Everything goes to Robert O'Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I was just forwarding the 3 messages (all combined into the one I sent) that he sent to me. As I said, the more information they get, the better. And if it comes from multiple people (all with similar problem), even better yet.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Brad Sewell wrote: > Dear Bill, > > Thanks!! Do we send it to you or to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? > > -Brad > > >On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:23:21 -0800, you wrote: > > > >Hello Everyone. I've seen a lot of talk about what can be done about > >Network Solutions business practices. Well here is your chance. The more > >information they get the better... > > > >--- > > > >On behalf of two clients, Ademi & O'Reilly, Attorneys at Law, are > >investigating the practices of Network Solutions. It appears that Network > >Solutions and its parent company, Verisign, may be engaging in > >anticompetitive behavior, in refusing to release domain names to the general > >public, and in refusing to transfer domain server services to competitors. > >(The latter happened to us, promtping our interest in this issue.) Our > >impression is that Network Solutions has created unreasonable and > >unjustified obstacles to allowing transfers of services to maintain market > >share in the face of its loss of a legal monopoly. > > > >We would like the chance to discuss your experiences with Network Solutions. > >We think that many Network Solutions customers are entitled to some sort of > >refund, but we need to document how wide spread the problem is, and all of > >the factual variations involved. We would certainly appreciate your help. > > > >Robert O'Reilly, Esq. > >Ademi & O'Reilly > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >(414) 671-1000 tel > >(866) 264-3995 toll free > > > >--- > > > >Thank you for your email. I have in fact made substantial progress > >towards a suit against Network Solutions/Verisign, although I am > >still investigating at this point. I could certainly use your help > >and front line experience. > > > >The following are, I believe, all practices of Verisign. Please > >confirm any you have knowledge of, and even more importantly, please > >alert as to any policies I may have missed: > > > >1. Verisign does not pay pro rata rebates for unused portions of > >domain name registrations, when the site is transferred away. > >However, Verisign does receive another $6.00 after the transfer as > >Registry from the Registrar. > > > >2. Verisign refuses to transfer domain names if the term of the > >Registration is expired. > > > >3. If the term of the Registration is expired, then Verisign, and > >only Verisign, can remove the site from the pending deletion status > >and reactivate it. This is true until the site is finally deleted > >and returned to the public domain. > > > >4. Verisign requires the registrant to confirm a transfer request > >within 36 hours of its email, or the process must reinitiated by the > >Registrant through the gaining Registrar. > > > >5. Verisign refused to honor transfer requests received five days or > >less before the end of a registration period. The Registrant must > >pay Verisign for another full year term, and must wait 60 days before > >again seeking to transfer the site. > > > >6. Verisign's renewal billing asks for seventy dollars, with no > >mention of a discount (available to new users on their website), and > >no stated option for a one year renewal. > > > >If you have any more policies, or can confirm any of these, please let me > >know. > > > >--- > > > >I have had some success in my investigation against Network > >Solutions. I think that a suit can be maintained, but I need > >confirmation of some elements of the case. If you saved the emails > >you received from Verisign/Network Solutions, I would appreciate it > >if you could take a minute to forward them to me, so I can quote from > >them properly. I am especially interested in the email sent by > >Verisign to a gaining registrar denying the transfer because the > >Registrant failed to respond to the confirmation email sent by > >Verisign. I believe that Verisign would state that the ownership of > >the site is in dispute. Thank you. > >
