<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments for regbits</title>
	<link>http://regbits.info</link>
	<description>a blog for gTLD registrars</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:12:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>Comment on what&#8217;s wrong with resellers? by A reseller</title>
		<link>http://regbits.info/2007/04/18/whats-wrong-with-resellers/#comment-11</link>
		<author>A reseller</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://regbits.info/2007/04/18/whats-wrong-with-resellers/#comment-11</guid>
					<description>Mike,

Appreciate the clarification, and I'm glad to hear that you're not calling for the abolishment of resellers.

Didn't realise that this was a forum only for registrars and their representatives, so apologies for missing that, but appreciate your including and addressing my comments.


Craig</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike,</p>
<p>Appreciate the clarification, and I&#8217;m glad to hear that you&#8217;re not calling for the abolishment of resellers.</p>
<p>Didn&#8217;t realise that this was a forum only for registrars and their representatives, so apologies for missing that, but appreciate your including and addressing my comments.</p>
<p>Craig</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on what&#8217;s wrong with resellers? by Mike Zupke</title>
		<link>http://regbits.info/2007/04/18/whats-wrong-with-resellers/#comment-9</link>
		<author>Mike Zupke</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:07:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://regbits.info/2007/04/18/whats-wrong-with-resellers/#comment-9</guid>
					<description>Craig,
Thanks for your comments. To be clear, we’re not calling for the abolishment of the reseller model. We’ve launched a process to review and revise the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and we’re calling on the community to provide feedback regarding how the RAA should be revised (if at all) to ensure better accountability by resellers to registrants. (See http://blog.icann.org/?p=65 .)
This blog post was intended to help facilitate the discussion with accredited registrars.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Craig,<br />
Thanks for your comments. To be clear, we’re not calling for the abolishment of the reseller model. We’ve launched a process to review and revise the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and we’re calling on the community to provide feedback regarding how the RAA should be revised (if at all) to ensure better accountability by resellers to registrants. (See <a href="http://blog.icann.org/?p=65" rel="nofollow">http://blog.icann.org/?p=65</a> .)<br />
This blog post was intended to help facilitate the discussion with accredited registrars.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on what&#8217;s wrong with resellers? by Mike Zupke</title>
		<link>http://regbits.info/2007/04/18/whats-wrong-with-resellers/#comment-8</link>
		<author>Mike Zupke</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:05:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://regbits.info/2007/04/18/whats-wrong-with-resellers/#comment-8</guid>
					<description>Justmeph:
I addressed your concerns in my post. Hopefully you read the whole thing, not just the piece Jay quoted on the DomainTools blog.
I said, above:
No one disputes that resellers bring value to the marketplace. So when I ask “what’s wrong with resellers?” it should not be interpreted as “there’s nothing right about resellers.”
And as for trust-me-syndrome, the problems I described above are precisely what’s wrong. Specifically, some resellers don’t use registration agreements that conform with ICANN policies, some don’t actually allow the end customer to “own” the name even though they paid for it (by not putting the customer’s name in Whois). In some cases, there’s no harm done, but in others, there is real harm to consumers.
These observations are based in fact, not some random notion. Setting aside Registerfly (who also caused serious problems as a reseller), resellers are the largest source of transfer-related complaints I receive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Justmeph:<br />
I addressed your concerns in my post. Hopefully you read the whole thing, not just the piece Jay quoted on the DomainTools blog.<br />
I said, above:<br />
No one disputes that resellers bring value to the marketplace. So when I ask “what’s wrong with resellers?” it should not be interpreted as “there’s nothing right about resellers.”<br />
And as for trust-me-syndrome, the problems I described above are precisely what’s wrong. Specifically, some resellers don’t use registration agreements that conform with ICANN policies, some don’t actually allow the end customer to “own” the name even though they paid for it (by not putting the customer’s name in Whois). In some cases, there’s no harm done, but in others, there is real harm to consumers.<br />
These observations are based in fact, not some random notion. Setting aside Registerfly (who also caused serious problems as a reseller), resellers are the largest source of transfer-related complaints I receive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on what&#8217;s wrong with resellers? by Mike Zupke</title>
		<link>http://regbits.info/2007/04/18/whats-wrong-with-resellers/#comment-5</link>
		<author>Mike Zupke</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:19:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://regbits.info/2007/04/18/whats-wrong-with-resellers/#comment-5</guid>
					<description>Although the posting of comments on this blog is generally restricted to only those who "represent" accredited registrars (see http://regbits.info/about/), we're making an exception for this post to allow resellers to share their perspectives.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although the posting of comments on this blog is generally restricted to only those who &#8220;represent&#8221; accredited registrars (see <a href="http://regbits.info/about/" rel="nofollow">http://regbits.info/about/</a>), we&#8217;re making an exception for this post to allow resellers to share their perspectives.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on what&#8217;s wrong with resellers? by A reseller</title>
		<link>http://regbits.info/2007/04/18/whats-wrong-with-resellers/#comment-4</link>
		<author>A reseller</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:23:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://regbits.info/2007/04/18/whats-wrong-with-resellers/#comment-4</guid>
					<description>Hi Mike,

I first saw a summary of your post (only your three points) on the DomainTools blog, and I was not impressed. I came here and found that your introduction to your three points was a little more comforting to my future as a six-year reseller of Tucows/OpenSRS.


On point 1:

* I can only speak as a Tucows/OpenSRS reseller, but we have had to sign contracts in order to become and remain a reseller, and the contracts stipulate that our Web site is to include domain-registration agreements, just as is the case with an accredited registrar.

* Because our interfering in a transfer out could impact Tucows' accreditation, I am quite certain that Tucows would breathe heavily down our necks were we to behave in a manner inconsistent with the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.

* As for privacy services -- these have been poorly implemented from the start because of (as I recall) a distinct lack of co-operation or lethargic co-operation from ICANN. This is not a reseller issue, and is apparent even with domains registered with accredited registrars who offer a privacy service.


On point 2:

* I completely agree that a small company as you describe can take the loss of business personally. I have seen this myself, as well as other examples in this point.

* Again, as I state above, interfering with transfers out can and should garner attention from the accredited registrar for which the reseller is selling, in line with the contract between the reseller and the registrar which in turn should be in line with the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy and any other contracts between the registrar and the registry.

* As for changing a customer's WHOIS data without consent -- again speaking only as a Tucows reseller, this is difficult for us to do. Domains registered through us are registered to our customer, with them as the organisational, administrative and billing contacts. We usually like to have our company listed as the technical contact, but in eleven years in this business I've yet to see the technical contact be used for the purpose for which it was intended. (It's just another target for spammers.) To this end the Tucows reseller interface does not include an option to have log-in information sent to the technical contact (which can be changed from us without our consent anyway), so unless we engage in clearly illegal activities involving interception of e-mail (assuming we host the customer in question), we simply cannot access our customer's domain accounts without them giving us the user ID and password.

* While we have at times considered reselling for another registrar, switching would be a considerable disruption to our business and the businesses of our customers. It would not be as easy as you make it out to be for us to simply move onto another registrar.


On point 3:

* Nothing there that I can categorically disagree with. However, as we've seen with RegisterFly, this is not something that is confined to resellers.


To address the underlying problem I suggest you start with an acceptance that the reseller model is viable, acceptable, and here to stay. Rather than fighting it, work to improve it for everyone -- the customers, the resellers, and the registrars.

I don't want to go back to the bad old days where I had to register a domain in our name, something I still see other small companies doing all the time, which causes us worse headaches when we are trying to transfer new customers into our company, even if it's just the hosting and not the domain registration. This is an unofficial reseller situation anyway, and being unofficial causes more problems than would happen under an official reseller arrangement. I also don't want to go back to apologetically sending a customer to some other company's Web site to complete the process themselves, or ask them to give me their credit-card information so that I can do the job for them. These situations do not serve the customer well, not to mention the fact that they make doing business difficult for small companies.

There is a place at the table for businesses of all sizes, and if you squeeze out the resellers you squeeze out an important part of the industry. Sure, people won't stop buying domains if resellers cease to exist, and it concerns me that ICANN may not care about resellers for that very reason. This is why, when Elliot Noss or anyone at Tucows issues a call to action to protect the reseller business model, I will be there asking, "How high do you want me to jump?"


Craig</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Mike,</p>
<p>I first saw a summary of your post (only your three points) on the DomainTools blog, and I was not impressed. I came here and found that your introduction to your three points was a little more comforting to my future as a six-year reseller of Tucows/OpenSRS.</p>
<p>On point 1:</p>
<p>* I can only speak as a Tucows/OpenSRS reseller, but we have had to sign contracts in order to become and remain a reseller, and the contracts stipulate that our Web site is to include domain-registration agreements, just as is the case with an accredited registrar.</p>
<p>* Because our interfering in a transfer out could impact Tucows&#8217; accreditation, I am quite certain that Tucows would breathe heavily down our necks were we to behave in a manner inconsistent with the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.</p>
<p>* As for privacy services &#8212; these have been poorly implemented from the start because of (as I recall) a distinct lack of co-operation or lethargic co-operation from ICANN. This is not a reseller issue, and is apparent even with domains registered with accredited registrars who offer a privacy service.</p>
<p>On point 2:</p>
<p>* I completely agree that a small company as you describe can take the loss of business personally. I have seen this myself, as well as other examples in this point.</p>
<p>* Again, as I state above, interfering with transfers out can and should garner attention from the accredited registrar for which the reseller is selling, in line with the contract between the reseller and the registrar which in turn should be in line with the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy and any other contracts between the registrar and the registry.</p>
<p>* As for changing a customer&#8217;s WHOIS data without consent &#8212; again speaking only as a Tucows reseller, this is difficult for us to do. Domains registered through us are registered to our customer, with them as the organisational, administrative and billing contacts. We usually like to have our company listed as the technical contact, but in eleven years in this business I&#8217;ve yet to see the technical contact be used for the purpose for which it was intended. (It&#8217;s just another target for spammers.) To this end the Tucows reseller interface does not include an option to have log-in information sent to the technical contact (which can be changed from us without our consent anyway), so unless we engage in clearly illegal activities involving interception of e-mail (assuming we host the customer in question), we simply cannot access our customer&#8217;s domain accounts without them giving us the user ID and password.</p>
<p>* While we have at times considered reselling for another registrar, switching would be a considerable disruption to our business and the businesses of our customers. It would not be as easy as you make it out to be for us to simply move onto another registrar.</p>
<p>On point 3:</p>
<p>* Nothing there that I can categorically disagree with. However, as we&#8217;ve seen with RegisterFly, this is not something that is confined to resellers.</p>
<p>To address the underlying problem I suggest you start with an acceptance that the reseller model is viable, acceptable, and here to stay. Rather than fighting it, work to improve it for everyone &#8212; the customers, the resellers, and the registrars.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t want to go back to the bad old days where I had to register a domain in our name, something I still see other small companies doing all the time, which causes us worse headaches when we are trying to transfer new customers into our company, even if it&#8217;s just the hosting and not the domain registration. This is an unofficial reseller situation anyway, and being unofficial causes more problems than would happen under an official reseller arrangement. I also don&#8217;t want to go back to apologetically sending a customer to some other company&#8217;s Web site to complete the process themselves, or ask them to give me their credit-card information so that I can do the job for them. These situations do not serve the customer well, not to mention the fact that they make doing business difficult for small companies.</p>
<p>There is a place at the table for businesses of all sizes, and if you squeeze out the resellers you squeeze out an important part of the industry. Sure, people won&#8217;t stop buying domains if resellers cease to exist, and it concerns me that ICANN may not care about resellers for that very reason. This is why, when Elliot Noss or anyone at Tucows issues a call to action to protect the reseller business model, I will be there asking, &#8220;How high do you want me to jump?&#8221;</p>
<p>Craig</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on what&#8217;s wrong with resellers? by justmeph</title>
		<link>http://regbits.info/2007/04/18/whats-wrong-with-resellers/#comment-3</link>
		<author>justmeph</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:12:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://regbits.info/2007/04/18/whats-wrong-with-resellers/#comment-3</guid>
					<description>how can you immediately judge that the problem are resellers?
i hope that you are educated enough to know that these resellers are the people who are bringing big revenue to this ICANN Accredited Registrar "thing".
if you will be analyzing; your organization has really no function at all most especially with the incident of Registryfly.
you cannot even help immediately an ordinary complainant if there domains are locked by a certain provider.
i think ICANN should study their policies first before putting blames with the resellers.
please remember that it is not the size of organization that you should measure but instead the attitude of each provider.

i also want to ask you what's wrong with the "“trust me syndrome” - maybe you are not trustworthy that's why this is a big deal with you.

i think the best thing that you can suggest is to find a trustworthy provider because that is the ultimate problem and not any form of business relationship.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>how can you immediately judge that the problem are resellers?<br />
i hope that you are educated enough to know that these resellers are the people who are bringing big revenue to this ICANN Accredited Registrar &#8220;thing&#8221;.<br />
if you will be analyzing; your organization has really no function at all most especially with the incident of Registryfly.<br />
you cannot even help immediately an ordinary complainant if there domains are locked by a certain provider.<br />
i think ICANN should study their policies first before putting blames with the resellers.<br />
please remember that it is not the size of organization that you should measure but instead the attitude of each provider.</p>
<p>i also want to ask you what&#8217;s wrong with the &#8220;“trust me syndrome” - maybe you are not trustworthy that&#8217;s why this is a big deal with you.</p>
<p>i think the best thing that you can suggest is to find a trustworthy provider because that is the ultimate problem and not any form of business relationship.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Registerfly Update by Mike Zupke</title>
		<link>http://regbits.info/2007/03/10/registerfly-update/#comment-2</link>
		<author>Mike Zupke</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:41:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://regbits.info/2007/03/10/registerfly-update/#comment-2</guid>
					<description>For auth codes, unlocking, or to disable whois privacy, registrants may contact compliance@registerfly.com or email transfer-questions@icann.org and we will forward the request on their behalf.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For auth codes, unlocking, or to disable whois privacy, registrants may contact <a href="mailto:compliance@registerfly.com">compliance@registerfly.com</a> or email <a href="mailto:transfer-questions@icann.org">transfer-questions@icann.org</a> and we will forward the request on their behalf.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Registerfly Update by Mike Zupke</title>
		<link>http://regbits.info/2007/03/10/registerfly-update/#comment-1</link>
		<author>Mike Zupke</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:09:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://regbits.info/2007/03/10/registerfly-update/#comment-1</guid>
					<description>As an update, it appears that the port 43 and web-based whois issue is isolated to certain domain names.  Registerfly has reported that it is working with the back-end provider to resolve the underlying problem, but please feel free to forward to me domain names for which you cannot currently obtain whois data.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As an update, it appears that the port 43 and web-based whois issue is isolated to certain domain names.  Registerfly has reported that it is working with the back-end provider to resolve the underlying problem, but please feel free to forward to me domain names for which you cannot currently obtain whois data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
