From another list... sA >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:45:49 -0400 > >Greetings: > >I have recently received a disturbing mailing from Register.com that I >want to share with you because its intent is most definitely NOT in the >best interest of consumers or the Domain Name System. > >This mass mailing letter, designed to look like an invoice and signed by >Richard Forman, President, informs us that two of our Domain Names >(iaregistry.com and iaregistry.net) are about to expire on July 29, 2001. >It details information and instructions on how to transfer the names to >Register.com and renew them for the low, low price of $29.95 per year and >then warns us that if we do not act now we risk losing rights to those names. > >This is the first such mailing I have received, but several of our >customers have already complained to us about them. > >There are several troubling issues at work here: > >1) Both of those two Domains names do not actually expire until July 29, >2002 yet the language of the mailing claims they expire in two weeks and >we are in danger of losing rights to those names. >2) Neither of the names is currently sponsored in Register.com's database, >as we at IARegistry.com have had them in our database for more than 7 >months. So, how did Register.com get them? >3) Why is an accredited registrar allowed to present this kind of >incorrect information to Domain Name holders? > >While we certainly understand all the intricacies and potential for fraud >in the current landscape of registration process, the majority of >consumers DO NOT. This mailing is a blatant attempt to capitalize on that >ignorance in order to scare holders into renewing a name far earlier than >they need to with the intention of gaining market share and with a >registrar they don't even KNOW. > >It seems to me, Register.com and NSI could be playing both sides of the >fence and we would like to know why this is allowed to continue. > >On the one side, you've got Register.com's and NSI promoting the notion >that adding another layer of confirmation for transferring Domain names >(on top of the existing language in the agreements that clearly mandates >the gaining registrar must already confirm the authority of a transfer >request before submitting the request) is in the "best interest" of the >consumer when we all know it's only in the best interest of Register.com >and NSI-registrar. Even the presumed "3rd party Internal consumer survey" >is used to support these positions in compounding the problem among the >consumers and registrars. > >Then on the other side, you've got Register.com sending out confusing and >misleading materials to registrants. > >Where is the protection for the consumer? Where is the protection for the >registrars who can only hope their customers are not bullied into a >mistake by this kind of practice? Scott Allan Director OpenSRS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
