Rod

You are correct this offer relates to gTLDs and not .au domain names.  There
is nothing here that I have any problems with, and I've seen lots of practices
in the gTLD market that I do have problems with.

This is an offer of a free service.  There is clearly no obligation on the
customer to take this up.  The automatic renewal is also something that
many gTLD registrars offer, some of whom hide it in their terms and conditions
rather than being upfront about it being an option as Namescout are doing
here.

Having said that however this is one of a few examples I've seen lately
that make it clear to me that Namescout has not yet come to terms with the
idiosyncrasies of the .au space.  At very least they should have mentioned
which domain spaces this feature is applicable to, unless they actually
think they can offer these services in .au which is a troubling thought...

jon


>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
>From: "Rod Keys" <rod&#167;ddns.com.au>
>To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
>Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:27:08 +1000
>Subject: Re: [DNS] Fwd: Notice: To Protect Your Online Identity, We Offer
>a High Security Feature Free to Our Customers    Account # <- N-BTQK9 ->
>
>
>
>Ron,
>I think they refer to GTLD's not CC. It's just a way to try and glue
>customers to them.
>I would think they could be challanged but what are the laws in Bermuda?
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ron Stark" <ronstark&#167;businesspark.com.au>
>To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:14 AM
>Subject: RE: [DNS] Fwd: Notice: To Protect Your Online Identity, We Offer
>a
>High Security Feature Free to Our Customers Account # <- N-BTQK9 ->
>
>
>> Some quick observations:
>>
>> 1 I can't see the relevance of the "security lock" - that protection
>> is an integral part of every registrar's procedures
>>
>> 2 How can they offer a 1-year renewal when there's a 2-year minimum
>> for .com.au domains?
>>
>> 3 The offer is a "not-opt-out" one that involves a "We'll take your
>> money if you don't reply".  I have a BIG problem with that one.
>>
>> 4 I have a problem with the notion that the "not-opt-out" debit
>> authorisation is couched in terms of "this is a free security feature"
>- a
>> plain nonsense, especially when the "protection" is provided by every
>> registrar.
>>
>> 5 Although an apparently small excess, isn't there a maximum of 90
>> days prior notice?  Why 95 days?
>>
>> 6 There's an inference that if you turn the "security feature" off you
>> no longer enjoy protection against malicious transfers to other
>registrars.
>> Isn't this then in violation of the Registrar's Agreement?
>>
>> Ron Stark
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: OzNet Hosting [mailto:waleed.salhien&#167;telstra.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2002 8:51 AM
>> To: DNS - List
>> Subject: [DNS] Fwd: Notice: To Protect Your Online Identity, We Offer
a
>> High Security Feature Free to Our Customers Account # <- N-BTQK9 ->
>>
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> can someone please tell me whether the below email i received is
>> legally correct or not as i feel it is just a scam to force customers
>> to pay extra money to renew there domain names.
>>
>> please provide your feedback.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
>http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
>> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of
the
>> author, further information at the above URL.  (353 subscribers.)
>>
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
>Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
>
>author, further information at the above URL.  (353 subscribers.)
>