RE: ccTLD cliques (was: Draft New Draft)

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

On 12-Feb-99 Joop Teernstra wrote:
>  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.

Sure it is.  In my case, it is a customer's website.  I do not hesitate to
suspend or delete the web hosting site if a customer does not pay their bill
when it is payable.  I make it abundantly clear to them that this is the
policy.  They cannot log in to download their site and move it, the entire
account and site are removed on that date.  

As I see the ICANN policy, those two notices should occur PRIOR to the date of
payment due, in the form of bills, notifying them that the payment is due by
such and such a date, and on that date it will be turned off/deleted if payment
has not been made.
  
> >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.

Well, that monopoly is not the fault of the registry, and we are solving that
problem now (I hope).   In any event, that should not affect the right of the
registry to discontinue service according to its policies.
  
> >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.

I don't see the as oppressed at all, Joop.  I just note that I agree with that
policy, and as a businessman on the Internet, it is one I think is fair and
equitable.  Others may choose to have more flexible billing policies.  I don't,
unless the customer contacts me and we work out another arrangement that is
agreed to by both of us.
  
> >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

And that was his right.  He elected not to abide by the terms. 
  
>  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. 

I don't think you will see much sympathy in that regard, really.  

It is a tough argument that a policy that requires people to pay for services
when they are due is wrong.

----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
Date: 12-Feb-99
Time: 13:26:43
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts." 
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977