Bulkregister.com is one. We have full control of the domain records with
them. It cost us a small fee to set up with them but the control of the
domains was worth the fee we paid to them.
But I suspect that you know all the companies which allow this, which is
more that I do. I only know three or four that allow this, but I do not do
business with all of them so I should not name the ones I do not use.
I know I would know what my competitors are doing if I were you or at least
what the top 20 competitors are doing. We definitely keep up with what the
hosting companies in our area offer as services and pricing for these
services.
It would be nice if all Registrars operated under the same rules. It would
be nice if Verisign released expired domains on a timely basis. It would be
nice if Verisign and some of the other Registrars allowed transfers without
all the delays and hassles. But all registrars do not operate under the
same rules and the market place is reflecting it.
It's not that I am doubting your word but your interpretation of the
agreement. If these other companies were that flagrant in violation of the
ICANN agreement they would not be in business today since they have been
allowing this from the start. And most have been in the domain name
registration business just about as long as Tucows.
I suspect that the main difference is how that they set up their business
model. The ones that allow this interpret the agreement to mean the
reseller is their client and purchaser of the domain name, Tucows regards
the end user as the client who purchased the domain name from them.
I believe they are more accurate in their interpretation. The reseller is
their client since the reseller is the one that purchases the domain name
from them. The reseller then sells the domain to the reseller's client.
The reseller client should never be involved with Tucows, since they are not
Tucow's client, but the reseller client. The end user purchases the domain
from the reseller, the reseller then purchases it from Tucows and turns it
over to the end user. The end user does not purchase the domain name from
Tucows so Tucows should not be involved with the end user.
Support, etc, should be provided by the reseller, not Tucows support.
I admin I am not an attorney but these companies have plenty of attorneys
who must have agreed with this interpretation since they are still in
business.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elliot Noss" <enoss@tucows.com>
To: "ezgoing" <ezgoing8@bellsouth.net>; "discuss-list"
<discuss-list@opensrs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:37 PM
Subject: RE: Changing Admin Info after Refund
> 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