[comments-deletes] Re: Redemption "fee" is predatory practice

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

>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.

Not at all.  In fact, it doesn't change the domain registration contract in
the slightest.

The Redemption Grace Period is a period of time *beyond* the term of
registration that was specified in the original contract.  The policy
available to the original contract remains the same - i.e. "This name expires
on this date".  After the date of registration, the registrar under the
original contract had no obligation to do, or not to do, anything at all
relative to that name or that registrant.  The registration contract expires
on the expiration date, just as it always has.  The RGP relates to a period
of time after that contract is no more.

The fact of the matter is that some registrars were already engaging in
practices perceived to be predatory post-expiration of a domain name.  The
point here is to establish a uniform post-expiration policy to prevent those
perceived predatory practices.

Perhaps an example will make the point clearer.  Suppose I say to you, "I
will rent you a car for one year for one hundred dollars" and you agree.
Now, if I come to you at month six and say, "If you want that car next year,
then I will want two hundred dollars" I have not changed the terms of our
original contact at all.  The original contract related to that first year of
rental, not to some other arrangement that I offer you during an entirely
different period of time beyond the expiration of the original contract.

>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
>and predatory.

In many people's minds "cheaper and easier" equates to "better than what we
have now".  From this, should one understand that you believe the policy is
an improvement over the present state of affairs?

>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.

This is an initial report, and was not drafted by a group of registrars.