Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Bulkregister Sues Verisign Over Marketing Campaign 171

Posted by michael from the play-nicely-children dept.
zentec writes "An article at Datacenter wire indicates that Bulkregister sued Verisign over their often confusing and pretty slimy mailing campaign. The campaign is (of course) targeted to domains registered somewhere other than Verisign. The mailings are nothing more than domain "slamming", and look like renewal bills rather than a solicitation to renew with Verisign. What's particularily slimy is that the mailings are for renewals on domains either recently renewed with someone else, or for domains expiring between 120 and 180 days! Bulkregister is also seeking an immediate injunction against the mailings saying that they are an impediment to current contracts with their customers." There's also a Reuters article, or see our original story. Bulkregister has run their own sleazy marketing campaign in the past, and paid the price for it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bulkregister Sues Verisign Over Marketing Campaign More

Bulkregister Sues Verisign Over Marketing Campaign

Comments Filter:

  • Cnet is running something similar (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jucius Maximus ( 229128 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @12:04PM (#3517701) Journal
    http://news.com.com/2100-1023-912668.html

    VeriSign promotion yields lawsuit. This is also about BulkRegister. And I was about to submit it too ;-)

    • Solid Case (Score:5, Informative)

      by phyxeld ( 558628 ) <phyx@lo s t i n t h e n o i se.net> on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @12:13PM (#3517768) Journal
      I think they have a pretty solid case here. Anyone who has seen the letters verisign sent can tell you that they are aboslutely 100% trying to trick people into unknowingly switching registrars. My company has it's domains on dotster, and we've gotten several of these bullshit notices from verisign.

      Aside from their sleazy methods of stealing customers, they're a shitty company to deal with (as an intentional customer) as well. A friend of mine got a (real) renewal notice from them (for a domain actually registered with them), and decided he was tired of their fees so he wanted to switch elsewhere. Turns out, you can't transfer a verisign domain in the last 90 days of registration. So to move it away, he had to pay for another whole year.

      Go bulkregister!

      I hope verisign gets taught a lesson.
      • Turns out, you can't transfer a verisign domain in the last 90 days of registration.

        Thats not exactly legal either is it?
        I mean say an insurance company said you cant transfer your policy at in the last 90 days.

        • I mean say an insurance company said you cant transfer your policy at in the last 90 days.

          But how would the insurance company stop you? You could just start paying someone else for insurance and stop paying the first company. But VeriSign can fuck you by not releasing the domain for reregistration elsewhere (they have a nasty habit of holding on to names long after they expire). No, it's probably not legal, but yes, that is how they operate.

      • Re:Solid Case (Score:3, Informative)

        by Psiren ( 6145 )
        Go bulkregister!

        They didn't "go" very fast with me. I've only just managed to move my domain from them, after nearly 3 months of hassle and denied transfer requests. Not to mention the slow email support, and the complete lack of answering any of my questions.

        I don't agree with what Verisign is doing, but then I'm not overly impressed with BulkRegister either.
        • "They didn't "go" very fast with me. I've only just managed to move my domain from them, after nearly 3 months of hassle and denied transfer requests. Not to mention the slow email support, and the complete lack of answering any of my questions."

          Try DirectNIC [directnic.com]. I sent them a question through their online form on 9:30PM on New Year's Eve and had a response before 10PM on the same night. In fact they have never been slower than 1/2 an hour for web-form inquiries. And their responses are from experienced people and not simply canned generic messages.

          • Try DirectNIC. ... And their responses are from experienced people and not simply canned generic messages.

            I second that. I had a problem staying logged in to their web site, and their rep sent back a polite and informed answer promptly. Their web site works fine with Konqueror, which should be a given, but often is not with some web sites.

            I just transfered a half dozen domains from NetSol, and it was no trouble at all. I had to confirm with Directnic with a web link, and reply to the Verisign confirmation email. I was really expecting to have all kinds of grief prying them loose from NetSol.

            The funny thing is that Joker is being such a pain in the ass. Not only do I have to sign in with my login and password and pre-approve the transfer, but they impose a 5-day "cooling off" period, like I was buying a gun...

      • Re:Solid Case (Score:4, Informative)

        by signe ( 64498 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @12:27PM (#3517865) Homepage
        Aside from their sleazy methods of stealing customers, they're a shitty company to deal with (as an intentional customer) as well. A friend of mine got a (real) renewal notice from them (for a domain actually registered with them), and decided he was tired of their fees so he wanted to switch elsewhere. Turns out, you can't transfer a verisign domain in the last 90 days of registration. So to move it away, he had to pay for another whole year.

        Just going to comment on this. While this may have been true in the past, I think that they changed their tune on this item. I just transferred 3 domains away from NetSol to Gandi in the last 45 days of the registration period, and I didn't have any problems. Two of the transfers actually had to be redone in the last 30 days of the registration because of an unrelated problem with the transfer.

        The problem was NetSol's extra confirmation step that they have (they send out an email to the administrative contact once their receive the transfer request from your "new" registrar, and give you 96 hours to respond or they reject the transfer). Personally, I wish that step was more standard across the registrars (it prevents slamming like this), but since it's not, I wish NetSol had it documented a little better. My transfers failed the first time around because I neglected to check and respond to that message (my administrative contacts are an email address I don't usually use).

        -Todd
        • While this may have been true in the past, I think that they changed their tune on this item.

          Hmm, my friend just had his encounter with that policy a few weeks ago... Just went to clarify it with him, he said it was actually in the last 60 days that they wouldn't let him transfer it.

          I think the email confirmations are a good thing.
          You didn't expect to receive email at the administrative contact's address when transfering a domain?!
          • You didn't expect to receive email at the administrative contact's address when transfering a domain?!

            Not after I received and responded to the approval request from Gandi. Considering that everything I've done with domains in the past has notified all contacts to the change, I expected that anything important would get sent to all the contacts.

            Wasn't a big deal, however. Gandi lets you restart the transfer at no cost if it fails.

            -Todd
        • While I'm glad you had success transferring domains away from Network "Solutions", it do not think ti can every be said that "Verisign is a good company to do business with." They suck six ways from Sunday.

          Mod me as a troll if you want, but "Verisign sucks" cannot be said often enough, or in big enough lettering.
      • The 90-day rule is not something that Verisign itself imposes. More accurately, ICANN has a rule that states (and I'm quoting from memory, here) "Registrar transfers cannot take place within 90 days of renewal"

        I work with a small WPP outfit in Mpls., and we get this kind of request all the time. The purpose of this intentionally-vague ICANN rule is inteded to address this exact situation. It's much harder to "slam" a domain name in the middle of it's registration period than it is if it's within 90 days of a renewal. Most registrars won't needlessly contact you for renewal until you get within 90 days of expiration. I think that's why Verisign is going after people 120-180 days out. In fact, I just answered a question about this from someone who has a domain expiring in October and advised them of what Verisign was doing. Their response: "How sleazy!"

        With the level of documentation available on domain names, and the fact that registrars are now offering transfer locks, this would be less of an issue if the average Joe would just use a free WHOIS tool to check their own domain name once in a while. It's not like it takes a lot of effort or understanding. If you've got enough grey-matter to register a domain name and get it pointed to the right hosting service, you certainly should be able to figure out how to keep an eye on it.

        I don't blame Verisign, specifically. I'm not letting them off the hook, either. What they're doing is definitely sleazy. But they can't legally change anything unless they get authorization from the registrant of the domain name. So it comes down to the lowest common denominator: Joe, I'm-a-sheep-and-a-tool, Public.

        But I'm not bitter, or anything...
      • Turns out, you can't transfer a verisign domain in the last 90 days of registration.

        Yes you can. Me (and many of my friends and people @ work) routinely transfer domains to an OpenSRS reseller with just days remaining before expiry with no problems whatsoever. I don't know where you heard the 90 day thing, but it's pure bullshit, probably spread by NetSol themselves to get more people to renew.

      • Heck they even slam there own customers!

      • I just transferred a domain away from Verisign/Netsol in the last fifteen days of registration. Other than being required to respond to a confirmation email from Verisign with 96 hours, the domain was transferred without hesitation. Seems like all those complaints are having a positive effect.

    • I posted this using the post at http://www.regusa.com and got denied. That was, oh, 9am or so, EST.
      Bite me Jamie.
    • I have to add one question to this... How did they get the names and addresses to mail to? Since nearly everyone's whois is protected by a clause like this one (from `whois bulkregister.com`)
      The data in Bulkregister.com's WHOIS database is provided to you by Bulkregister.com for information purposes only, that is, to assist you in obtaining information about or related to a domain name registration record. Bulkregister.com makes this information available "as is", and does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass or bulk unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via electronic mail, aka (SPAM). (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to Bulkregister.com (or its systems). The compilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of this data is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Bulkregister.com. Bulkregister.com reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by these terms.

      Note, "other use of this data is expressly prohibited". Therefore, I would expect bulkregister would not only be awarded quite a bit in punitive damages, I'd expect they should also be given all the money verisign receives from its former customers when the customer used this form to change service, and to get all those same customers back.



  • This would definatly fall under falls representation. Although I can't see it being wrong in the situation where The customer was a verisign customer then renewed with another company. dont phone companies do this all the time after you have switched.

  • 'bout time. (Score:5, Informative)

    by j-turkey ( 187775 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @12:10PM (#3517742) Homepage
    I've been wondering when I'd start to see noise about this. I recently received a number fax(!) solicitations to renew my company's domain through a registrar that we've never used. (BTW, aren't there laws against unsolicited faxing)?

    The domain registrars have become shady businesses, and its high time that they be accountable for their actions...maybe instead of these companies suing each other, the FTC can start reviewing their processes.


    -Turkey
    • I'm thoroughly convinced that 'unsolicited' is cancelled out by the word 'consumer.' Somehow, just because we've bought a certain product, offers sent to us for related products are considered solicited by twisted corporate logic.

      And even if it's an unrelated product, surely we must be at fault for opting-in for those offers (how can we prove otherwise?).

      Bah

    • (BTW, aren't there laws against unsolicited faxing)?

      No, there arn't. There are laws controlling when you can send them and what you have to do if someone requests to have their number removed. You are however allowed to send unsolicited faxes.

      PK
      Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?

    • I don't get unsolicited faxes because I didn't list a fax number. I only have two domains - one registed with Verisign & one with Nominet (who don't give out your e-mail address) - and I've never been asked by anyone other than those two to renew my domain! As to whether it's legal or not - the numbers can be easily obtained through a /whois on the domain - whether it's legal depends on the laws in your country.
  • Verisign Plays Dirty! [slashdot.org]

    If you have a domain with them, look into moving it elsewhere, these people do not deserve our business.

    • Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Random Feature ( 84958 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @12:26PM (#3517858) Homepage
      Verisign just sucks.

      In the past 3 months the amount of SPAM I've gotten has dramatically increased. And almost all of it has Verisign's dirty hands all over it.

      I've started getting telemarketing calls at home as well, all related to my PERSONAL domain, and all it is business phone-spam.

      I am definitely looking for a new registrar because this is bullshit.

      It was bad enough when NetSol took over, but with Verisign in the mix it got worse.
      • I've seen firsthand how crappy this company is, and they are rotten from the inside out. Someone very close to me used to work there, and she observed that Verisign is run from within like a Dilbert company but worse.

        The person I know was a UI Engineer, and VS saw fit to put her underneath the Documentation Manager. This person had no clue what a UI Engineer would do, but the company wouldn't put my friend into a group that made sense. The Doc manager was an evil being from another dimension, and ended up receiving a promotion to Director level, even though everyone who works under her hates her. She basically forced my friend into leaving; meanwhile, every other person my friend worked with wanted her to stay, and eventually several people tried to re-hire her later. She declined.

        This is just one example, I'm sure there are tons of stories like this. You don't need to be a genius to know that a company that treats its own employees this bad will propagate this treatment to it's customers. From the domain name business group to the VPN and other groups, no high-level people at that company seem to give a shit about the customers. They've been the dominant player in their field for so long, they they don't care that all their software has bad UI, their customer service is crap, and their interal processes are shot to hell. Now their stock is in the toilet, and you can't be surprised about it.

        VS made their own bed.

      • it ain't verisign, it's spambots reading whois. I get tons of email to the address I have in whois.

  • The silliest part... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @12:11PM (#3517754) Journal
    is that, when I recently tried to acquire a .net domain held by Verisign, I had to send 4 mails before they even responded, and when they eventually did, it was just to say that my request had been forwarded to the sales dept (impressive since I had a cc to sales@verisign.com) and I would be contacted within 24 hours. That was 3 months ago. I've given up and purchased a .be domain instead.

    I don't know if they're just to busy marketing, or perhaps don't like overseas clients... All I know is that it's damd frustrating to see a domain for sale (at a reasonable price even) and not being able to get a hold on a salesperson ...

    Well... maybe I shouldn't register domainnames anyway. After all, there are so many domains nowadays that the good old reflex of www.somethingyourelookingfor.com rarely send you to a relevant page anymore.
  • This was a particularly underhanded marketing campaign and I figured it was only a matter of time before *someone* sued.

    Thankfully I had a heads-up to this debacle and was able to contact all my clients and inform them not to transfer (or should I say renew?) their domains to Verisign. Turns out that two of them had already filled out the forms and were just about to send them when I called. Crafty.
  • I got one of those letters. For a second I thought DomainMonger had been bought out by Verisign.

    I didn't read all the way through the letter before it hit the trash, but i don't remember seeing anything remotely hinting that my site wasn't originally registered with verisign and that I didn't have to send them $29. It's more than sleazy, it's illegal.

    D

    • I use DomainMonger too, and I've been nothing but happy with them.

      The funny thing is, DomainMonger is not a registrar per se. They are an affiliate of OpenSRS (owned by Tucows), who is a wholesale reseller for (you guessed it) Verisign.

      Actually, anyone can be a "DomainMonger". Just go to www.opensrs.org, and you can sign up. It's a little bit of work to get up and running, and I'm not sure if they're charging minimums these days, but this is all DomainMonger is. In fact, most of the little noname "registrars" use OpenSRS.
    • I didn't read all the way through the letter before it hit the trash

      Mine didn't hit the trash. I wrote on it, in big black letters, "I hope you get sued" (amoung other things) and mailed it back to them in the pre-paid envelope.

      Letting it "hit the trash" only reduces thier cost for this type of marketing. Since the envelope was pre-paid, take the extra moment to write what you think and mail it back.

      The bit that annoys me the most is the whois server for my domain says:

      By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial
      advertising or solicitations via direct mail, electronic mail, or by telephone; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
      that apply to Register.com (or its systems).

      And they obviously violated that agreement.

  • I was happy to reply ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by JamesOfTheDesert ( 188356 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @12:13PM (#3517767) Journal
    ... when I got the third such letter from VeriSlime.

    From now on, they get all of their "renewal" forms back, torn into little pieces. Thoughtful of them to provide a postage-paid return envelope.

    • If it wasn't for the anthrax scare, I'd say fill the envelop with sand to make the charges higher... I guess paper clips or something would work just as well now..
      • I am an OpenSRS reseller, there has been quite a discussion on the mailing list on what to do with their "renewal" notices.

        Apparently the US Post Office won't let you tape the envelope to a brick anymore!

        Verisign is not the only company doing this, The Domain Registry of America, and Domain Registry of Canada are sending these things out too.

        Luckily we haven't had any problems, but we've had to explain these notices to quite a few of our customers.

      • How about duct-taping the envelope to a frickin rock.
    • "Thoughtful of them to provide a postage-paid return envelope"

      Now the next piece of equipment you'll need is a brick. This can be interfaced to the return-paid envelope through the use of duct-tape.
  • I wonder if those companies would start DoSsing each other if they had no law covering their revenues.. and after a little (in internet time) period of chaos, I think that the net could auto-regulate itself.

    think about it: if there were no laws covering companies that are making money off the Net, there would be no spam around. Also there would be less bandwidth available, and the net would be less spread. But with no money on the net, 80% of the web contenent would be gone (it's all about flashy animations that have to catch customers)..

    would it be worth?
    • yeah, i can kinda see that. i always figure that the idea that makes the internet is a static idea that moves through time. it helped us make the internet run on junk like telephone lines, junky computers, heck, dsl over cow fences. as the idea moves forward, the internet cools off and hardens into a bunch of e-crap- banners, popups, and "its not an internet connection, it's a high speed web experience.. so you dont need these ports", the idea burrows underneah the scab of the 'net. we see interesting things come in the form of your buddies vpn-ing back and forth, making yet another infrastructure transparent to the shadow of the original internet. eventually, two big groups of friends are going to cross connect their web of vpns and make a small network, and some geek will realize "hey lets make a domain for it" and completely reimplement dns. and it will be good, and some old timer will comment on it, saying "this is more like it should be", and the young ones will say "oh?" and the old one will tell them a story about the good old days. eventually 10 years from then, that original geek will be living in a mansion cause he sold his idea, but who cares cause the kid next door started reinventing "the way it should be" using that original idea that's always been moving forward, never stopping to cash in on itself. and so it goes on and on. sure the net sucks, but the people that are bothered by it most will be the first to find what they want hidden within what is obvious. sorry my post sounds like a crappy high school english thesis paper, btw.
  • I recieved one of their snail mailings to renew a domain name with them.

    I threw it out, but I didn't find it all that offensive. This isn't a sweepstake targetting elderly people ("You won the 10 million dollar jackpot! Subscribe to half a dozen magazines to collect your prize!"), most of the people targetted should know better or shouldn't have a domain name in the first place.

    Heck, for that matter, look what happens when people forget to renew their domain name. Given teh choice between paying 4-5 times what they otherwise would and recieving poor customer service or having a pr0n site snag it up, which would you choose?

    I guess I'll end shilling for now :)
    • Trust me, this isn't new. Some scam "Yellow Pages" (no, not the real thing) sent out similar notices for directory listings that mysteriously never get published. Companies would pay hundreds of dollars to take out ads in these false directories, after receiving what looked like an invoice from what appeared to be their local phone directory.

      The scam isn't new. It's just being put on to a new media, much like Reed Slatkin [slatkinfraud.com], and modern day ponzi schemes and "make money fast" schemes sent over the net.
    • Right. Anyone technical enough to manage a domain should be smart enough to know who they are registered with and not fall for this... EXCEPT they don't send it to the Technical Contact, they sent it to the Billing Contact.

      Since we do have some domains with Network Pollutions (not for long!), he assumed it was more of the same and paid it."Clearly we can't let our domain expire, and it's only $30, no need to bother the IT department!"

  • Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? I seriously don't know who I would root for.
    • In a lawsuit both sides lose and the lawyers win, If one company has more money than the other it loses less badley but it still loses.

      As I don't care for either company I am rooting for the lawyers dragging this out as long as possible, before giving Verisign a little smackdown.

      Nate
  • I got one of those the other day - what got me is they wanted me to "renew" at a cost double than what I currently pay! It reminds me of the AT&T scam where they send you a check that if you cash it they change your phone service. Marketing people are just bad bad people.

  • Verisign and its own customers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mikeboone ( 163222 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @12:17PM (#3517797) Homepage Journal
    As I wrote in my last journal [slashdot.org], Verisign's tactics with their own customers seem to have become more suspect. I especially like how they tried to get me to renew for 2 years @$70 when elsewhere on their site I got 3 years for $69.99. I'd really like to jump ship but it seems transferring registrars has been problematic for so many.
  • I have a number of domains registered, and IIRC I got a letter for every single one of them. I knew they were BS from the start, but that's only because I've been on the Internet for around 8 years and I know what's going on. To "Joe User" it would probably look legit, and they'd pay three times as much to renew their domains and support more of these letters being sent to other people.

    For shame!
  • Where 'you have won 1M$'.. with the fine print impossible to find..

    The attorney general here sued them.. and won..

  • I got one of these "bills" too.

    I was surprised to get a letter with both my name and my boss's name on it. (he registered my domain for me)

    I would agree that it is very slimy, my boss says that he gets like 20 of these everyday.
  • I have just gotten one of these letters from verisign in the last week for a recently registered domain name.

    It was extremely misleading. It took me a long time to figure out if it was a mistake on their part or really was the trick it appeared to be.

    I finally had to send email to my registrar and find out if some sort of mistake had been made because there WAS NO WAY TO TELL from reading the mailing.

    It was very short, just an expiration notice type simple form, renewal coupon and return envelope. And some warnings about how bad it would be if I didn't renew.

    It should be totally illegal.

    I consider myself very informed about this sort of thing having worked in IT for a number of years and I had no idea it was a solicitation. I really thought there was some sort of mistake or my host had sold my account or something.

    • no way to tell? funny mine all had a VeriSign logo on the front of the mailing...

      do you not know who you registerd through?

      • Sure, I know. But my purchasing department (AKA the Billing Contact) didn't!
      • of course i could tell it was verisign, that was the point of the post.

        and of course i know who i registered through, but verisign sure made it look like they were now responsible for the domain registration and i should renew now.

        and do i keep track of who verisign bought last week or last month, do you? no, so for all i know verisign was responsible for it now.

        all i was saying is it was clearly misleading indicating verisign had it currently and i should renew it with them.

        no indication it was a transfer from another registrar as well.
  • After I recently renewed a couple of my domains, I received their mailings. One has to look really hard to find language that states that it is a transfer. Total slimeballs. I am in the process of changing the registrar of the domains at the gig now. Price, maintenance procedures and slimeball tactics are enough already. I'm voting with my dollars.
  • I registered through GoDaddy,
    I can see the verisign logo on the letter,
    I know GoDaddy != Verisign

    so what is the problem?

    • Re:I dont see the problem... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Junta ( 36770 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @12:32PM (#3517886)
      Well, sometimes the people receiving the mail may not be the ones last responsible for registering the domain (in a company).
      Even if they do know, they may not keep that much track of the company and may think that perhaps Verisign bought up whatever company they registered with.
      • so you just throw money in the mail without investigating?
        • Some companies would, yes. 30 bucks is less money than the company would spend trying to figure out what's what.
        • I agree with you that consumers should be smart with their money and know who/what they're paying before they mail in a check.

          However, this does not make it alright for companies to try and "trick" consumers. I think it's pretty obvious that Verisign is deliberately attempting to mislead competitor's customers. At best this is unethical, and it sounds like it should be illegal.
      • the people receiving the mail may not be the ones last responsible for registering the domain

        EXACTLY. I have a customer who I'm concerned about with this. I'm sure he's gotten one for his domain at GoDaddy. He's the kind of guy who's somewhat ignorant to technology. He'd look at it and think "Hmm.. $30/yr. Doesn't seem like much, I don't want my domain to expire, I'd better send this back".

        These, of course, are the customers they're preying on. Not every domain owner knows their head from other parts when it comes to the inner workings of their website. I'm glad to see SOMEBODY is calling Verisign on their slimy tactic.

        I've received one of these, and while it does say (in smaller print on one page) that you are transferring your domain, it appears that it's just a renewal notice.
        • I am so busy most of the time that I let this one slip buy me and paid the stupid thing. I realized later and cuaght it before they did anything when Godaddy sent me an e-mail telling me their had been a move request
    • I registered through registrar.com,
      I can see the verisign logo on the letter,
      I think that registrars.com != verisign.com

      The problem is that I'm wrong: Verisign acquired registrars.com. This same sort of confusion exists for a lot of people as companies and responsibilities came and went.
  • among thieves."

  • The mailing I got from register.com suggested that it was "very important" that I renew or I'd risk losing my domains. They never mentioned WHICH domains were "at risk".

    I stuffed it back in the envelope with 'return to sender' stamped on it, with a pretty nasty note, and reminding them that 1) none of my domains are registered with them, and 2) now I'll never even consider registering new domains with them, thanks to their scam.
    No domain registry has the right to steal my business from any other registry, no matter how evil the other one is. Did they think nobody would notice?

  • Very misleading indeed... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dasmegabyte ( 267018 ) <das@OHNOWHATSTHISdasmegabyte.org> on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @12:26PM (#3517855) Homepage Journal
    My domains I've had since college have my mother's address listed as the contact. Verisign sent her renewal letters for six of my domains, and she opened one to recycle it, thinking it was junk mail. When she read the "danger of expiry" and "please renew" messages, she jumped in her car & drove them over to my new house -- 40 minutes away.

    She had read about claim jumping porn sites and was afraid if I didn't get the letters that I'd lost my websites and thus my paycheck. I have since explained to her that verisign are dicks, nobody in their right mind pays $30 per year for a domain name, and that my registrar (directnic) emails me automatically to renew...i just have to reply to the email. Also, that no technology company that does business via snail mail will be in business long enough to survive.

    My poor mother. She thought she was helping me out...and instead she was wasting gas & time thanks to scare tactics from one of the least trustworthy companies in the net world.
  • I get verisign letters for renewal constantly. I have about 10 domains and it seems verisign starts
    about 4 months before it expires and sends at least one letter per month and one after it expires. They probably spend 4 bucks a year in postage for each domain they want to renew.

  • slamming? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by night_flyer ( 453866 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @12:30PM (#3517877) Homepage
    The mailings are nothing more than domain "slamming"

    obviously the writer doesnt have a clue as to what slamming is

    I used to work at WorldCom, slamming is switching long distance without the customers permission/knowledge, if the customer returns this card to VeriSign, then they give permission, its not VeriSigns fault that the customer is clueless...

    • I recently got one of those friendly letters from Verisign, and I have to agree that they're absurdly misleading, unless you're paying attention and read all the fine print. While this may not be exactly "slamming", it's fairly close.

      Probably the best phone company analogy would be for $LONG DISTANCE CARRIER to send out "bills" for long distance service that contain, burried within the fine print, your agreement to switch your service to theirs. If the company were careful, and the customer weren't, they'd likely get plenty of checks from busy people trying to do the right thing. It's not Verisign's fault that the customer is clueless, but they are definatly trying to exploit it. (Letting them get away with claiming that is like Jeff Bezos saying, "The patent system needs to be reformed!" while at the same time suing B&N for infringing their stupid little patent.)

      Illegal? Technically not, because the customers are agreeing to transfer their domains. Immoral? Misleading? Definatly. Worth bringing down the wrath of the FTC/BBB/whomever? Most likely.

    • Re:slamming? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LoadStar ( 532607 )

      obviously the writer doesnt have a clue as to what slamming is

      I used to work at WorldCom, slamming is switching long distance without the customers permission/knowledge, if the customer returns this card to VeriSign, then they give permission, its not VeriSigns fault that the customer is clueless...

      Slamming is also using a deceitful or misleading sales technique in order to elicit the customer to change long distance companies. An example is treating "no" as "no I don't want to keep my existing phone company," or a company naming a subsidiary "No Thanks Long Distance" so those who say "No Thanks" get switched.

      These are extreme examples, but there have been others where the customer clearly did not intend to switch long distance companies, but an underhanded technique by the telemarketer allowed them to switch the customer.

      This is now why they have "Slamming Protection" to prevent any long distance company from changing you without you explicitly telling both companies (the long distance company AND your local carrier) that you intend to switch.

      And for the record, I agree - these "renewal notices" are, in my opinion, clearly mail fraud (disguising a sales promotion as an invoice) and highly deceptive, not to mention sleazy.

      P.S. Might I compliment you on your wonderful attention to customer care? "The Customer Is Clueless." Yeesh. Thanks - I'll add WorldCom to the list of companies never to do business with.

      • "Slamming is also using a deceitful or misleading sales technique in order to elicit the customer to change long distance companies. An example is treating "no" as "no I don't want to keep my existing phone company," or a company naming a subsidiary "No Thanks Long Distance" so those who say "No Thanks" get switched."

        There is actually a phone company in the United States called "No" run by some guy in his basement. I saw a TV interview he did once. When you call collect and they ask "Do you have a preference as to the provider" or such and you say "No" guess who charges you an arm and a leg for the call? Yep. It's "No." On a similar note, there is a provider called KT&T.

  • Why is it that companies try to get away with obvious violations like false advertising, just because the delivery is different?

    It's like the (some) free speech issues. Our laws don't change just because we have a new way to say or promote something.

  • shady (Score:1)

    by jglow ( 525234 )
    I work for a webhosting company and have had to deal with concerned and confused customers who have recieved emails from the Domain Registry of America [droa.com], a sister company of Verisign [networksolutions.com]. (I believe.. correct me if I'm wrong. Nonetheless this is very shady business practices and caused me LOTS of hassle.

  • Good 'ol caveat emptor (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mannerism ( 188292 ) <keith-slashdotNO@SPAMspotsoftware.com> on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @12:40PM (#3517924)
    True, the business practices that some domain registrars have been employing have ranged from the appalling (see article and links) to the amusing and rather clever (marketing [www.nic.ws] the Western Samoa domain digraph - .ws - as "website"). But when it comes right down to it, we're all paying way less than we did when NSI was the only game in town. Given a choice, I'd rather keep careful records and read the fine print than subsidize yet another monopoly.
  • Even Interland.net wants to get in on the action, causing even more problems than Verisign, imho. When Interland sends out their renewal notices, they also look official, but when someone takes the bait, not only is registration transferred to Interland: Tech Name............ Tech Support Tech Address......... 101 Marietta Street Tech Address......... Tech Address......... Atlanta Tech Address......... 30303 Tech Address......... GA Tech Address......... UNITED STATES Tech Email........... hostmaster@interland.com Tech Phone........... +1.8005895060 Tech Fax............. +1.4045860001 Name Server.......... a.ns.interland.net Name Server.......... b.ns.interland.net Changing the nameservers configuration of the domain(s) in question, and effectively downing web services and e-mail MX records of the victims until they realize that they have been duped.
    It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end.
    • And I was awfully confused for a bit. I come home and open up the mail and think "Who the hell is "Interland" and why are they trying to charge me for domain renewal." I was real close to calling my actual registrar and asking if they changed their name (and why they were trying to move my nameservers) when it hit me that this was the DNS equivalent of "slamming".

      I then got *very* irate. (and my roomate was forced to hear me rant about deceptive buisness practices for 20 minutes.) I came very close to calling Interland myself and accusing them of fraud, but decided against it, as it I'm sure they wouldn't have listened.
  • I've always been a little baffled by the domain registration business. What exactly are you paying for? Do the registries have any costs other than advertising? IIRC, the whole thing is kind of a protected monopoly. I don't think domain names are necessary. I'm willing to live with a single.host.thats.part.of.a.big.domain.com, and I'd be find with an IP address as well. Of course, for dynamic IPs you do need some kind of lookup, but DNS wasn't meant for that to begin with, so something like a search engine would make just as much sense.
  • I received one of these Verisign "renewal" notices in the mail last month. Looked exactly like a legit "sign here to renew" notice and would easily trick many people into transferring their domains. The small print said "you agree to allow verisign to transfer this domain to the verisign system"



    They're obviously trolling the WHOIS database and spamming domain name owners, isn't that illegal or at least against the "official" WHOIS rules?



    Why isnt Verisign being punished for this?

  • Response to Verisign Email (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jonesvery ( 121897 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @01:13PM (#3518185) Homepage Journal

    My response to the last message that I received from Verisign; it was probably never really read by anyone, but I enjoyed writing it. I'm currently working on a letter that I'm going to send to Verisign's marketing department every time that I register a new domain through one of their competitors... :)

    Subject: Re: Urgent: ALIENABDUCTIONS.com Is About to Expire
    To: VeriSign Renewals

    No, it's not. The registration for the referenced domain expires in September of this year, about six months from now.

    As the person who receives this email likely had absolutely no say in the decision to spam me, nor in the decision to employ a crude and poorly thought out marketing campaign that is clearly intended to deceive consumers, I will simply ask that person to pass this message along to the people who did make these decisions:

    Congratulations. I have registered domains through Network Solutions since 1996; though I have not always been happy with the service that I received, inertia would have kept me working Network Solutions. This marketing campaign, however, has irritated me to the point that I am going to make a point of using another registrar. You've lost one more customer. Nice work.

    • Let me 'splain something to you. The fact that the person who reads your response is not the offending agent is no reason not to slam the hell out of them. As you yourself point out, the person(s) responsible for this illegal and socially unacceptable "marketing" campaign will never read your email; your only hope of having any impact whatsoever on these assholes is to piss off a peon and wait for the ripple effect. Low employee morale is deadly in the long term, and working for this bunch of cretins must be totally demoralizing--it's your job to further things along as much as you can. In the process, you may teach somebody to be more careful who choose to work for.

      Now somebody go ahead and mod me down -1 Asshole.

  • has anyone tried godaddy.com [godaddy.com]? $70 for 10 years seems a lot better than netsol's $70 for 2 years...
    • GoDaddy's management system quite frankly sucks.

      I work for a large web hosting firm, and a major part of my job is modifying customers' domain name information (contacts, nameservers, etc.). Many of our customers use GoDaddy, and I have found that about 60% of the time, changes that I make are never sent to the root zone servers, or otherwise horribly screwed up.

      I have made changes to the nameserver info, only to have the new info show up in the WhoIs database, but never on the root zone servers.

      I have made changes to the nameserver info, only to have the domain disappear completely from both the WhoIs database and the root zone servers.

      I have made changes to the nameserver info, only to have both the WhoIs database and the root zone servers show no nameservers at all for the domain.

      Like I said above this is a major part of my job, and I know what I'm doing. I never have these kinds of problems with any of the other registrars (Verisign, OpenSRS, Register.com, etc.).

      Granted, as soon as I call GoDaddy and complain, they fix the problems manually over the phone, but their web-management really stinks.

      I wouldn't ever use them for my personal domains.
    • Oh yeah, I'll jump all over a deal like that, put my trust in a registrar selling registrations at just above their actual costs (they still must pay NSI $6-$6.50/yr).

      With their cut-rate pricing I fully expect them to be around in 10 years ... NOT!

      Anyone with any business sense knows that these guys will get themselves in trouble eventually when they are only make $2 from someone every 10 years or so.
  • I recieved two of these "domain renewal" forms. One of them (from a company whose name escapes me at the moment) at least put "Domain Transfer" near every instance of the word "renewal." Sure it's still underhanded, but they made some tiny attempt to remain above the boards.

    Verisign, however, had no mention of domain transfer at all. It only said "Domain Renewal" and looked exactly like a bill. If I hadn't know better, I would have thought that was the bill to renew my domain and I should send in a payment. Then I would be transferred to NetSol without my knowing.

    Of course I did realize what was going on for three reasons: 1) I moved away from NetSol when they couldn't do a simple contact info change in under 4 months. 2) My domain registrar (DirectNIC) is cheaper than the "special deal" NetSol was offering. 3) I actually know the name of my domain registrar... and it's not Verisign/NetSol! (See #1.)

    Still an underhanded move which only serves to lower my already rock-bottom opinion of Verisign.

  • This is illegal, per 39 USC 3001 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @01:44PM (#3518413) Homepage
    Phony invoices are illegal. [usps.gov]
    • Solicitations in Guise of Bills, Invoices, or Statements of Account (39 USC 3001(D); 39 USC 3005)

      1.2 Required Disclaimer

      The solicitation must bear on its face either the disclaimer required by 39 USC 3001(d)(2)(A) or the notice:

      • THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS A SOLICITATION. YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PAY THE AMOUNT STATED ABOVE UNLESS YOU ACCEPT THIS OFFER.

      The statutory disclaimer or the alternative notice must be displayed in conspicuous boldface capital letters of a color prominently contrasting with the background against which it appears, including all other print on the face of the solicitation and that are at least as large, bold, and conspicuous as any other print on the face of the solicitation but not smaller than 30-point type

    There's no sign of the required disclaimer in Verisign's fake invoice [godaddy.com]. This is a matter for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service [usps.com], which has law enforcement powers. They can also cancel Verisign's bulk mailing permit, or deny them permission to mail at all.

  • Decide for yourself (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nobodyman ( 90587 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @04:06PM (#3519576) Homepage
    Here's a picture [godaddy.com] of the notices sent out by verisign.

    A while back, some companies were getting in trouble by sending businesses "invoices" for office supplies when they were in fact nothing more than a cheap attempt to get office managers to accidentally sign off on them. I'm pretty sure that you don't see this as much anymore because the offending companies got the smackdown from the government. These "renewal notices" seem to fall under the same guise.
  • I've received letters from registrars I don't use asking me to renew my domain(s) with them.

    I've also received letters from registrars I don't use asking me to renew domains with them THAT I DON'T OWN. Most strange that... I mean, sure, I live in Omaha, but that doesn't mean I want good-news-bears-of-omaha.org [good-news-...-omaha.org]
  • I loathe, hate, despise, abhor and revile the scummy crew that is now Verisign. I rarely feel moved to violence but they get me close to it. WHAT a foul and awful outfit they are.

    Having got that off my chest, I want to say something nice. The people who handle the UK domain registrations are, in my experience, an object lesson in what can be done (I don't want to get into the current WHOIS argument that they have stirred up). It's been a pleasure to deal with them at every level so far.

    AND they manage to provide instant turnaround of domain registration for the hefty price of GBP 5 per two years, or about US $8. Based on that, they make an embarrassing amount of money - as they are a not-for-profit business. I don't know how they do it. I have no financial interest in what they do - but am hugely grateful to be working mostly with them and not the ratshit raggle of scumsuckers at Verisign.
  • If you look at verisign.com, of course, you see no evidence that there is anything wrong.

    I wonder if there are any stockholders in this company that might be upset over the concealment of information about issues detrimental to the growth of the business?

    If they fail to include this issue in their quarterly report, the stockholders should file a class-action suit against the company.
  • The result of this was rejected as a Slashdot story but CNN reporting [cnn.com] "A U.S. court on Tuesday ordered Internet naming giant VeriSign Inc. to immediately cease a direct-mail campaign that used what a rival called deceptive advertising to poach its customers. "

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close