Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

British Domain Registrar Offers 'No Transfer Fees,' Charges Transfer Fee

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the oh-we-were-just-lying-in-wait dept.

United Kingdom 77

First time accepted submitter RealSurreal (620564) writes "British web host 123-reg, which previously advertised 'no hidden transfer fees' has angered customers by introducing a £12 fee per domain for transfers out. Best of all, they didn't bother to tell anyone they were doing it relying instead on terms and conditions which say : '123-reg reserves the right to change, add, subtract or in way alter these Conditions without the prior consent of the Client.'"

cancel ×

77 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Typical corporation bullshit (4, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46670209)

Sign here to be bound by terms we can change any time.

How can that be legal?

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46670251)

Where does the constitution forbid it? If you don't like the term's don't sign up, stop expecting the nanny-state to wipe you're ass.
--
roman_mir

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (3, Funny)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 5 months ago | (#46670305)

Nice try, but Roman's English is better than that.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46670981)

ya, but too bad yer brain's damaged http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 5 months ago | (#46674215)

Funny? I was completely serious.

Also, Roman does not appear to be at all afraid to log in before posting his little rants, so I'm disinclined to believe an AC claiming to be him.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46675219)

You appear to be a fruitloop http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Zontar, it's "Happy Pills Time" (lol) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46692155)

Zontar's "touched in the head" by schizophrenic multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] and manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] now go take those meds, you whacko brain damaged loon!

Zontar = sockpuppeteer & lying libeling troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46755149)

"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

You said my "APK Hosts File Engine" is a virus/malware http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] but it's EASILY PROVABLE it's not, right there in that link too.

Now PROVE YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION above: Show me a quote OR POST of me posting off topic on hosts where they did NOT apply... go for it!

---

You avoided backing up your accusation where YOU said I say you are Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] , & sockpuppeteer like you) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Funny you can't back up your "bluster" there either, lol...

---

Why, Lastly?

You're crackers! See here multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

APK

P.S.=> So, THIS quote below is my policy on sockpuppeteers like you Zontar = TrollingForHostsFiles (your sockpuppetry):

"The only way to a achieve peace, is thru the ELIMINATION of those who would perpetuate war (sockpuppet masters like YOU, troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] ). THIS IS MY PROGRAMMING -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com] & soon, I will be UNSTOPPABLE..." - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

Which quite obviously, I am, since none of you DOLTISH TROLLS are able to validly technically disprove my points on hosts enumerated in the link to my program above of how hosts give users of them more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity... period!

(Trolls like YOU that use sockpuppets http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] (your sockpuppet "alterego" TrollingForHostsFiles) & TomHudson - Barbara, not Barbie too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] before you)

... apk

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

Spad (470073) | about 5 months ago | (#46670319)

Wrong country, please attempt troll again.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 5 months ago | (#46670805)

Where does the constitution forbid it? If you don't like the term's don't sign up, stop expecting the nanny-state to wipe you're ass. -- roman_mir

Uh, it says so by plain english. To use the words "terms and conditions" would imply that the end-user is agreeing to something rather static at the time of agreement.

And no one has ever tried to make the claim that one could agree to the terms of the state of water, which is exactly what is legally implied here by their bullshit waiver.

It shouldn't be legal on grounds of common sense and english. If we're going to butcher an agreement that bad, then stop calling it that and start calling it what it really is; taking orders.

Allow me to translate their waiver: Sign here to run my software or service at XX price. Oh, and by the way, kindly shut the fuck up when I change it completely without telling you.

That's not something a sensible person would call an accord, and we should have more sensible people behind a bench to see that.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46671597)

Constitution? States? You believe everyone who posts on Slashdot lives in the USA?

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46671975)

Constitution? States? You believe everyone who posts on Slashdot lives in the USA?

Only the ones that matter.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 5 months ago | (#46671819)

That will be one trillion dollars to end your cell phone contract. Sorry, the card you have on file declined the charge. We have some forms over here to sign over your house.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46672047)

I tend to hear this attitude from wannabe-libertarians who have no grounding in the legal and historical realities of contract law (or in the philosophy of libertarianism itself, hence "wannabe"). That's not surprising, but what *is* surprising is that these people

1) Think that they're smart enough to avoid being taken advantage of without help from the legal system (lack of knowledge of contract law => no, you're not smart enough to come out on top)

2) Don't understad that such laws *decrease* the friction required to enter a contract and therefore *encourage* free trade, which is supposedly what they stand for in the first place.

*Sigh*

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (2)

allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) | about 5 months ago | (#46672431)

Where does the constitution forbid it? If you don't like the term's don't sign up, stop expecting the nanny-state to wipe you're ass. -- roman_mir

You'd have to show me what constitution your referring to. Since the United Kingdom has no single Constitution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom)

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46670261)

<sarcasm>You did click "I agree ..." </sarcasm>

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (4, Informative)

hankwang (413283) | about 5 months ago | (#46670351)

I believe that in the EU, consumers have a legal right to terminate a contract without additional costs, within 1 month if being informed of a change in the terms.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

allo (1728082) | about 5 months ago | (#46670747)

And in the USA you cannot? I would have thought, you will always be asked: terminate the contract or accept the new TOS.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 5 months ago | (#46672313)

You have to know about those terms changes, and companies aren't required to be real proactive about telling you in the U.S. They may simply send you an email saying "we've recently updated our terms and conditions" with a link to the current terms and conditions on the website, but no info on what was changed. So now you have to read through pages and pages of text looking for the new info, assuming you can even understand the legalese.

The acceptance of terms is always simply continuing to use the service, it's not a opt-in affair. If you don't read the terms changes, don't get the email, don't understand what's changed as long as you don't leave you've agreed to them.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 5 months ago | (#46678605)

I suspect that even in the US a court would tend to take a negative view of such tactics.

The problem is that it never goes to court. They'll charge you, and now you have to try to dispute the charge on your credit card bill. If you manage to dispute it successfully, then you'll get a negative letter in your credit history. If you fail, then you're out the money and you have to sue to get it back, or you could refuse to pay your credit card bill and again have a negative letter in your credit history.

You do have the right to write a letter in your credit history explaining your side of the dispute. However, nobody will bother to read it, because companies don't care if you were ripped off or not. Most likely, they plan on ripping you off someday as well, and the fact that you don't let yourself be pushed around is reason enough to charge you a higher interest rate, or refuse to do business with you.

So, then you can try to go to court to get the record taken out of your credit history, but then everybody yells free speech, since all the record says is that you didn't pay a bill which you disputed, which is factually correct.

Basically the whole US credit system is based around effectively moving justice from the courts to a reputation system controlled by big companies.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

Sun (104778) | about 5 months ago | (#46671275)

At least here (Israel, but it inherited most of its laws from English law), there are, broadly (IANAL) two kinds of contracts. Time limited contracts, where both sides are bound by it for the duration of the contract, and unlimited contracts. For the second type, each side may terminate the contract at any point, for whatever reason, resulting in no more sanctions than the other side not being bound by the contract any more.

Since a domain registration contract is time bound, automatic exit is not guaranteed by law.

Shachar

P.s.
Obviously, this is not a complete list. For example, there are also sales contracts, which fall under neither category. Like I said, IANAL. For services, however, the above two are what you get.

Sh.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 5 months ago | (#46672103)

"Since a domain registration contract is time bound, automatic exit is not guaranteed by law."

What contract? A TOS is not a contract, a contract is a document agreed between two parties, signed by both parties and witnessed at the same time, THAT is a contract.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (2)

Sun (104778) | about 5 months ago | (#46673417)

A contract is binding once two things happen:
One party makes an offer
and
The other party accepts it.

There is no requirement for anything to be signed. As long as the registrar can prove that the you accepted their offer (say, by paying), and that you knew what the terms were (say, because they were posted on the web site, and linked to from the page in which you paid), you have a contract.

Now, obviously, in this case the terms were not available to you. Also, the advertisement is part of the registrar's offer, and is, therefor, as binding to it as the terms in the agreement. This entire thing is unethical, and at least seems to be illegal. Still, this is not because there is no contract.

And, again, IANAL.

Shachar

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 5 months ago | (#46678643)

In the US a contract that involves some required length of service is not easily broken either. However, the thing about a contract is that neither party has the right to unilaterally change it. Adding a new fee to a contract (the cancellation fee) would certainly be considered a material change by a court, and that means that either the company would be forced to honor the original terms, or the contract would be completely void. A court is basically going to do whatever seems fair in such a situation.

This is true of any contract. If I sign a contract that forced me to buy a car from you for $4000, and you want to charge me $4001, then you'd find it almost impossible to get a court to force me to uphold the new deal. Now, if I noticed a bug splat on the window that wasn't previously there a court might still force me to buy it - there is no permanent damage and the gist of the contract remains intact. That would be considered a non-material change to the deal. The same would probably be true if you asked me to meet you at a different office to close the deal down the street from the originally-agreed-upon office. Courts try to look at a change and decide if it was the sort of thing that might cause somebody to rethink the deal in the first place. Money is almost always considered a material change in a contract, regardless of how little.

So, when AT&T or whoever gives you a GSM smartphone for $50 with a two year contract, and then two months later tells you they are raising rates by 50 cents a month, if you threaten them enough you might be able to break your contract and sell the phone to somebody else at a considerable profit. If they don't let you out you might be forced to dispute charges, or go to court over it (and possibly end up with something on your credit history - which is wrong, but...).

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46673891)

Shouldn't the EU investigate this, fine and force refunds? So every other company outside the EU can't do this but if your company was born in the EU it's OKAY!!

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 5 months ago | (#46670485)

They are known as Tossers, and this sort of thing is called tossing customers off. Using the TOS to screw them.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46670855)

When a phone company does it we can refer to them as TOSPOTS.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 5 months ago | (#46670587)

Corporations and commerce are basically run by elementary school-yard rules. Essentially the CEO runs up, takes something belonging to you, and runs away yelling "Nally-nally-neener-cakes! I get what you make!". There are no take-backsies unless you are willing to call a teacher/lawyers and get engaged in a huge fuss.

In fact, our modern system of commerce has become so efficient and automated that you do not even need to enter into a prior agreement or even a school in order for your property to "neener-caked". This will be the next step in the evolution of rent-seeking.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (2)

ledow (319597) | about 5 months ago | (#46670633)

It's not.

The problem is the overlap between basic consumer rights ("statutory rights"? Heard the phrase anywhere? Like every contract ever "not affecting them"? Actually, they can't be affected by contracts whether the contract says or not!) and contract law.

Yes, you can sign away an awful lot. But you cannot be expected to be held to a contract held as "unfair" (which this one almost certainly would be). The problem is proving that can be expensive.

Never forget that what you sign is only one part of what you've got on your side. You can sign, for example, that you would become a slave that your employer can whip. Your employer CANNOT enforce that though. Some rights, including your consumer rights, cannot be signed away and automatically make such things null and void.

If you took this to even small claims court, it would be found to be unfair, it would be made void, and you would not pay anything.

If, however, they took reasonable steps to inform you of the change, and got consent (even implied, but that's tricky), and gave you time to disagree (usually by termination of said contract), then it would be binding on you. Then it would be considered "fair" as it's not asking you to do anything illegal or drastic.

For future reference, this applies to ALL KINDS of contracts. The law is in place to override your ability to do this to your customers in an unfair way and take priority over ANYTHING they've signed. It just might take a customer taking it through small claims (or larger) courts in order to prove that. And, chances are, unless a lot of them do, they will not retract the policy in the company unless the court orders them to. So you might win, but no other customer (who probably won't bother to take it to court) would, and things like that.

I've used 123-Reg in the past. They were atrocious. But you can be sure that if I were a customer, there'd be a letter winging it's way to head office to state the above. Given the track record I have (and I'm no lawyer), they might tie up any domain I had for a few weeks but in the end they've been transferring my domains for free. I don't care enough to make them do it for other customers, that's those customers problem.

And the problem is that 99% of consumers think, like you, that this is "legal" just because it's on paper. And when you get the first letter in reply saying that they don't agree with your interpretation, etc. etc. etc. and basically saying "Fuck off" in legalese, you'll accept it grudgingly and just pay the £12. It's only the pedantic fuckers like me who actually enjoy being proven right that will go through the system and bug the shit out of them until they admit it.

It's not legal.
Your consumer rights ride straight over it.
But that doesn't mean it'll be easy to "convince" them (they know, their lawyers know, but they'll fight you all the way until you cause them more hassle than you're worth).

But take it to court and it'll be laughed out, if you even get that far. But it will cost you money (which you *can* get back from them) but most importantly an awful lot of time to sort out. And that's exactly what they rely on.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 months ago | (#46670985)

This is why I like our Consumer Ombudsman (CO)

The CO considers cases upon complaints from consumers and traders, but will also at his own initiative look at marketing measures. Through negotiations with traders it is sought to arrive at voluntary arrangements. Failure to reach such a solution, the Consumer Ombudsman may submit the case to the Market Council which is a "court of law" in that field. (...) The CO and the Market Council have authority to issue decisions banning unlawful marketing and contract terms and conditions in standard contracts when deemed necessary in the interests of consumers.

They have the power to issue:
a) Bans of marketing activities or terms
b) Requirements like including information on consumer rights
c) Fines (one time or daily until activities cease)
d) Rather hefty fines for violating a) or b)

This is different from the Consumer Council which often helps mediate in individual consumer disputes, the CO goes after policies and offers. For example the "send a letter that looks like a bill" scam, if they issue a ban on your company and don't comply the penalties get nasty. That way they can't simply continue the scam by handing back money to those customers who complain. Sending a complaint costs very little and you as the customer don't take the shit for it personally. I guess it's sort of like class actions in consumer cases, except you get no settlement but it's quite effective at shutting them down or making them change their terms.

Of Course it's legal (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | about 5 months ago | (#46670705)

As a net-connected consumer, it is assumed that you read the EULAs and terms for all the sites you visit and the software services you use, and that you go through this process again periodically (every few weeks) in case anything has changed.

Did you know: most people spend 4-5 hours reading terms and EULAs for every 2 hours of using their computers. It's just basic responsibility. It's called the free market, freely-entered-into contracts, meetings of the minds, equal footing, etc. It works grat.

M

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46672135)

Depending on which country you live in, that may not be legally binding, as at least some require informed consent to change a contract, regardless of any weasel-clauses that may be in said contract.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 5 months ago | (#46672327)

Sign here to be bound by terms we can change any time.

How can that be legal?

It only becomes illegal when a court decides it is. And that requires someone to invest the time and money in taking the corporation, with their high-priced lawyers on retainer, to court. And the people who are effected by this rarely have the time or money to do that, they're too busy struggling to maintain their lives as they are.

Re:Typical corporation bullshit (1)

lev400 (1193967) | about 5 months ago | (#46795149)

I am appalled and outraged by this change. I will be getting my 30+ domains out from them after being a customer for 10+ years.

We reserve the right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46670257)

to lie, cheat and rip you off in any legally way possible. Just see section paragraph 4 of section (J)(2)(ii), third paragraph.

"change, add, subtract or in way" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46670293)

Huh?
Oh, wait... Americans.

Re:"change, add, subtract or in way" (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 5 months ago | (#46670409)

Huh?
Oh, wait... Americans.

Given that the sentence was a direct quote from the site's actual terms [123-reg.co.uk] , its not clear why you think Americans are to blame for it. Unless of course you are claiming that a UK company has to rely on Americans to draft their TOS.

Re:"change, add, subtract or in way" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46670605)

Where have you been? Americans on the internet are the most illiterate cretins I have ever come across.
ONLY in America do they now say "more THEN" or "more THAT" instead of "more THAN"...

They write "common" instead of "come on", "sense" instead of "since", "of" instead of "have", etc.etc.

That's why I presumed it was written by an American...

Re:"change, add, subtract or in way" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46671019)

ur a right cheaky cunt mate

They seemed shady from the start.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46670299)

Especially with a company name like that..

My favorite part of the company's repsonse (2)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about 5 months ago | (#46670313)

"This change to our product is not directly customer impacting..."

It's almost as if by transferring your domain away, you're no longer a customer!

Technically (5, Insightful)

Livius (318358) | about 5 months ago | (#46670317)

...there are still no hidden transfer fees.

So cancel the domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46670337)

And register it on someone else's service.

Unless you're telling me they're truly GoDaddy tier, and will park that domain for years after you vacate it.

Re:So cancel the domain (1)

Anonymice (1400397) | about 5 months ago | (#46670667)

Not just GoDaddy, it seems to be common practice with all registrars now. Domain expires, gets transferred to a subsidary which squats on the domain 'til it gets bought out.

Re:So cancel the domain (1)

SighKoPath (956085) | about 5 months ago | (#46670721)

Judging by the expired domains I used to have registered through namecheap that are currently available, they don't squat expired domains.

Re:So cancel the domain (1)

sound+vision (884283) | about 5 months ago | (#46671757)

How long ago did the domains expire? My experience is that on the expiration date, your domains get held in a renewal period of 30 days where you can renew it at normal price without any possibility of losing the domain. After that period is an additional 1 - 3 months where the domain is in a different status where the registrar still has control over it, but you need to pay an additional fee (often called "redemption fee") to renew it. If you don't pay this fee the registrar is free to auction the domain or otherwise sell it to someone else.

NameCheap's website contradicts your experience, stating that most domains with them have a redemption fee of $200 : https://www.namecheap.com/supp... [namecheap.com] I presume your domains had been expired for several months and had been fully released by the time you checked. $200 is actually on the high side, most registrars are closer to $80 for redemption fees.

Other sources: Personal experience registering domain names since 1998, and professional experience of several years working at a company that resells domain registrations.

Why stop there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46670343)

One million dollars!

And a healthy kidney.

Re:Why stop there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46670571)

Pounds. This is a British rip-off.

Re:Why stop there (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 months ago | (#46670759)

One million British pounds and one flesh pound, then.

Re:Why stop there (1)

Salafrance Underhill (2947653) | about 5 months ago | (#46674673)

That's actually a kilogram, you barbarian!

Re:Why stop there (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 months ago | (#46674885)

Since we're talking about British kidneys, I find your remark rather tumorous.

How about what we did over here? (5, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46670387)

If your partner changes your contract in a way that is not exclusively beneficial to you, he not only has to inform you a few weeks before it becomes effective, you also have the right to terminate the contract immediately without any early cancellation fees applying.

It sure helped to get some telcos off their bait and switch practice where they lured you in with incredible rates only to jack the price up once they got you tied down to that 2 years contract.

Re:How about what we did over here? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 5 months ago | (#46671247)

It sure helped to get some telcos off their bait and switch practice where they lured you in with incredible rates only to jack the price up once they got you tied down to that 2 years contract.

Not really. They no longer try to jack up your rates, instead they tack on a new "service fee". So your bill still goes up, but by calling it a "surcharge", it's within the existing contract scope and does not invalidate the contract terms. AT&T did this recently [slashgear.com] .

Re:How about what we did over here? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46672333)

IIRC that "service fee" gets axed by courts in the meantime, too. I'd have to go look it up again, but I am rather sure that new malpractice already got tossed in a few countries, too.

Something about domain registrars (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 5 months ago | (#46670423)

They all seem to be slime balls. I suppose when money is flowing that type is attracted to the smell.

Just refuse to pay the fee. (5, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | about 5 months ago | (#46670637)

It wasn't agreed to... so just transfer your domains out and refuse to pay.

A registrar cannot decline to transfer your domain due to refusal to pay or due to a dispute [icann.org] over payment.

The Registrar of Record must not refuse to release an "AuthInfo Code" to the Registered Name Holder solely because there is a dispute between the Registered Name Holder and the Registrar over payment. ....

Instances when the requested change of Registrar may not be denied include, but are not limited to: Nonpayment for a pending or future registration period
....

General payment defaults between Registrar and business partners / affiliates in cases where the Registered Name Holder for the domain in question has paid for the registration.

...

The Registrar of Record has other mechanisms available to collect payment from the Registered Name Holder that are independent from the Transfer process. Hence, in the event of a dispute over payment, the Registrar of Record must not employ transfer processes as a mechanism to secure payment for services from a Registered Name Holder.

Re:Just refuse to pay the fee. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46671609)

UK registries do not use auth codes. You are free to ask Nominet directly to transfer the domain. Nominet will charge a fee if you ask them to do it directly. I work for a registrar. We charge a fee, always have done. Handling your domain transfer takes us time - we charge for time. Want to do it yourself, go ahead - as above, Nominet, the UK registry, will charge you for the administration. Explain to me again, why we shouldn't?

Re:Just refuse to pay the fee. (2)

mysidia (191772) | about 5 months ago | (#46672029)

Of course the gaining registrar charges a fee for transfer -- which covers the domain registration.

The issue is with losing registrars attempting to tack on a fee for customers selecting a competing registrar.

If this is just on the .UK domain... then be sensible, and register a .COM or a .NET in the first place.

In the US.... (1)

eWarz (610883) | about 5 months ago | (#46674239)

In the US we file what is called a charge back. Quite simply, if you didn't explicitly agree to the charges, you can file (and win) a charge back. The burden of proof would be on the merchant to prove that you consented to the charges. Combined with the fact that they are required by ICANN to transfer the domains, the merchant in question really has no legal standing. it's only the morons that would pay this transfer fee...but there are QUITE A FEW morons in the world.

Re:In the US.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46674403)

You are getting confused. The process is as follows:

"I want to transfer my domain"

"Sure". ,

This is inline with ICANN's policy and if it is part of the T's and C's then you won't get any love from your credit card company either.

What ICANN say you can't do is hold a domain to ransom because the customer owes you money - for hosting fees for instance - you have to transfer the domain and pursue the debt through normal means.

Disclaimer: I have read and signed registrar contracts to run a small domain registrar. I know my obligations.

Re:In the US.... (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 5 months ago | (#46674519)

What ICANN say you can't do is hold a domain to ransom because the customer owes you money - for hosting fees for instance - you have to transfer the domain and pursue the debt through normal means.

What the ICANN rules say is the losing registrar can't hold the domain hostage for any fee-based reason at all, with two narrowly defined exceptions, that do not include "failure to pay a transfer out fee".

ICANN do not forbid a registrar from charging a transfer-out fee; However, the losing registrar cannot stop the transfer based on failure or refusal to pay a transfer-out fee.

The losing rergistrar has to immediately accept the transfer upon authorization of the admin contact.

If they want to charge a "transfer out" fee, they can bill the fee and try debt collection procedures (Which you can dispute) --- the losing registrar cannot hold up your transfer due to your failure to pay or due to your dispute.

Obviously... if you want to fight the transfer fee, authorizing a CC payment and then hoping to do a chargeback is the wrong thing ---- Don't authorize a payment for a charge you dispute -- giving a CC number to authorize payment for an otherwise disputed charge is tantamount to admitting you owed the fee; applying for chargeback after authorizing could be considered an act of fraud.

Re:Just refuse to pay the fee. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46674395)

No, most gaining registrars don't charge for a transfer in, except where there is an automatic renewal (.com for instance), when that fee is a renewal fee in any case, not a transfer fee.

Re:Just refuse to pay the fee. (1)

itsdapead (734413) | about 5 months ago | (#46675613)

Of course the gaining registrar charges a fee for transfer -- which covers the domain registration.

Nominet aren't the 'gaining registrar'. They're the master register for all .uk domains - i.e. they record which domains are registered, who owns them and which registrar is managing them.

If you want to move your domain from 'CheapoReg' to 'WonderDomainz' then CheapoReg has to register the change with Nominet - or you can do it directly by paying £10 to Nominet.

I assume that registrars pay some sort of tithe to Nominet.

123-reg don't charge for a transfer in: you only pay when the domain next comes up for renewal.

If this is just on the .UK domain... then be sensible, and register a .COM or a .NET in the first place.

Except that ..org.uk or .co.uk domain registration costs ~ £4/year c.f. ~ £10/year for .com or .net, so unless you have nothing better to do than continually changing registrars, a £10 transfer fee if you decide to shift registrars is pretty much moot (...and that's £10 per batch at Nominet if you have multiple domains). More to the point, anybody getting hot under the collar about spending less per year to register a domain than they spend per month on mouse batteries (or whatever £4/month expense is more applicable to you), seriously needs to re-evaluate their priorities.

Re:Just refuse to pay the fee. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46676353)

Explain to me again, why we shouldn't?

No reason why YOU shouldnt as long as you've been up front about saying thats what you'll do
This where I hope you might be different from 123-Ripoff who have been deceitful about the change from "We will absolutely never ever charge you any exit fee ever. never. ever."To slipping in a new unannounced clause claiming "you cant leave unless you pay us a tenner+vat per domain"
They've given no notification of the radical change in terms.
They are point blank refusing to acknowledge that they should honour their existing agreement.
As well as claiming to be totally transparent whilst incorporating and abusing a "we can do anything we want with the terms" clause in the terms
123-Ripoff use an automated system and nominet dont charge the registrar - so it doesnt cost them money
nominet charge a registrant £10 per job lot, not per domain so if I want to transfer away 100 .uk domains 123-Ripoff will attempt to charge me £1000+vat whereas at nominet its 10+
"So go do it at nominet" I hear you say. The problem with that is most people who signed up for 'no exit fee' contract dont know they can, and if you only have 1 domain in there its still a very high and unnecessary fee.

While the behaviour is illegal (1)

ihtoit (3393327) | about 5 months ago | (#46670685)

(I'm talking about changing terms of contract without the consent of the signatory)

The fact that you clicked "I AGREE" with that clause in place mitigates any claim you might have against them.

I have found such clauses in paper contracts; what I tend to do is put a line through them and initial next to the strikethrough, to indicate that I do not consent to such clauses. Covered. Yes, Virgin Media have/had such a clause, they also have/had a clause that said that the customer was still liable for service charges even in the absence of service and to the end of the initial contract period (24 months!) in the case of early termination of contract! Oh yes, that bitch got a line through it!

(more difficult to do in the case of electronic contracts, but there again you do have the option of shopping elsewhere...)

Re:While the behaviour is illegal (2)

mrbester (200927) | about 5 months ago | (#46670899)

Bzzzt. Wrong. It breaches contract law and your consumer rights and they take precedence. Even if you "agree" your rights are still in place as not even you can sign them away. The option to "shop elsewhere" is irrelevant.

As to your strikeouts, who cares? Those were unenforceable clauses in the first place and thus automatically null and void. If they get pissy about it the *entire contract* can be rendered null and void, meaning they would have to refund any and all monies already paid to them.

I reckon this could be challenged (1)

Anonymice (1400397) | about 5 months ago | (#46670745)

Consumer have strong rights in the UK, and they *can't* be waved, regardless of what a contract says.

If a company pulls you in on a "no exit fee" promise & then silently changes the contract to renege on that on that promise, I reckon the ombudsman would have something to say about that.
I have a couple of domains with 123-Reg, and if they try to extort this money when I transfer out (I noticed the other day that they've also substantially raised their prices), then I will be reporting them to the ombudsman & challenging them in small claims court.

Re:I reckon this could be challenged (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46671075)

This really is simple in law though as with all law its a pain in the arse to fight, not expensive, not difficult but there is still a legal process to go through (hence the PITA).

As has previously been said, you cannot sign your rights away (even if you want to). e.g. the UK Sales of Goods act says that "goods have to be of merchantable quality". You can sign a contract (as a consumer, not as a business they have different rights), which says that the goods can be a load of crap and you have no right to sue. You can sign that contract but you still have the right to sue them if the stuff you've brought doesn't work. Sorry, but the UK law doesn't work that way, it is heavily in favour of the consumer up to around £5,000. The limit changes and I don't keep up with it.

The way to handle this is politely tell tell 123-Reg to screw themselves, that the terms and conditions you signed under still apply, and if they don't like it, you'll see them in the Small Claims Court where the magistrate will politely and legally tell them to go fuck themselves and that specific change in the contract is null and void. If you're lucky he may void the entire contract as well.

I have taken five business to the Small Claims Court and so far have won all five. The magistrates are sensible, easy to talk to (once you stop shaking) and very fair. They make allowances for you not being a lawyer and make it pretty easy.

Hopefully by now 123-Reg now have more publicity than they know what to do with ;)

What's a good no-nonsense registrar? (1)

Animats (122034) | about 5 months ago | (#46671009)

What's a good no-nonsense registrar for major TLDs? It doesn't have to be super cheap. I want to dump Network Solutions because they gave me an unsolicited domain (I had .com and .net; they gave me a useless .info) which they then expect me to pay to renew.

I have about five domains. I want to avoid the "bulk" domain companies like GoDaddy.

Re:What's a good no-nonsense registrar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46671533)

gandi.net [gandi.net]

Re:What's a good no-nonsense registrar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46671567)

I have about five domains. I want to avoid the "bulk" domain companies like GoDaddy.

Try GoMommy [gomommy.com] .
It's the complete opposite of GoDaddy.......or exactly the same, cant remember.

Re:What's a good no-nonsense registrar? (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 5 months ago | (#46672335)

What's a good no-nonsense registrar for major TLDs? It doesn't have to be super cheap. I want to dump Network Solutions because they gave me an unsolicited domain (I had .com and .net; they gave me a useless .info) which they then expect me to pay to renew.

What happens if you simply refuse to pay the renewal on the .info one and only pay the .com/.net ones?

The UK operates on the concept of lies and avarice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46671807)

Didn't you know? The national slogan of the UK is "Sorry, but there's a profit to be had."

Personally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46672025)

I don't understand why anyone would want to own a British domain.

Esp. with the "can't have domains containing rape" shit Nominet pulled a month or so back. (Which is bad news for cameRAPErsons and dRAPErs)

Not to mention domain blocking, having domains pulled by the City of London "we've had kickbacks" Police.

Why help enable this fascist country any longer?

They wont waive the charge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46674675)

So I raised a ticket at 123-reg explaining my displeasure at the new charge brought in without notification, against their previous very public statements re "no charge to transfer away" and not part of my agreement with them. I asked them to waive charges to transfer away.
This is the reply I got back::


This is indeed a new change regarding the service of changing an IPS tag, however please understand that it is not hidden in any way and customers are informed correctly before proceeding with the change.

Furthermore, please see our general terms of service (https://www.123-reg.co.uk/terms/general-terms.shtml), specifically the following paragraphs:

        6.13 Clients acknowledge and accept that any request for an IPS tag change is subject to additional fees which are non-refundable. Until these fees are paid and received the IPS tag cannot be changed.

          123-reg reserves the right to change, add, subtract or in way alter these Conditions without the prior consent of the Client.

We regret if this has caused any inconvenience, however at the moment I'm afraid the fee cannot be waived.

since these are .uk domains methinks its off to nominet and pay a tenner for a bulk transfer.

Bit of perspective... (1)

itsdapead (734413) | about 5 months ago | (#46674841)

First, there's no doubt that 123-reg have handled this badly, need to change their advertising and probably need to eat a few £10 fees and apologies. So I'm not totally defending them. However, I do wonder exactly how much 'service' people expect for the few pounds a year per domain that these 'budget registrars' charge. I'd guess that straightforward registrations are a loss leader for them, and they rely on selling 'cherished' domains, ads on 'parked' domains and hosting sales for actual profit.

The 'IPS tag' change is an extra (at least c.f. .com/.org) step required for 'co.uk/org.uk' names managed by the UK central registry, Nominet [nominet.org.uk] . You can make this change yourself via the Nominet site, but they'll charge you £10 as well. That's more than 123-reg charge per year for a regular .co.uk. Even if they get a reduced rate it's going to eat their profit - in fact, without this change I could transfer in a domain, and transfer it out again before it expired without paying 123-reg a penny.

I notice that Nominet has just changed its contract for registrars [nominet.org.uk] and while life's too short for me to plough through 10 pages of legalese, so maybe the timing is not a coincidence.

Re:Bit of perspective... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46676219)

Even if they get a reduced rate .

its free for the registrar to change the tag with nominet
and they have an automated system in place to do this, so except the £0.0001 for a few cpu cycles it costs them nothing.

life's too short for me to plough through 10 pages of legalese

and me, but here's a quick excerpt from it:

Key Terms
The terms of your contract with Your Customers that you must bring to their attention before they enter into that contract. Those terms are:

What charges, if any, you make where Your Customer is transferring their domain names to a new Registrar

for existing contracts that charge was 0

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>