RE: ccTLD cliques (was: Draft New Draft)

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 23:42 11/02/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>On 12-Feb-99 Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>  Just a little sample from what an unregulated monopolly can do: Domainz
>>  informed me yesterday that democracy.org.nz will now be billed directly.
>>  And if payment , for whatever reason, is not received on the dot, the
>>  Domain can be deleted "automatically".
>>  This feels like losing a house, because the property tax was a week
overdue.
>
>Joop,
>
>That isn't exactly a fair assessment of this policy.
>
>I know in my own business, if payment is not received by the due date,
services
>are shut off and accounts are locked.
>
William,

That is not the same as automatic deletion of your property. The word
automatic instills fear.
Even the proposed new ICANN policy provides for at least 2 notices before
drastic action such as deletion from the database is taken.

>Why should domain name service be any different?  My customers know ahead of
>time (as do you) that if payment is not made according to the terms, that
their
>service is subject to being suspended or terminated.
>
The terms are unilaterally dictated by a monopoly. The customers no longer
have the option to go elsewhere.

>There are those who will say that Domainz is acting in a professional fashion
>by enforcing this policy, and I am inclined to agree with them.
>
There are others who call it something not quite mentionable, but I
understand that your sympathies lie with the oppressed registry.

>If a reseller is not meeting the terms of their contract (however strict you
>might feel it is) then they risk termination of that contract.
>
Actually, it was the agent (reseller) that terminated the arrangement,
angry to be penalized unfairly (in his eyes) for refusing to advise the
registry in the name of the Domain Name owner that the Domain could be
cancelled, when he had in reality not received such instructions.
Domainz made him  send letters to the DN holders, stating that non-payment
would automatically and immediately give the agent the right to instruct
the registry to cancel the name.  He did this, but balked at acting on
them, because hem could get sued for lack of legal validity for such
action.  Read the story at aardvark.co.nz

In your eyes the contract with the registry reigns supreme. 
In my eyes, such heavy handed conditions imposed by a monopoly invites the
intervention of the politicians. Not necessarily in the best interest of
the 28.000 registrants. 

--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/model.html