Ross Rader wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 19/01/2005 8:13 AM Dave Warren noted that;
>
>| Unless I'm missing something, accepting payment and not providing
>| service is called fraud, isn't it? -- So they should be obligated to add
>| the years to the domain if they're accepting the cash.
>
>It all depends on the definition of "service". The registries argue that
>what they provide is the registration function (insert a record into a
>database) and a management function (let me modify those records). The
>actual content of those records is of little consequence for their
>business model - we're the ones with the end-users, not them. Hence,
>registrars are often left holding the economic bag - which has the
>result of passing a lot of unecessary costs along to end-users.
>
>
This has some merit in that transfers which would have exceeded the 10
year maximum get capped at 10 years, so they are billing for the
transaction.
However, if the contents of the records are lof little consequence,
perhaps they should set my domains' end dates to 10 years from today?
I'll gladly pay the $6 charge :)
In other words, the can of worms I'm seeing is that the billing is done
per-year, not per-transaction in some aspects, but perhaps not all.
-- This post is double ROT13'd for extra security. Attempting to violate or decode this post without written authorization is a violation of the DMCA.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Jan 31 2005 - 23:00:02 EST