Re: [registrars] OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON DOMAIN NAME TASTING
- To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [registrars] OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON DOMAIN NAME TASTING
- From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:18:00 -0400
- Cc: "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <029601c805e6$ceec0390$6501a8c0@cubensis>
- List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Organization: Tucows Inc.
- References: <200710031500.l93Exixs012158@pechora2.lax.icann.org> <4703BFC0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <029601c805e6$ceec0390$6501a8c0@cubensis>
- Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 188.8.131.52 (Macintosh/20070728)
> Not if the customer is logged into their account and payment
> on file, no. While a "cart hold" is a fairly decent process as
> hear echoes of the old NSI "three month invoice float" that was the
> of speculation circa 1997.
Disagree - that's too implicit to satisfy the terms of this clause.
> Consider: "general commercial terms extended to creditworthy customers"
> I believe one would find that large-scale tasters do indeed have the
> on hand to theoretically pay for the registrations. Determining whether
> these registrations have been made on "general commercial terms
> creditworthy customers" is going to require some information about the
> creditworthiness of those customers.
I'd be happy to hear someone make that argument to ICANN. The issue is
not whether someone theoretically can pay for the registrations they've
tasted, but that they will if the registration is activated. The second
a registration gets transmitted to and accepted by the registry as a
valid transaction, a fee is payable to the registrar. The clause in
question clearly states that the registrar must be satisfied that the
RNH will pay for the registration and that such payment is final and
non-revocable. In other words, a registrar is not permitted to issue a
refund to a registrant for cancellations made during the AGP according
to the terms of this contract.
Generally, this reads that ICANN is not concerned as much with whether
the registrant *could* pay the bill, but whether they *will*. Under all
tasting implementations imaginable, the answer is clearly "no, they will
not be paying that bill".
> Clearly PIR was able to end tasting in .org without engaging the rest
> community in a PDP. Verisign could do precisely the same thing, and end
> tasting within the same short time scale. It is a mystery why these
> circumstances are the fault of eeeevil registrars.
Yeah, agree. Its the registries. Always the registries.
I'm sure that DOC is implicated somehow as well :)
Whatever. Verisign can and should implement the restocking fee, ICANN
should enforce their contracts and registrars need to learn when to walk
away from short-term money.
The DOC - they'll never learn.
Director, Retail Services