Re: Warehousing, TM violations & the new gTLD's

["andi payn" <payn@null.net>]

>> I'll tell you something simpler and more d-able that will reduce
>>> warehousing -- simply require payment up-front.
>>
>>  This would certianly do what you would like to see.  But it would
>>also impose a unfair sometime hardship on everyone else.  That iw why
>>befor I have recomended that some modification of this be done.
>>Here is an example.
>
>Hmm, like Mlebourne IT in Australia did.  THey got lots of complaints from
>ISP's who didn't have registrations complete and didn't receive refunds.
>
>Amazing really.

I'm not sure I understand the situation. ISPs would take money from a client
up front and give it to the registrar, then if the registration wasn't
completed they'd return the client's advance and ask the registrar for a
refund. Right?

In a competitive shared registry system, a registrar would have some
incentive to refund the money, because otherwise the ISPs would send all
their business to a different registrar--just as the ISPs were presumably
refunding money, as otherwise their clients would move to a different ISP.

Actually, the registrars would be more motivated by these concerns than
ISPs, because ISPs would probably watch registrars more carefully than users
watch ISPs...

In a monopoly registry system, there's no incentive (short of being dragged
into court) to encourage registrars to refund this money. They could write
and try to enforce a ridiculous policy saying that the money just isn't
refunded, or they could just be very lazy, slow, and inconsistent about
getting the refunds out, and nobody would have any recourse...