My friend Tracey is a fairly typical home user who manages quite well with internet and email without needing to understand the finer points of how it all works.
When I visited her the other day, she was quite concerned by a letter from the Domain Registry of America, headed 'Domain Name Expiration Notice'.
Nothing wrong with that on the face of it except that her domain name isn't hosted by that organisation who were pointing out the dangers of allowing it to expire and requesting an urgent (financial) response by July 2nd, notwithstanding that the actual expiration date was October 26th.
Of course, nearer the time, she would have been sent email reminders from the actual host which would have alerted her to the fact that there was no pressing reason to deal with DROA.
Additionally, the DROA renewal rates are actually substantially higher than those of the existing host.
To be fair, a thorough reading of the letter makes it clear that DROA are not the current host though that detail would probably elude many people given the urgent and alarmist tone of the communication.
There is also a lot of (very) small print on the back which appears to saddle the client with all sorts of legal obligations which non-lawyers are unlikely to fully-understand.
Even if the client were to return the form and pay for the transfer, it would normally be necessary to 'authorise' the existing host to allow the transfer—if the client were comfortable with logging-in and managing their account in this way, it is unlikely that they would see any pressing reason for a move to DROA.
Of course, DROA have this covered in the 'small print' and only guarantees to issue the transfer/renewal request.
While being very carefully worded to avoid presenting false information in the strict legal sense, these letters take advantage of those with limited technical knowledge by creating an impression that urgent action is required to avoid the loss of a valuable resource.
The extensive legal 'small print' on the back of the form essentially releases DROA from any obligation to provide the domain-hosting service and even suggests that the client should indemnify them in respect of any legal action arising from the transaction—most people, of course, neither read nor understand the legal conditions attached to this sort of contract.
My advice to Tracey, and to everybody else, is—don't touch the Domain Registry of America with a barge-pole.
Comments