<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tucows Response to our Post: Not Good Enough and Here&#8217;s Why</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/25/tucows-response-to-our-post-not-good-enough-and-heres-why/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/25/tucows-response-to-our-post-not-good-enough-and-heres-why/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:15:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Cowhide Rug</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/25/tucows-response-to-our-post-not-good-enough-and-heres-why/comment-page-2/#comment-24235</link>
		<dc:creator>Cowhide Rug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2009 10:33:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=712#comment-24235</guid>
		<description>Very super information.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very super information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tucowed</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/25/tucows-response-to-our-post-not-good-enough-and-heres-why/comment-page-2/#comment-7241</link>
		<dc:creator>Tucowed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Aug 2008 03:59:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=712#comment-7241</guid>
		<description>It has become clear that Tucows is being run into the ground (check their stock price over the past year) by the bunch of lying, petty thieves in Toronto who are now in charge of it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It has become clear that Tucows is being run into the ground (check their stock price over the past year) by the bunch of lying, petty thieves in Toronto who are now in charge of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick Schwartz</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/25/tucows-response-to-our-post-not-good-enough-and-heres-why/comment-page-2/#comment-6440</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick Schwartz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:21:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=712#comment-6440</guid>
		<description>The Board of Advisors of WADND.com are now officially considering rescinding the &quot;Seal of Approval&quot; awarded to Tucows. I will post results when available. Probably in the next day or two if not sooner.

More fallout from a TERRIBLE response!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Board of Advisors of WADND.com are now officially considering rescinding the &#8220;Seal of Approval&#8221; awarded to Tucows. I will post results when available. Probably in the next day or two if not sooner.</p>
<p>More fallout from a TERRIBLE response!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick Schwartz</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/25/tucows-response-to-our-post-not-good-enough-and-heres-why/comment-page-2/#comment-6401</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick Schwartz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:08:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=712#comment-6401</guid>
		<description>The Tucows.com MESS mentioned in the DNJournal.com newsletter

http://www.dnjournal.com/newsletters/2008/june.htm

I also see GoDaddy reversed course and is doing the right thing. Will Tucows.com follow their lead and make some better decisions?

I met with Howard today and we agreed that the WADND board of advisors should weigh in and see if  Tucows.com still meet the criteria for our seal.

Hope their shareholders are getting their monies worth. This is just the beginning of the fallout. Abuse of domainers is going to STOP and those that don&#039;t believe it, just take a seat and watch how this unfolds. Remember last week Tucows had a chance to contain this. Now they don&#039;t. This is unraveling faster than they can keep up with the events and it is going to spread further faster. When do you all think they will get a clue?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Tucows.com MESS mentioned in the DNJournal.com newsletter</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dnjournal.com/newsletters/2008/june.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.dnjournal.com/newsletters/2008/june.htm</a></p>
<p>I also see GoDaddy reversed course and is doing the right thing. Will Tucows.com follow their lead and make some better decisions?</p>
<p>I met with Howard today and we agreed that the WADND board of advisors should weigh in and see if  Tucows.com still meet the criteria for our seal.</p>
<p>Hope their shareholders are getting their monies worth. This is just the beginning of the fallout. Abuse of domainers is going to STOP and those that don&#8217;t believe it, just take a seat and watch how this unfolds. Remember last week Tucows had a chance to contain this. Now they don&#8217;t. This is unraveling faster than they can keep up with the events and it is going to spread further faster. When do you all think they will get a clue?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat Quinn</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/25/tucows-response-to-our-post-not-good-enough-and-heres-why/comment-page-2/#comment-6391</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat Quinn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:57:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=712#comment-6391</guid>
		<description>Tell ICANN that language MUST be added to the Registrar Agreement to ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT registrars from WAREHOUSING OR SPECULATION IN DOMAIN NAMES BY REGISTRARS. Send your comments to: raa-consultation@icann.org.

The deadline is August 4th!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tell ICANN that language MUST be added to the Registrar Agreement to ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT registrars from WAREHOUSING OR SPECULATION IN DOMAIN NAMES BY REGISTRARS. Send your comments to: <a href="mailto:raa-consultation@icann.org">raa-consultation@icann.org</a>.</p>
<p>The deadline is August 4th!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat Quinn</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/25/tucows-response-to-our-post-not-good-enough-and-heres-why/comment-page-2/#comment-6388</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat Quinn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:34:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=712#comment-6388</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement:
http://icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm

Read section 3.7.5... here&#039;s a quote:

&quot;3.7.5 Registrar shall register Registered Names to Registered Name Holders only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a renewal fee within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration.&quot;

If the requirement is that the registration is CANCELLED, then the name must be DROPPED, right?

We need to hold ICANN&#039;s feet to the fire to make the Registrars follow the agreement.

Also, take a look at section 3.7.9, this is it in entirety...

&quot;3.7.9 Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.&quot;

What&#039;s the purpose of this section if it isn&#039;t to state that warehousing or speculation by registrars amounts to dirty dealing???

Tucows and any other registrar that has picked up a single dropped name without sending it to acution has to be forced by ICANN to drop those names!

The Registrar Accreditation Agreement is currently up for public comment:
http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18jun08-en.htm

Every domainer needs to make their voice heard here loudly and clearly that this crap has to stop.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement:<br />
<a href="http://icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm" rel="nofollow">http://icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm</a></p>
<p>Read section 3.7.5&#8230; here&#8217;s a quote:</p>
<p>&#8220;3.7.5 Registrar shall register Registered Names to Registered Name Holders only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a renewal fee within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration.&#8221;</p>
<p>If the requirement is that the registration is CANCELLED, then the name must be DROPPED, right?</p>
<p>We need to hold ICANN&#8217;s feet to the fire to make the Registrars follow the agreement.</p>
<p>Also, take a look at section 3.7.9, this is it in entirety&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8220;3.7.9 Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.&#8221;</p>
<p>What&#8217;s the purpose of this section if it isn&#8217;t to state that warehousing or speculation by registrars amounts to dirty dealing???</p>
<p>Tucows and any other registrar that has picked up a single dropped name without sending it to acution has to be forced by ICANN to drop those names!</p>
<p>The Registrar Accreditation Agreement is currently up for public comment:<br />
<a href="http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18jun08-en.htm" rel="nofollow">http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18jun08-en.htm</a></p>
<p>Every domainer needs to make their voice heard here loudly and clearly that this crap has to stop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick Schwartz</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/25/tucows-response-to-our-post-not-good-enough-and-heres-why/comment-page-2/#comment-6321</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick Schwartz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:52:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=712#comment-6321</guid>
		<description>The $20k will get us a blueprint. It will probably cost $100k-$250k to get a result, but when you consider the bang for the buck and spreading the expense out over hundreds of domainers, it becomes very cost effective and you get a REAL result.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The $20k will get us a blueprint. It will probably cost $100k-$250k to get a result, but when you consider the bang for the buck and spreading the expense out over hundreds of domainers, it becomes very cost effective and you get a REAL result.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MHB</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/25/tucows-response-to-our-post-not-good-enough-and-heres-why/comment-page-2/#comment-6320</link>
		<dc:creator>MHB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:43:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=712#comment-6320</guid>
		<description>Rick

If we can get a few other domainers in, you know I&#039;m in.

20K to end all the nonsense. 

Might be the cheapest money any of us ever spend.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rick</p>
<p>If we can get a few other domainers in, you know I&#8217;m in.</p>
<p>20K to end all the nonsense. </p>
<p>Might be the cheapest money any of us ever spend.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick Schwartz</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/25/tucows-response-to-our-post-not-good-enough-and-heres-why/comment-page-2/#comment-6319</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick Schwartz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:36:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=712#comment-6319</guid>
		<description>Mike,

I think it is worth $20 grand to get a REAL opinion and a way forward on a class action including costs and the funding options we may have. There is so much conflict of interest here that at some point the courts need to get involved.

I think there is some other $$$ on the sidelines that would join the fight that may have not joined any associations and waiting for something more specific to fight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike,</p>
<p>I think it is worth $20 grand to get a REAL opinion and a way forward on a class action including costs and the funding options we may have. There is so much conflict of interest here that at some point the courts need to get involved.</p>
<p>I think there is some other $$$ on the sidelines that would join the fight that may have not joined any associations and waiting for something more specific to fight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick Schwartz</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/25/tucows-response-to-our-post-not-good-enough-and-heres-why/comment-page-2/#comment-6318</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick Schwartz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:30:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=712#comment-6318</guid>
		<description>Why not send links to these threads to their major shareholders? Let&#039;s MAKE SURE they know what is really going on here since they seem to be the essence of all this. Maybe they are sandbagging them the same way they are sandbagging domainers?

Tucows left on Friday really believing they had this behind them. We promised that we would just start this weekend and that is what we are doing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why not send links to these threads to their major shareholders? Let&#8217;s MAKE SURE they know what is really going on here since they seem to be the essence of all this. Maybe they are sandbagging them the same way they are sandbagging domainers?</p>
<p>Tucows left on Friday really believing they had this behind them. We promised that we would just start this weekend and that is what we are doing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
