Previous Politech message: "Verisign reportedly sending deceptive domain registration bills" http://www.politechbot.com/p-03298.html
--- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:56:11 -0500 From: Arnold Kling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: phony domain registration bills I got two of these, both from "affiliates" of verisign. They were very deceptive. They said that my domain would expire "soon" and "in March." In fact, it will expire in March of 2003. Nowhere did they make clear that they were taking registration away from my current domain registrar. I think that the FTC ought to fine these people. Meanwhile, every domain name registrar had better email a warning to their customers. -- Arnold Kling <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Author, "Under the Radar: Starting Your Net Business Without Venture Capital" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0738204684/arnoldklingco-20 <http://arnoldkling.com> <tel:+1-240-888-4936> 1370 Lamberton Drive, Silver Spring, Md. 20902 --- From: "Shirley Dalton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Domain Expiration Notices Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:19:24 -0800 With regard to the domain expiration notices being sent to customers of Go Daddy Software -- be advised that Verisign Inc. is not the only company trying to solicit new customers by sending letters to people whose domains are due for renewal. One of my domains (ironically it is registered with Verisign) is due for renewal in April and I received a notice from Domain Registry of America <http://www.droamerica.com>www.droamerica.com asking me to renew my domain registration with their company. At least they were open about their solicitation. Reference was made in the letter to the fact that my domain is registered with Verisign, but they would like my business since their price is less than that of Verisign. I guess this type of solicitation is to be expected with so many companies now registering domains. Shirley Dalton Progressives for Global Survival <http://www.booksreborn.com>www.booksreborn.com "There is a word sweeter than mother, home or heaven--that word is liberty." Matilda Joslyn Gage --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (admin) To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Verisign reportedly sending deceptive domain registration bills Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:52:48 -0500 GoDaddy is the one who charges a $49.95 fee to change the ownership records of a domain (a service that if free for many registrars). See how long it takes you to find the notice of this charge when you review their web site! Russ Smith http://TheNIC.com --- From: "Hugh Brower" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "hugh3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: FC: Verisign reportedly sending deceptive domain registration bills Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:49:39 -0500 I have received a number of these phony bills. They are actually from Interland, which I believe is either wholly or partially owned by Verisign. I consider them deceptive, and they look similar in design to the phony Yellow Pages ad solicitations that businesses receive from time to time. Some customers who we had originally registered domains for have actually paid these phony invoices, not realizing they weren't from us, and their domains were transferred back to the Network Solutions registrar. I believe Interland/Verisign are doing the transfers without getting email authorization from the admin contact for the domain name, which would make it a violation of ICann procedures. The phony invoice forms request you to sign them which supposedly (if you read the back of the form) gives authorization for the switch. That does not guarantee that the person signing is in fact authorized to make the switch (a disgruntled secretary could sign the her own name and transfer the company domain to her control). In all fairness, Interland has been doing these mailings for years, and this appears to be one of the "tricks" that has gotten their business to the size it is now. Their privileged position within the Versign family gives them insider access to the master database of domain information. In the past before their were competitive domain registrars if you accepted the Interland offer, your domain's ISP (DNS servers) would be switched to Interland. Now they merely change the registrar (but claim to) keep the ISP the same. The competitive registrars are not happy about the Interland tactics, and that's too be expected. With all the confusion over different registrars and many people not understanding the difference between a domain registrar and a web hoster (ISP), that's one reason we are seeing more of these problems being reported now. The entire domain transfer process is quite open to abuse - I have had domain names literally stolen out from under me by hackers using rogue registrars that bypass the email "checks" required before a domain can be switched. Some competitive registrars do absolutely nothing to protect their customers domains from being taken in this way. Because the problem is not yet on the public's radar screens, Verisign GRS (who are in charge of the master system all registrars for com/net/org must use) has not felt much pressure to put better checks and balances into place. I predict though that some high profile domains will eventually get hijacked this way, and then there will be calls for Congress to get involved and put some controls on how Verisign does business. Hugh Brower --- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:51:56 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FC: Verisign reportedly sending deceptive domain registration bills This isn't the first time Verisign/Network Solutions has pulled something like this. (In fact, it's just another in a long series of "creative" techniques they've used to counteract the mass exodus from their service.) For example, I've received bills from NSI for domains that have already been transferred away them. (So have others.) I've received bills/renewal notices that were re-addressed to the "President" of my little company, even though no such info is present or has ever been present in my registration records. (So have others.) This is a pretty obvious attempt to do an end-around on the people actually responsible for a company's domain registration. And so on. Here's one particularly ugly story: <a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/9903webtechs-snafu.html";>webtechs.com falls victim to Network Solutions (March 1999)</a> But many more are available by Googling "Network Solutions Horror Stories". ---Rsk --- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 08:52:41 -0800 From: Tom Perrine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FC: Verisign reportedly sending deceptive domain registration bills X-Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center, San Diego, California Declan, I have also received these notices from Verisign. They *are* quite deceptive. You have to read the fine print on the back, where the only hint that this is not a re-registration with your current registrar is a clause about "authorizing the transfer" of the domain registration. I wish I had kept the last one. They are exactly the kind of notices that we used to see for long-distance service "slamming". If I get another notice from them, its going to my friends at the Boiler Room Task Force here in San Diego. --tep --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Politech dinner in SF on 4/16: http://www.politechbot.com/events/cfp2002/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
