain
> > > name on hold or modifying the DNS record to point to a non-payment page
> > are
> > > the most effective ways of guaranteeing this.
> > >
> > >
> > > -rwr
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> > > idiot."
> > > - Steven Wright
> > >
> > > Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
> > >
> > > Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> > > http://www.byte.org/heathrow
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "POWERHOUSE" <powerhouse@servicenterprises.com>
> > > To: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:00 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> > >
> > >
> > > > HELLO...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm states this:
> > > > 3.7.4 Registrar shall not activate any Registered Name unless
> > and until
> > it
> > > > is satisfied that it has
> > > > received a reasonable assurance of payment of its
> > registration fee. For
> > > this
> > > > purpose, a charge
> > > > to a credit card, general commercial terms extended to creditworthy
> > > > customers, or other
> > > > mechanism providing a similar level of assurance of payment shall be
> > > > sufficient, provided
> > > > that the obligation to pay becomes final and non-revocable by the
> > > Registered
> > > > Name Holder
> > > > upon activation of the registration.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And I draw attention here: "the obligation to pay becomes final and
> > > > non-revocable by the Registered Name Holder
> > > > upon activation of the registration"
> > > >
> > > > So, the REVOKE their payment, we HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO TAKE THAT DOMAIN
> > > AWAY.
> > > > We should be allowed
> > > > to put that in our agreements, to where if they revoke payment, in any
> > > way,
> > > > shape or form, we will become
> > > > the registrant as a RSP, and NOT A REGISTRAR, and we shall
> > take steps to
> > > > recoup our funds which
> > > > they revoked.
> > > >
> > > > If they AGREE TO IT, then NO HARM DONE. It would be COMPLETELY LEGAL.
> > > > ICANN acknowledges that, according to what I posted, they use
> > the words
> > > > FINAL and NON-REVOCABLE
> > > >
> > > > So, why again, can't we do this?
> > > > Do you actually think ICANN would frown upon this???
> > > > Do they like their seats in the board? Because if they are
> > going to side
> > > > with the people committing fraud they will be replaced in a
> > heart beat,
> > > > they are not that dumb. This is after all a form of politics, so they
> > > would
> > > > not be willing to commit POLITICAL SUICIDE, in my mind.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > > > To: "POWERHOUSE" <powerhouse@servicenterprises.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:44 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Agreed - which is why we need a way to limit the problem to
> > those that
> > > > > aren't committing fraud without having to resort to fraud
> > ourselves. A
> > > > clean
> > > > > registrar_hold facility that resellers can use on an ad hoc basis
> > seems
> > > to
> > > > > be the cleanest way to address the problem. It will either decrease
> > > > > chargebacks or increase the number of fraudsters that do business
> > > > elsewhere.
> > > > > My biggest problem with the issue is the tendency to take a
> > short term
> > > > > approach with the solutions - like seizing domains. It
> > doesn't address
> > > the
> > > > > bigger issue, nor does it minimize the economic impact -
> > which I why I
> > > > like
> > > > > the registrar_hold solution so much better...
> > > > >
> > > > > -rwr
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "POWERHOUSE" <powerhouse@servicenterprises.com>
> > > > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 23:38 Moo!
> > > > > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I agree, that anything you do might get abused, but
> > chargeback's are
> > > > > > PROVABLE,
> > > > > > since we get notices of them, returned checks same thing. I think
> > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > just have to PROVE it if it is challenged. Not hard to
> > do. Just make
> > a
> > > > > form
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > the "CUSTOMER" affected can fill out. It sends a UNIQUE tracking
> > > number
> > > > > > to the customer, where they can "login" and keep track of this
> > > > complaint.
> > > > > > It then sends a notice to the "registrar", RSP, or
> > whomever took it
> > > > > offline,
> > > > > > they have so much time to submit PROOF of WHY they took
> > it offline,
> > > > > > and can fax it in, mail it in, or whatever. If the RSP, registrar,
> > or
> > > > > > whomever
> > > > > > FAILS to do this, remove them from being a RSP, registrar, or
> > > whatever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seems easy to me. I just don't see how an HONEST person would MIND
> > > > > > this being a probable issue, since they don't set out to defraud
> > > > companies
> > > > > > for their domain. ONLY people trying to defraud the
> > company will be
> > > > > > affected,
> > > > > > and should not get ANY help in doing this, from ICANN, or
> > any other
> > > > > company.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just my 2 pennies worth.
> > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > > > > > To: "John T. Jarrett" <john@logonisp.com>;
> > <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:40 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't disagree with the sentiment that there needs to be a
> > better
> > > > way
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > deal with situations such as the one that you describe, but
> > claiming
> > > > the
> > > > > > > domain name for sale isn't it. Chuck will kill me for
> > saying this,
> > > but
> > > > > > > extending a subset of the registrar_hold functionality is likely
> > the
> > > > > best
> > > > > > > way to address this - takes the name out of the zone,
> > locks it for
> > > > > editing
> > > > > > > and makes sure that the customer gets the point. Counter-problem
> > is
> > > > that
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > might be prone to abuse, but I'm thinking that it would be
> > > "blatantly
> > > > > > > apparent" abuse that we could easily police and
> > control...Comments?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -rwr
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ps - chuck - better start filling out that PCR ;)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "John T. Jarrett" <john@logonisp.com>
> > > > > > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>;
> > <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 22:36 Moo!
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ok, like I said I'm playing by the rules I agreed to.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But let's take what you've said. You have a fellow bulk-buy
> > > > > > > > his domains from you, say ten at $200. Then he backs out so
> > > > > > > > you've paid at least 3% both ways to your merchant account
> > > > > > > > at this point - plus your time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let's say he backs out because he found he could register
> > > > > > > > them for $7 somewhere else and save himself $130.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you then delete them, he CAN now register them and save
> > > > > > > > himself the money.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You, however, are now out the $100 to OpenSRS plus the 6%
> > > > > > > > (say $12) to merchant accounts and by getting the domains
> > > > > > > > deleted, you will never see a penny of that $112 - not to
> > > > > > > > mention compensation for your time in good-faith registering
> > > > > > > > those names.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is not a fiscally responsible handling of the
> > > > > > > > situation!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > At point in time does the registrar or the
> > > > > > > > > reseller have any claim of
> > > > > > > > > "ownership" to the domain name.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Who ever does? That's a misnomer. And I'd state again, if I
> > > > > > > > paid for the domain name and they didn't, I should! If they
> > > > > > > > pull their payment, then they have pulled their right to
> > > > > > > > what that payment bought as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > john@logonisp.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:14 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: Donny Simonton; 'Charles Daminato'; 'Mark Petersen'
> > > > > > > > > Cc: 'John T. Jarrett'; discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > At point in time does the registrar or the
> > > > > > > > > reseller have any claim of
> > > > > > > > > "ownership" to the domain name. If it hasn't been
> > > > > > > > > paid, the "right" thing to
> > > > > > > > > do is delete it. The registrar has no superior
> > > > > > > > > claims to a domaim...we are
> > > > > > > > > also just "pass-throughs"...section 3.5 of your
> > > > > > > > > registrar accreditation
> > > > > > > > > agreement is pretty specific about this. Besides,
> > > > > > > > > you should know better
> > > > > > > > > than to let other registrars set a bad example
> > > > > > > > > for you. If this was the best
> > > > > > > > > way to proceed, then we'd all suck as much as
> > > > > > > > > Network Solutions - and be
> > > > > > > > > charging $35 a year for the privilege.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can't say that I like it much, but the rules are
> > > > > > > > > there to be played by -
> > > > > > > > > except by those that don't.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -rwr
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Donny Simonton" <donny@intercosmos.com>
> > > > > > > > > To: "'Charles Daminato'" <chuck@tucows.com>;
> > > > > > > > > "'Mark Petersen'"
> > > > > > > > > <mark@planet-nic.com>
> > > > > > > > > Cc: "'John T. Jarrett'" <john@logonisp.com>;
> > > > > > > > > <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 21:29 Moo!
> > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Chuck,
> > > > > > > > > > Don't want to make this any worse, but we do
> > > > > > > > > the same thing at
> > > > > > > > > > directNIC. If a customer charges back on us,
> > > > > > > > > they did not pay for the
> > > > > > > > > > domain, I did. Not only did I pay the
> > > > > > > > > registration fees, but I paid the
> > > > > > > > > > chargeback fees. So we take the domains and
> > > > > > > > > put them up for sale. If I
> > > > > > > > > > could I would redirect them to some horse porn
> > > > > > > > > site, but the owners
> > > > > > > > > > wouldn't let me. :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So I do understand why register.com and godaddy
> > > > > > > > > confiscate domains.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Donny
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > > > > > > > > [mailto:owner-discuss-
> > > > > > > > > > > list@opensrs.org] On Behalf Of Charles Daminato
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:47 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > To: Mark Petersen
> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: John T. Jarrett; discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Precedence does not make it "right". I don't
> > > > > > > > > fully understand the
> > > > > > > > > > > legalities of it (Ross would have to explain
> > > > > > > > > - Ross?), but I
> > > > > > > > > > > believe Register does not take control of the
> > > > > > > > > domain (i.e. they
> > > > > > > > > > > don't assume ownership and sell to soemone
> > > > > > > > > else). They simply
> > > > > > > > > > > "hold" it, if it's not paid it stays on hold
> > > > > > > > > until the day it
> > > > > > > > > > > expires (then it goes up for deletion)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Charles Daminato
> > > > > > > > > > > TUCOWS Product Manager
> > > > > > > > > > > chuck@tucows.com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Mark Petersen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Stand on precedence. Register.Com is
> > > > > > > > > allowed to seize domains on a
> > > > > > > > > > daily
> > > > > > > > > > > > basis.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The routinely change registrants WHOIS
> > > > > > > > > information from whatever
> > > > > > > > > > *was*
> > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > to:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > register.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unpaid Names Department-R
> > > > > > > > > > > > 575 Eighth Avenue
> > > > > > > > > > > > New York, NY 10018
> > > > > > > > > > > > US
> > > > > > > > > > > > Phone: 212-798-9200
> > > > > > > > > > > > Fax..: 212-594-9876
> > > > > > > > > > > > Email: admin@register.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If they can do it, why shouldn't we be able to?
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's supposed to be a level playing field, right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Good luck,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mark Petersen mark@planet-nic.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > Planet Nic http://www.planet-nic.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: "John T. Jarrett" <john@logonisp.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:45 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul over in compliance says it is
> > > > > > > > > against ICANN reg's for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > me to change admin info after a customer
> > > > > > > > > refunds on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > domain name registration:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "I hate to tell you this but you are not
> > > > > > > > > allowed to change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the whois information - ICANN rules. It
> > > > > > > > > appears as though
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you are trying to take away someone
> > > > > > > > > else's property."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly, I couldn't care less how it
> > > > > > > > > looks. I've offered the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > refund codes from the merchant account
> > > > > > > > > holder LinkPoint
> > > > > > > > > > > > > themselves so there's proof behind appearances.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can y'all point me to what he's talking
> > > > > > > > > to? I can't find it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in the UDRP or the Reg Agreement. I don't
> > > > > > > > > mind complying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with written rules if I can find them,
> > > > > > > > > but I'd rather not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > let this woman steal three domain name
> > > > > > > > > registrations if I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > don't have to!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > > > > > domains@logonisp.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:30 EDT