Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Verisign Ordered to Stop Deceptive Renewal Notices 156

Posted by timothy from the getting-off-way-too-easy dept.
Ummagumma writes: "CNN is running a story on how the courts have ordered Verisign to stop their deceptive 'renewal notices' to other registrars' customers. I've gotten a couple of these, and was smart enough to figure out what's going on, but this is a dirty practice, of borderline legality. Let's hope they get smacked down hard for this one..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verisign Ordered to Stop Deceptive Renewal Notices More

Verisign Ordered to Stop Deceptive Renewal Notices

Comments Filter:
  • I wonder how this will spill over into the slamming done by long distance and other phone companies.
    • Not really. Telephone companies call up and say "We have a better deal." It would affect them if they called up and said something like, "You're long distance subscription is up, please renew! I'll need your name, address, and other information..."

      There isn't any fraud in long distance companies adds/spam (although its annoying as I'll get...), there is advertising fraud (well, borderline) in what verisign is attempting to do.
      • Telephone companies call up and say "We have a better deal."

        That's not "slamming". Slamming is when a telephone company switches your long distance provider without your permission.

      • As I've said before, this is more akin to some "national" "yellow pages" directory sending you an advertisement that looks like an invoice for their not-widely distributed or non-existant directory, and trying to push it off as the real thing.

        For example, a warning from the Florida Attorney General [firn.edu]
      • Do you not remember around 1989-1990 when they did
        something even worse than what you describe?

        There wouldn't even be the phone call -- your new
        long distance company would just start showing up on your bill. And your phone company (swbell in my case) would not even discuss it (even though they printed it on the bill!) I still think the phone companies should have been punished along with the long distance providers for this practice, but they somehow made people believe it wasn't their fault.

    • I wonder how this will spill over into the slamming done by long distance and other phone companies.

      Already illegal. This decision was influanced by phone slamming laws.
    • According to the FCC website, slamming [fcc.gov] is prohibited by FCC rules already.
      "Slamming," or switching a consumer's telephone carrier without his or her knowledge or consent, is prohibited by the FCC's rules. The Commission enforces these rules by investigating individual complaints and patterns of slamming practices and punishes those who slam.
      So, I don't think this has any impact on slamming.

  • Contracts and deception (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Joel Ironstone ( 161342 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @11:15AM (#3529934)

    Contracts signed under deceptive circumstances are not and should not valid. This is why there is a clause in most contract that states 'I have read and understood this contract' or something to this effect.
    • Actually, even without that, contract law requires a 'meeting of the minds.' There must be a mutual understanding about the contract. Without that, any contract, signed or not, is null and void. IANAL.

  • Only Bulkregister Clients (Score:2, Informative)

    by Xaje ( 266591 )
    Unfortunately this injunction seems to be only applicable to Bulkregister's clients. Does anyone know of other registrars who are currently taking similar action?
    • Go Daddy warned us all recently warning of Verisigns heavy-handed attempts.

      I believe they're going after Verisign as well.

    • Re:Only Bulkregister Clients (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Does anyone know of other registrars who are currently taking similar action?

      I'm not a registrar, but I am a reseller through Tucows. My clients also received a bunch of these in the mail. I wonder if I have standing to sue, and I wonder if I can do it in small claims court.

  • I think that this is a good sign, I have always disliked any company practice that is deceptive in any manner, and I feel that it should be illegal for any company to try to deceive customers especially in a way that would hurt other business if their deception tatics work, and lets face the facts, this is targeted at your less-than-average consumer which just makes it all the more insulting and slimy.
    • Whats really sad is that this is only an issue BECAUSE it effects other businesses. If a car dealer sends deceptive letters to you. (Five Free Silver doller for test driving a car, then you get Susan B Anthony dollars - that contain no silver.) No one even notices. This is only an issue because it was taking business away from other businesses, not because consumers were deceived. I receive deceptive snail mail and email continuously, no one is ordering them to stop.

  • About Time! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zpengo ( 99887 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @11:18AM (#3529967) Homepage
    In any other industry, this would obviously be recognized as illegal client poaching, but as with so many other things, it gets overlooked or misunderstood because it has to do with the Internet.

    These are neither new nor complicated issues; There are precedents for all of them in the non-Internet realm -- but it's been taking judges and lawyers a long time to realize that.

    • Damn straight it's about time. If you read the NANOG or inet-access mailing lists you've probably read *tons* of complaints about this marketing tactic. I didn't know that anybody had finally taken them to court over it, though. Good for you!!!

    • but as with so many other things, it gets overlooked or misunderstood because it has to do with the Internet.

      What are you talking about? What part of "U.S. District Court Judge Frederic N. Smalkin agreed with BulkRegister, saying that VeriSign likely engaged in deceptive behavior" didn't you understand?

      Verisign broke the law. People complained. Someone sued. Verisign lost. Sounds just like any other industry to me.

      • He meant, overlooked or misunderstood by the courts and such, not by those of us who already had a clue about what Verisign was doing. I gotta admit, I had the same initial reaction that you did; it took a second reading - and looking at the post's title - for me to understand what zpengo meant. This would now be a good time to apologize to zpengo. ;-)

        • I gotta admit, I had the same initial reaction that you did; it took a second reading - and looking at the post's title - for me to understand what zpengo meant.

          I take it that s/he meant that courts getting internet cases right is something new. S/he was probably referring to some particular case in the past in which a judge made a decision with which s/he disagreed, perhaps not even a case where the judge misunderstood anything. Most judges understand most cases, both internet and non-internet. Just because slashdot happens to cover mainly those minority cases which are the exception doesn't mean anything.

          Besides, this case has very little to do with the internet in the first place. The renewal applications were sent USPS. The only real internet connection is that the product happens to be a subscription internet service. That's not that hard to understand, and really doesn't even need to be understood to make the proper decisions.

    • Re:About Time! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by grytpype ( 53367 )
      It would really be a hoot if the judge ordered Verisign to contact everyone they sent the fraudulent renewal notices to, and tell them that (1) Verisign is not their registrar, (2) they do not need to renew with Verisign. That would cost Verisign money, and would further depress their reputation among customers.
      • Yeah, more crap in my mailbox. That's what I want. Judge ordered spam is no better than any other kind of spam.
        • >Judge ordered spam is no better than any other
          >kind of spam.

          Um, yes it is. I would be very happy if all the SPAM I got every day said: "Hi. We're a crappy company. We engage in deceptive business practices. We apologize if we tricked you into buying our stuff, and we'd like to remind you that you don't ever have to buy stuff from us, regardless of the apparent importance of the bill or invoice that you send you."

          If only that would happen...

          • I would be very happy if all the SPAM I got every day said: "Hi. We're a crappy company. We engage in deceptive business practices. We apologize if we tricked you into buying our stuff, and we'd like to remind you that you don't ever have to buy stuff from us, regardless of the apparent importance of the bill or invoice that you send you."

            I wouldn't. I don't read the spam anyway, so I really don't care what it says.

          • I would be very happy if all the SPAM I got every day said: "Hi. We're a crappy company. We engage in deceptive business practices."

            Darn betcha, particularly if it was the last I ever heard from that outfit, and it had good contact info, with responses monitored by the court. I'd accept the load on my in-box as the cost of getting the word out to the less savvy.
          • I would be very happy if all the SPAM I got every day said: "Hi. We're a crappy company. We engage in deceptive business practices. We apologize if we tricked you into buying our stuff, and we'd like to remind you that you don't ever have to buy stuff from us, regardless of the apparent importance of the bill or invoice that you send you."
            What's your email address?

  • Advertising Dollars (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shuffle40 ( 520862 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @11:19AM (#3529971)
    If Verisign is going to spend this sort of money on advertising (I don't know how many of these letters get sent out - but I got one, and only own three domain names) , why not use it to really attract customers rather than piss them off? I mean, make those advertising dollars count! I can think of many ways to add value to the domain registration service - provide limited web / ftp / mail space included in the price, combined offers for books, hardware, etc. with vendors... Sure it takes an investment to do this - but why else are people going to choose one registrar over another? Looks like domain reg. companies are basically attempting snail mail spam... It's on par with the deception in the spam messages you get from "long lost friends" or messages that appear reputable but send you to the animal whorehouses. Looks like one more item, like spam, that doesn't even make it to be read... Way to go Verisign. Will you be spamming electronically next?
    • If Verisign is going to spend this sort of money on advertising (I don't know how many of these letters get sent out - but I got one, and only own three domain names)

      I work in the direct mail industry ( call it junk mail and i'll hurt you ) ... Single page mailings like this dont cost all that much, probably somewhere in the range of $5k-10k .. pretty cheap compared to some other mediums... and thats a pretty liberal figure too... It may even been cheaper than that...

      So in other words, I dont think they are selling any kidneys to do a advertising campaign like this..
    • In case you havn't noticed, the Internet causes brain damage, leading people to believe that the way to customer loyalty is by slapping your customers round the face with a wet fish.

      Why doesn't George WWW send a cruise misslie round to visit some of these people? It would really help America's image.

    • Way to go Verisign. Will you be spamming electronically next?

      Don't give 'em any ideas!

      Verisign's new slogan should be "Slamming - the value of Thrust".
  • Today I received a message from Bulkregister about this as it would appear to be because ofthem that Verisign are restricted by this injunction.

    Bulkregister are collecting evidence for the forthcoming trial from Bulkregister members - if you're a member send you details including BR membership number to injunction@bulkregister.com

    They may require a fax copy or affidavit but personally I think that it's worth it to show Verisign what we think.

    I'm not connected with BulkRegister in any way other than being a satisfied customer of their.

    M@t :o)
    • Funny, I'm not presently a BulkRegister customer, but I received a similar e-mail, the gist of which was that I should ignore Verisign's deceptive advertising and instead re-register with BulkRegister. Peculiar that I didn't receive anything from Verisign about this...

      Looks to me like BulkRegister is taking advantage of the situation to do their own slightly-less-than-legal advertising. The world of big business sucks.

      ::Colz Grigor
      • IANAL, but I think that what BulkRegister is doing is not illegal. I haven't seen the particular e-mail, but it sounds more slimly than illegal. As long as they are telling you what they want in such a way that it is clearly optional, then I don't see the problem.

        Of course, I'm not inclined to do business with a company that would attempt to abuse this situation in this way, but that is my perogative.

  • Business Ethics (or lack therof) (Score:3, Insightful)

    by caesar-auf-nihil ( 513828 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @11:25AM (#3530019)
    Its things like this that make me think a whole overhaul of business schools and other institutions of higher learning is needed. I think things like this have always gone on, but they seem a lot more nasty and prevalent now.

    All this crap probably started when Business schools starting using military strategy and Machiavellian philosopy as the ultimate way to win a war with business competition. So in the light of the "ends justify the means", now we have business practices by those who only want their company to win, and they don't care how they do it. Hence my comment about ethics. What goes around comes around, and eventually the entire business world is even more backstabbing and evil than it was before. If its taught in school that this behavior leads to this damage in the system, or the students experience it first hand, perhaps things like this would not happen any more.

    All that being said, I'm glad to see that the Law in place to prevent this un-ethical behavior has been used as it was meant to, to stop this sort of unethical behavior. I'd still rather see the solution to the problem be stopping the problem before it occurs, rather than correcting the behavior after the action has been done.

    • Re:Business Ethics (or lack therof) (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @11:57AM (#3530216) Homepage Journal
      I couldnt agree more. I know at my school (Drexel), business students are not required an ethics course, but engineering students are (req'd for accredidation), as well as other majors (accredidation again).

      As a side note, the original judge in the MS anti-trust case has said he feels Microsoft would not be where they are today (a monopoly found guilty of anti-trust) had Bill Gates finished college. He apparently never took an ethics course required by Harvard.
      • As a side note, the original judge in the MS anti-trust case has said he feels Microsoft would not be where they are today (a monopoly found guilty of anti-trust) had Bill Gates finished college. He apparently never took an ethics course required by Harvard.


        Wouldn't have helped. You can lead a horse to water etc.
      • Wow! I just realized that I was never required to take an ethics course for my Art degree!

        Think of all those muderous filthy greedy backstabbing artists out there!
    • All this crap probably started when Business schools starting using military strategy and Machiavellian philosopy as the ultimate way to win a war with business competition.
      No, all this crap probably started around the dawn of time. Deceptive people have been doing shady business practices for thousands of years before there were business schools. Does the phrase let the cat out of the bag [shu.ac.uk] ring any bells? These practices are not more prevalent now, but they are better publicized.

      I surmise that you have never been to business school. I am currently getting my MBA. We don't learn many Machiavellian techniques. We learn mostly accounting, finance, some law, and some basic computer information. Pretty standard stuff so that you don't drive a company into the ground. We don't talk about how to get ahead by being the most slimy. Should we? By the time you've reached about 30 (the average age at my school), you're either an ethical person or you're not. I doubt a one-semester course is going to change you much. An ethics class in high school, or perhaps a religious upbringing, would likely have a much greater effect.

      I agree with your third paragraph, but your first two are mindless ranting.

      • Yes, I agree with you that slimy and shady practices have been around since the dawn of time - it's sadly in human nature. As for the comment you're either a moral person by 30 or not, I disagree. People can be reformed, but I will admit it does get harder as one goes on in age. So in that light, I would agree that teaching it in High School or sooner is a very good idea. Ideally that is what Religion and parents are supposed to help address, but earlier (pre-college) education can certainly help. Civics and government classes really don't cover this subject very well (at least not the ones I took and the ones my friends and relations took)

        That being said, military strategy and Machiavelli ARE being taught in business school, but not at the MBA level. Its taught to business executives at much higher end business school refresher courses. So the exec comes out with these ideas and if he or she decides to apply them, then those beneath them follow the example, realizing they need to do this to stay employed. If, however, enough of them had a strong enough sense of ethics to say no, then you might, just might, be able to put a check and balance system on the execs. That however, I doubt will happen, so I stand by my comments that additional ethics need to be taught, and this strategic/Machivellian stuff dumped. Your insight that this behavior has always existed, and that it should also be taught at earlier ages is also right on, but I still think that additional exposure can certainly help.
    • I'm frankly appalled at how sleazy business has gotten and how willing people are to lie, cheat and steal under the rubric of "corporate competitiveness".

      We had a local bank get fined big money for selling information (like bank account numbers!) to a telemarketing company, who then charged people for stuff they never got. The bank then gets kickbacks -- I mean, stealing your money directly is illegal so they do it this way?

      From the deliberate fraud of Enron to the strong-arm tactics of MS, I just wonder if corporations aren't just legally sanctioned protection rackets and theives anymore.

  • WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BilldaCat ( 19181 )
    Verisign Ordered to Stop Deceptive Renewal Notices
    Posted by timothy on Thursday May 16, @11:10AM
    from the getting-off-way-too-easy dept.

    getting off way too easy? WTF are you on? Do you even know what an injunction is? What the hell else do you expect at this point?

    • getting off way too easy? WTF are you on? Do you even know what an injunction is? What the hell else do you expect at this point?

      As someone who received one of these notices and saw them for the scam they are, I'm incensed. I want a class-action lawsuit to join, or failing that, I want a class-action lawsuit my registrar can join so that I can provide a copy of the notice I received as evidence.

      I want criminal charges filed against Verisign, if indeed criminal penalties are provided for. IANAL.

      I want the book thrown at these assholes. This is about 4 straws beyond the last straw when it comes to Verisign.
      • Why? because you're to stupid to see the Verisign logo on the mailing they sent?

        http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/private_vsrn.asp?i sc =&se=%2B&from_app=&display=letter

        • Re:WTF? (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Why? because you're to stupid to see the Verisign logo on the mailing they sent?

          No, because the person who does the accounts receivable at my employer's office, and countless others like her, doesn't know Verisign from jack. All she knows is that we pay for our domain names, and if it's coming up that time again and she gets what appears to be a bill, she pays it.

          Yes, it says at the top "renewal and transfer form," but transfer of what? Funds? Again, she wouldn't know what domain transferring is, even if I explained it to her. She doesn't care, just like countless other accountants at other firms around the country like the one who employs me.

          This ad wasn't targeted at us. We know better. It was targeted at her.
          • "[If] the person who does the accounts receivable ... gets what appears to be a bill, she pays it."

            And this doesn't strike you as numerous problems?
            Receivables department paying bills?
            Clerk should be replaced with someone who pays attention to detail? I'm sure you could make a fortune just sending out bills to companies. Eventually, the Feds may come to your door (meet you at the po box or follow you to the bank) but there's got to be a fortune to be made from companies like yours!

    • Re:WTF? (Score:2)

      by swb ( 14022 )
      What the hell else do you expect at this point?

      I'd expect TV coverage of armed US Marshalls seizing computers, records and correspondence along with top Verisign officials being led off in handcuffs as part of a larger RICO investigation.

      • And I'd like a machine on my desk that makes me hot fudge sundaes at the push of a button, but I'm not going to get it.

        Too bad, really. I could use a hot fudge sundae.

        But really.. the punishment you speak only happens to 16 year old script kiddies, not big corporations with money to throw around. Don't you remember this is the good old U.S. of A?

  • See for yourself. (Score:5, Informative)

    by nobodyman ( 90587 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @11:30AM (#3530047) Homepage
    Pardon the whoring, but Go Daddy has posted a copy of the notice [godaddy.com] that Verisign sent out. It does seem fairly shady.

  • Verisign Practices... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by huckda ( 398277 )
    Assuming they are using the U.S. Mail service to solicit this false-renewl, are they not committing Mail Fraud? Or is it only fraud if they do not provide what they are offering and accept your money anyway?
  • BulkRegister Wins Preliminary Injunction Against VeriSign

    "The injunction against VeriSign is a definite victory for millions of domain name holders and fellow members of the domain industry," says BulkRegister's CEO Tom Cunningham. "BulkRegister is committed to seeing this matter resolved on behalf of our customers as well as the domain name community at large."

    http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020514/dctu071_1.html [yahoo.com]

    Although this ruling doesn't apply to all registrars, just bulkregister, the hope is that now that VeriSign has been warned, they'll stop what they're doing altogether.
  • I got one of these notices from them stating my domain was about to expire and I should renew. It made me stop and think for a moment, because I knew I wasn't registered through them (and I thought maybe it was sent on behalf of my registrar or something goofy), but then I realized they were just trying to get me to switch. Not really a tough decision on my part - stay with my current provider at $10/year or switch to them for $35/year.

  • I got taken by Verisign... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FearUncertaintyDoubt ( 578295 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @11:36AM (#3530084)
    I had a domain hosted by a company in india which registered the domain for me for 2 years. After a year, I transferred to a hosting company in the US. When the second year was up, I was thinking that I need to track down who the registrar is and renew, when I got a verisign e-mail saying I need to renew. Thinking that was convenient enough, I renewed with them. About a week after I did this I started to see all the articles on slashdot about domain slamming. I looked through some records and realized that Verisign was not my original registrar and they grifted me good, like Homer and the Cooders. I'd like to say I was beaten by the best, but...
    • My mom got taken in by this as well. What makes this even worse is by the time she let me know that she had "renewed" her domain name, Verisign/Network Solutions was already listed as the "registrar" for the domain. Apparently this happened WITHOUT the usual confirmation e-mail. Color me surprised, I thought it wasn't possible to switch registrars without going through the usual "This e-mail is being sent to confirm, please reply." stuff.
      • Actually, to transfer a registrar, techonolgy-wise, it's just a request to verisign. If someone worked at a registrar, it is the matter of making a request to verisign to say "bob.com is now mine, mark myregisrar.com as the registrar". Since verisign owns the central DB, they know when all .com/net/org domains expire.

        It is centralized around verisign. They just make registering domains a service that register.com, godaddy.com, etc.. all pay for to be registrars.
    • I cancelled my account with Verislime because of their deceptive and misleading practices. You should too.

      I did have to give up a domain name, but at least I don't have the headaches of dealing with a company that treats their customers like trash.

  • Will they go after the "your Internet connection is optimized" banners now?

  • It feels so good to break away from Verisign (Score:3, Informative)

    by twfry ( 266215 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @11:38AM (#3530098)
    I had my domain registered with Verisign for about 4 years and in that time I learned what a crappy company they are. I would get bills from them without warning for around $4 for ramdom "services" which I never signed up for. Worst of all it was impossible to get someone on the phone to correct problems. No joke, twice I've been on hold with them for 1+ hours only to be disconnected.

    The final straw for me was when I received a mailing from them advertising discount renewal rates. The only thing was that they were bogus. After spending lots of time on their website and email customer service, I releaized it wasn't going to happen.

    So I switched to directnic [directnic.com]. They're cheap, and the FAQ pages do an excelent job of explaining the domain transfew process which was a concern. So some other place out and get Verisign off of you back too. :)

  • A way to kill verisign (Score:5, Interesting)

    by acroyear ( 5882 ) <jws-slashdot@javaclientcookbook.net> on Thursday May 16, 2002 @11:41AM (#3530123) Homepage Journal
    Verisign is, by offering the 9-year plan, making similar mistakes to IBM when they sold instead of leased their mainframe hardware.

    So if everybody (who is a Verisign customer), were to go ahead and buy for 9 years, Verisign would actually see a good profit this year, then work that profit direction into future plans' budgets, only to have them fail utterly because nobody would be buying anything from them the next 3-8 years...

    Stock prices would drop. Execs would be canned. Heads would roll...

    "My God, it would be beautiful..."
    • Great plan ... pre pay for 9 years of service from a company with the hope of running them out of business in 3-8 years. Sign me up!!!
    • I think you're grossly overestimating the effect that would have on the execs. Unless by canned you mean, "Thanked heartily for making everyone in the know very, very rich, offered a hefty severence package and great references for their next executive position." The only heads rolling would be those of the laid off underlings.

  • VeriSign's even sleazier day was... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by afflatus_com ( 121694 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @11:47AM (#3530157) Homepage
    ..when they sold the email addresses of all their domain holders to the spammers (and spammers since they are of questionable legality then sold cheap knockoffs of the CDs to other spammers). Since the internic database of actual email addresses that their customers were using to be informed of changes/renewal notices to their domain names with them, it was an especially sleaze thing to do. I am glad that justice was delivered this time.

  • Someone needs to slap Versign and Network Solutions. Not only are they under handed and sneaky with the domain renewal notices but the hold on to expired domains for ever. I tried for 4 months to get a domain that expire in December, but they refused to take it out of the registry. Now they claimed that it might have something to do with a legal preceding but I am pretty sure that was complete bull because I worked for the company (now out of business) that had the domain name. All they are trying to do is get me to pay that extra hold fee for soon to be expire domain names. In other words they are holding the domain for randsome.

    Versign has a virtual monopoly now in certificate after buying their South African Competitor.

    Network Solutions is so easy to high jack domains from that it is a joke. Just send a fax or forged email.

    No, it's time to put Versign out of business. I am calling for all /.ers to boycott Versign....

  • they could stop all the 'deceptive practices' that spammers use.

    "you mean I can't make 500k at home and I can't get that free holiday if only I'd give my account details

    Seriously tho, if only people take some time to read what they're signing away to, instead of blaming everyone else.
    Yes, it's deceptive but it doesn't mean that it should negate your common sense.

  • I got one of these yesterday (Score:5, Informative)

    by Elkman ( 198705 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @11:49AM (#3530172) Homepage
    I got a "renewal" notice yesterday for two domains I have registered through register.com. I knew it was deceptive, but here's the interesting part: They apparently cross-referenced the name and address on those domains to the name and address of a domain I do have registered through VeriSign, and printed on the address: "Domain Administrator: (name of the organization registered through VeriSign)". However, the domains listed on the form were the ones I have registered through register.com.

    So, in other words, this little "renewal" notice made it appear like it was time for me to renew the domain registered through VeriSign, even though I really would have been transfering two other domains instead.

    VeriSign is evil and deserves to die. Apparently, their product can't compete on its own merits any more; they have to resort to deception to sell it.

  • Then they need to do the same thing to Domain Registrars of America, who uses the same practice.
    I have gotten three 'renewal' notices for different domains and I don't use them as a registrar. I also have a client who fell for this, their old registrar froze their domain on them becuase their e-mail was bad on their record, and the 'renewal'/transfer didn't go through. When confronted about the 'renewal' notice, they said that was just the way they 'worded' the advertisement. Yeah right.
  • Look at this crap these bozos spam me with. I include the headers for your MTA filtering pleasure.

    Return-Path:
    Received: from mail.hisensecomputer.com ([61.179.118.9])
    by Mail.fakedomain.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g48CYxA06163
    for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 08:35:01 -0400
    Message-Id:
    Received: from smtp0100.mail.yahoo.com (SAP11 [12.109.16.76]) by mail.hisensecomputer.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3)
    id KQFDA53C; Wed, 8 May 2002 20:34:07 +0800
    Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 05:20:29 -0700
    From: "Domain Name Registration"
    X-Priority: 3
    To: ashurbanipala1@computer.org
    Subject: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Regarding your domain name

    IMPORTANT NOTICE: Regarding your domain name

    * If you own a .com/.net/.org, you are advised to register
    your .ws "web site" domain before someone else takes it forever.

    * Major corporations such as Yahoo, ATT & Intel, have all
    registered their .ws "web site" domains for their company names
    as well as all their trademarks, to protect them forever.

    * .ws "web site" domains are in 180+ countries worldwide

    * Availability for .ws is ~88% compared to ~24% for .com

    We thought you'd find the article on .ws below interesting.
    If you want more information on where to register .ws "web site"
    domains, and how to get a discount on multiple registrations,
    give us a call at +1.888.660.0625.

    Also, if you would like to increase traffic to your web site,
    by submitting your URL to 500+ search engines and directories
    at once, then call us today.

    Sincerely,
    Joe & Stacy Morgan
    +1.888.660.0625
    Internet Names, LLC.

    NEWS RELEASE:
    .WS (WebSite) Domains Strikes Landmark Deal:

    GDI receives $2,250,860 for the rights to 311 "premium" .ws domain
    names.

    Last week, GDI (Global Domains International, Inc.), the registy for.ws
    "web site" domains, closed a deal with a large publicly traded company,
    one of the biggest players in the .com arena, and received payment in full
    of $2,250,860 for the rights to a select group of "premium" .ws domain
    names. The 311 domain names will be resold to the highest bidders and
    ultimately developed into substantial .ws web sites, giving .ws even more
    publicity down the road.
  • I had attempted to transfer a domain name out of their control last month. They never sent the acknowledgement confirmations, so the transfer was denied. I spoke with NetSol and they assured me it would work this time and to have the new registrar try again. I did so and nothing happened, so they tried once more. By this time, the domain had expired and NetSol refused to transfer it.

    I strongly suspect this is policy. Jerk folks around until they have to pay us for one more year.

    Who can be formally complained to about this? Is ICANN really involved in taking action against dirty players? Is there any recourse or any way around NetSol at this point? Now that the domain has expired, could I simply re-register with a different registrar?
  • In general, I'm pretty happy with most of VeriSign's services, even if they are a bit pricey.

    What really upsets me is that they're not just using deceptive renewal notices to trick other provider's customers, but they're also sending them out to their current users.

    I get e-mail/mail from VeriSign all the time warning me that I need to respond by a certain date or I'll lose my services. Nowhere in the notice does it have the actual date that the account expires. Looking at my own records or checking my account, I find out that the actual required date is weeks or even months after their "important notice" warns me to respond. I've become so accustomed to ignoring their mail, I've almost missed renewing a couple of (non-critical) domains.

    What's troubling is that they don't seem to realize just how stupid their strategy is -- it might be the only way an upstart provider could gain customers -- but they *are* the brand name in registrars. They should be so ahead of everyone else and be trying to capitalize on what's left of their legitimacy to build on trust and user loyalty, rather than acting like some fly-by-night spammer operating out of a rented basement apartment.

    Asinine stunts like this are destroying the only competitive advantage they really have. They should send someone to take a first year general business course, maybe that will help them get a clue.

  • ICANN / VeriSign (Score:4, Interesting)

    by poger67 ( 578647 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @12:19PM (#3530417)

    Besides the deceptive fake billing notices from VeriSign and other (American Registry?), VeriSign employs a few other sleezy tactics.

    I use OpenSRS for all my registrations, and one of my customers just lost control of his domain name to VeriSign (who also stripped his e-mail, name and company name off of the domain record - and when he called VeriSign they denied any knowledge of them having the domain in their system - even though whois clearly showed it!) Anway, someone in his office paid the "invoice", thus initiating the transfer. The real registrar (OpenSRS) sends out an e-mail to the admin contact notifiying him of the transfer and providing a link and a password to approve the transfer. Unfortunately, ICANN rules state that if you do nothing in 5 days (i.e. specifically deny the transfer), that lack of action in 5 days counts as an acknowledgement to approve the transfer! Bang - bye bye domain name.

    Another customer got his renewl notice from VeriSign (a legit one), paid it via credit card, and 4 days AFTER he paid it, VeriSign sold his name to a company in Taiwan. Now VeriSign is telling him there's no way to get the domain back. Argh..

    And my final vent on VeriSign. I was watching a domian that expired in March 2000 on their system. I had opened up 3 separate trouble tickets with VeriSign in an attempt to get them to release the domain so I could buy it. Not once did I ever get a response back on one of my trouble tickets. I checked the domain for release almost every day - until one day I see that's it's now owned by a company in Taiwan who is just simply reselling it now for $1500.

    • I had opened up 3 separate trouble tickets with VeriSign in an attempt to get them to release the domain so I could buy it.

      Thus letting them know of your intense interest and that the domain must be valuable, motivating them to make a backdoor deal with someone who would pay more. You'd have been better off writing a script to beat on their server until it became available, and immediately email or page you.

      • I think they dumped off a ton of unpaid domains to some other company (or, uberparanoia - to another company they secretly own...) to generate cash. I think I read they laid off about 45% of their workforce, and that their profits were down like 60%. If those numbers are correct, I can see how a serious influx of cash would look tempting for them.

        What really gets me though is that I was willing to pay their price for that domain 2 years ago and they didn't want my money then! It wasn't a high profile domain either (beervana.com).

  • He fell for it (I think I'll be sending him all sorts of offers now :)

    He called Verisign and Register.com and got the domain name sorted out, but Verisign has been giving him the runaround for months about refunding his money (fool sent a check in).

    They were even gonna deduct $4 for a processing fee for the refund.
  • They'll get their wrists slapped, change their tactics slightly, and continue pushing the boundaries of the law. The penalties aren't severe enough to warrant changing their behavior.
  • I've gotten several of these myself. Since they were kind enough to but a PAID return envelope, I filled it with other junk mailers (none that have any way to identify me) and sent it merilly back. Maybe if it costs them enough, they will think about it next time. With our luck, it will be a spam attack though...

  • If you got one of these... (Score:5, Informative)

    by D_Nebuchadnezzar ( 569870 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @12:55PM (#3530710)
    What Verisign did was fraud... Fraud, Fraud, Fraud! They sent out "Domain Name Renewal Notices" -- a bill, and it can be infered that it is expected for you to pay.

    Take 5 minutes, right now, and fill out complaint forms on the following websites:
    1. BBB.org [bbb.org]
    2. FTC [ftc.gov]
    3. USPS [usps.com] Post Master [usps.com]
    Tell these agencies what you received. Send a message to Verisign that we will not put up with this bull crap
  • yea sure they'll get "smacked down hard" for this. i fluffy pat on the wrists is what they'll get. damn the man!

  • I have to admit that I fell for Verisign's mailer and I gave them permission to "renew" (transfer) one of my domains. I have a few with Verisign already, which is why I got duped, but this particular one wasn't.

    The great thing was that the registrar with whom my domain was actually hosted (Tucows) sent me an e-mail asking for my permission to release the domain. Realizing I had fallen prey to Verisign's schemes, I replied that I do not give permission.

    The transfer didn't occur and I kept my money.

    • Luckily you responded to it - if you had let that authorization from Tucows sit for 5 days, ICANN rules that you HAVE acknowledged the transfer and it would have been moved to VeriSign.

  • If you want more customers, instead of using trickery and underhandedness, why don't you try offering your customers the same, or better, quality and benefits as all your competitors?

    Verisign's service sucks when compared to offerings from other companies, like address forwarding, email accounts, etc. I am aware that you can do these things with Verisign, but they want to nickel and dime you to death (which is why I switched to another company). Other organizations give you these services for the price of signing up; as it should be.
  • I removed all identifying items and sent it back to them (including the orig envelope) in the no postage required envelope that they (stupidly) provided. Hopefully they get enough of them it will cost them a bundle!
  • Verisign isn't the only company doing this. I occasionally get faxes marked urgent, telling me my domain name is going to expire, and I can renew it by calling this number (I forget the company). I get letters from Register.com warning me my domains are going to expire, and that I should renew with them. I get them from some other companies, but I throw them away and I don't remember who they were.

    Someone else commented about Verisign's service regarding address forwarding and email accounts. I couldn't care less about those services. I bought a domain name and I use an ISP to host it. I get web space, email accounts, etc. Why would you want to use a registrar for this?

    I have four domains with Verisign and haven't had any problems with them. I don't get any renewal letters until my domains are about to expire, I haven't had any strange bills.

    There are plenty of other registrars out there besides Verisign that are involved in sleazy activity. Just because they are a rather large company doesn't mean they are evil.
  • Register.com does the exact same thing. I have a domain registered with Verisign that is coming due next month. I received mail from Register.com that states in big letters:

    "You must renew your domain name" (then in smaller letters) "...or you could lose it. We've made it easy for you, and included a transfer offer that could save you over $90."

    Just as bad...
  • I'm posting this on behalf of a reporter who is working on a story about these types of scams. He is particularly interested in people who have been scammed by Canadian registrars or Canadians who have been scammed by the following:
    • Verisign
    • Courtesy Support Team
    • Domain Registry of Canada
    • Domain Registry of America
    • Internet Registry of Canada
    • Internet Registry of America

    If you are Canadian who has been scammed, or if you have been scammed by a Canadian domain registrar, please click here to contact him by e-mail [mailto] or use the following address (remove the spaces):
    S K 1 @canada .com

    (Don't reply to me). Thanks.

    • This is an interesting question. How many of the companies that do this are Canadian vs. American registrars? Are the fraud laws different enough in Canada and the USA that they make a difference?

      Setting aside the sheer ratio of companies compared to population, I am surprised I haven't heard of Canadian scams like this.

      Tucows has a reseller program and is definitely one of the bigger registrars and it is Canadian. But I haven't heard of any of these scams from their resellers.

      All of the problems seem to come from American registrars like Bulkregister, eNom and other ones that seem to be preferred by cybersquatters.

      Meanwhile, anecdotally, there seems to be a higher ratio of cybersquatters in emerging East Asian markets like Korea and Hong Kong.

      Are the domain scamming and cybersquatting interlinked?

      Does anyone have any info on any of this?

  • Godaddy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rsd1s1g ( 519812 )
    I use godaddy and I love it. Its cheap, a good POS, and here [godaddy.com] is a copy of the notice.
  • Seems like Verisign might have already moved on to their next technique for tricking people back into their lackluster service. Today I received a phone call from a Verisign rep that wanted to tell me all about their great new priority support phone number for very important clients like me that have many domains with Verisign. Of course I listened intently because I was too shocked to do anything else! Verisign promoting the fact that they even have a phone number?!?!? This must be a dream? Then after telling me all about this great new level of support service that Verisign would be providing to me as long time valued client, he would be glad to help me renew my domains that were about to expire while I was on the phone rather than having to go through the web site(!). He listed several domains, all of which had already been transferred to another registrar, none of which were about to expire.

    What a deal! Where do I sign?

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close