[comments-deletes] Redemption "fee" is predatory practice
> Please read the portion of the proposal in which
registrars are required
> to provide prominent notice of their renewal
policies at the time the
> domain name is registered.
But that's exactly the point the previous poster was
trying to make, namely, that the actual policy which
was available to the registrant at the time of
original registration is now changing without due
notice to the registrant.
No reasonable minded registrant would ever dream that
if they missed paying by their expiration date that
their domain would be held hostage until an
exhorbitant ransom was paid... a ransom FIFTEEN times
higher than the original cost of registration!
Trying to compare this new form of robbery to a late
fee on an apartment rental is ridiculous. For one,
state laws forbid landlords from charging a fee which
was not present in the original contract. This new
redemption "fee" is exactly that, NEW and not in the
original contract with registrants.
Two, state laws forbid landlords from using late fees
as a penalty. Fees under say five percent would be
considered reasonable, but fees above that would be
considered a penalty and thus illegal. This new
redemption fee is no five percent fee, but a THOUSAND
PERCENT or more. Clearly, this would be considered an
Three, this penalty is actually assessed outside of
the existing contract, not only in that it was never
stipulated in the original contract but that it's
being assessed beyond the EXPIRATION date of the
original contract. Therefore, instead of allowing the
domain name to fall back into the open market where
the registrar and registry would receive only their
normal fees for the domain, they now are exploiting a
perceived value of the domain to the previous
registrant, hoping that the previous registrant will
indeed want the name back so that the registrar will
profit unfairly off the sweat of the registrants'
backs. The fact is, NO landlord on the planet would
charge the original lessee a fee or penalty for
wanting to move back in after the lease expired. It's
To claim that this outlandish new fee is anything but
unfair is a lie. Yes, registrants will pay it because
it may be cheaper and easier than the alternative of
trying to get their domain name back otherwise. But
that doesn't make it fair. It's clearly exploitative
When a group of registrars act in a concerted manner
by their exclusive privilege to impose outlandish fees
on the public, that is a monopoly. Yes, the victims
may be "careless, stupid, or lazy", but to exploit
such people is beneath contempt.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day