Hello all,
NSI is doing TWO (at least) very questionable things that irk me,
that I would like to see stopped:
1) The billing thing (I am tempted to pay this bill I just got for
a transferred name to see what actually would happen to the
money). I have contacted the local office of the USPS Postal
Inspection Service (the Postal Service Police) to initiate
a complaint of mail fraud on the following grounds:
a) NSI has been advised that the bills it is sending are bogus.
b) NSI is continuing to send them on the grounds that they are
too big to know how to stop it.
c) Reports abound (on this list, even) that money paid in
response to such invoicing is being pocketed by them.
A & B alone are sufficient to qualify the act as fraudulent.
They'be been informed of what's happening, and they've failed to
stop doing it. But there's more.
d) The invoices are metered and given to the USPS.
That makes this simple fraud, mail fraud.
What I'd like is for those folks who have touched on this subject to
come forward with whatever particulars they can. By this I don't
mean just confirmation (I think everyone on this list has the gist
of what's going on), but specifics. Does anyone have a customer who
paid one of these bills? Does anyone have (or have a customer who has)
received a FIRST bill that was sent AFTER the transfer was finished
(thus debunking the defense that "once we start the cycle, we can't
stop it" since it would show the "cycle" STARTED after the transfer)?
Has anyone contacted the relevant BBB offices?
2) Whois. For years and years, Network Solutions, as a non-profit,
collected contact information for thousands and thousands of domains
in the whois database. Now as a commercial entity, they say that
database is proprietary (semi-public ?) information that ONLY THEY
can use for marketing purposes. Others are prohibited from harvesting
the data.
Problem is, this data was collected while NSI was a non-profit entity
under a government contract for which others did not have the
opportunity to compete. Thus, the information SHOULD be GOVERNMENT
(i.e. public) property and subject to the FOIA, which specifically
prohibits the types of restrictions NSI imposes on its use.
Otherwise, the database is a derivative asset from the original
contract for which the company must remunerate the contractee (the
government) if it wants exclusive rights to it.
Agree/disagree? Anyone on the list familiar with the relevant
statutes and/or case law?
I will be HAPPY to act as a clearinghouse for information on these two
issues if we can get together enough support to finance the beginnings
of a class-action suit to see either/both of these things changed.
-Cengiz
