Re: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
- To: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, <domain-tasting-motion@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
- From: <chris@xxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:11:24 -0400
I understand the comparisons and the analogy you used about abuse. I'm sure
the store's policy would change if people were buying thousands of socks,
creating a shortage, which is exactly what is happening with domain names
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <chris@xxxxxx>; <domain-tasting-motion@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'GA'" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 6:37 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
That allows for any mistakes someone made when filling out the
form. It's simple enough for anyone to understand. It gives the registrant
chance to change their mind satisfying buyer's remorse. Show me any policy
that allows five days for buyer's remorse on an item that usually, with
exception of a couple of registrars, costs around $10.
IKEA has a policy of 30 days, up to 3 months with the "family Card",
regardless the amount.
In Vienna, almost every clothing shop has a week "buyer's remorse" policy.
That holds also for items that have very low price, under $10, like socks.
There are two differences, though.
The first one is that you can return the item if you have not used it. In
simple words, you cannot return used socks.
The second one, more subtle, is that this policy holds because it is not
abused. If, for instance, we had the case of few customers buying socks by
the thousands, creating shortage for the vast majority of other customers,
returning them a week later, only to re-buy them for another week, I am
that the policy would quickly change.
My tendency would be to make the distinction between fair use, and abuse.
know, it is more difficult that eliminating the use altogether, but I
it is wiser on the long run.