I had one of my clients go through this dealing with enom. I also remember when MelbourneIT started this whole thing off, from what I've seen. With enom, they usually shoot the price up after the redemption period ends (60 days after expiration, I think). With Melbourne, I've advised people to stay away from them because of the way they were using domains however they felt like they wanted to, completely disregarding their fiduciary responsibility to the customer. I don't know if this is still the case with them, but I know for a while it was. I think what the reality is, but not sure, is that the registrar in question pays the renewal hoping that the customer will (or won't) reactivate the domain. If they don't renew within the redemption period, the resigistrars eat the wholesale cost but now own the rights to the domain for the remainder of the year, and can do whatever they like. I'd like to see what would happen with a situation like this involving a so-called 'trademarked domain.' I have also had domains scalped from me in the past, but the problem is much less that it once was for me, just that now we are paying more attention to it. I've also had renewal notices put into my 'spambox' which is another inherent problem nothing to do with ICANN, but which makes the renewal difficult if you don't know they are expiring. The registrar's response has always been, "not our problem, it's all in the registration agreement." Danny, I again echo your concern about registrar malpractice. I think there is alot of 'insider trading' going on amongst registrars, registries, resellers, and aftermarket brokers. This will only get worse if we don't actively look into this matter. I wonder, if we sponsor a domain owner 'bill of rights,' if it'll be supported by ICANN? Or, should we look further into the registration agreements/registrar policies?? Note: 1- registrants need to be proactive with their domains 2- registerfly is still accepting registrations -Randy Glass A@L On 5/24/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:

Comment by mark 2007-05-23 22:52:56 one of my domain names with registerfly has now expired dispite them stealing the renewal fee from my credit card. i am hearing more horror storys that eNom after offering a free account which gives them control of the domain names from registerfly, are charging $160.00! to renew $12.00 domain names! what is going on??? is icann going to allow the bulk transfer of our domain names from registerfly to a company that will charge us $160.00 to renew expired domain names?

Comment by Sean Lee 2007-05-23 13:17:40 I have only 1 domain name expired - paid the money (US$12.00) but it was not renewed (when in Registerfly account), I have managed to transferred 4 domain out from Registerfly during the "troubled time". I just receive email from Enom.com customer service to open a free account with them. After opening the account , I found out that in order to renew my expired domain will cost me US$160.00. My domain is in Extended RGP now in Enom Account. This price is really crazy, what I got to pay is way too much!

Comment by friendly stranger 2007-05-17 18:26:42 Well I had 4 domains with registryfly and after repeated failed attempts to renew one, it lapsed into expiration. Enom was the actual reseller for registryfly @ that time. So I transfer all including the expired one to enom so I can transfer them elsewhere. To my dismay, enom now is wanting $160 to renew the expired domain!!! WTF!!!! I'm being extorted because of registrerfly's incompetence!!!??? And enom is gouging me….What a croc. Does anyone know who I could report this extortion to:???

____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org

Hi Wendy Good catch. Thanks Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:50 AM To: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] members not subscribed properly Consumer Reports Webwatch was subscribed with a typo, I've just noticed, so they have not been getting any communications. I've notified them and believe their representative is now subscribed with the correct address. --Wendy Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

Dear All:

So far, we have received the following RSVPs:

Seth M Reiss Randolph Jefferson Glass Gareth Rui Shearman Darlene A Thompson Robert Guerra Michael J Maranda Dharma E Bilotta Dailey

Due to a slight delay in bringing online the new travel booking partner, we can accept RSVPs through Friday, 25th May.

PLEASE GET YOUR RSVPS IN BEFORE THE 25th IF YOU INTEND TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ICANN'S SUBSIDISING YOUR TRAVEL COSTS.

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: 5/23/2007 3:59 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: 5/23/2007 3:59 PM