[registrars] Where is the consumer interest?
- To: registrars@dnso.org
- Subject: [registrars] Where is the consumer interest?
- From: dwascher@iaregistry.com
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:45:49 -0400
- Cc: Dan Halloran <halloran@icann.org>
- Sender: owner-registrars@dnso.org
Title: Blank
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?
Sincerely,
David Wascher
Manager IARegistry.com
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?
Sincerely,
David Wascher
Manager IARegistry.com
