ICANN and Verisign .com deal

[George Toft]

Anyone know if the FTC/USPS ever followed through with mail fraud 
prosecution against Verisign? 
http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/1441651


http://www.pageweb.com/domain-scams/ indicates other registrars are 
doing the same thing - not just Verisign.


George Toft, CISSP, MSIS
My IT Department
www.myITdepartmentAZ.com
480-544-1067

In business, there are always problems.  It's how they are handled
that makes a difference.  Are you happy with your IT Manager?


Steve Phariss wrote:
> I Forgot about the Domain name thing.  I am fixing to send my Snail Mail
> versions out and will add this to it.
> 
> 
> On Wed, March 15, 2006 6:15 pm, Mike wrote:
> 
>>I'm surprised this didn't also mention their mail fraud advertising
>>strategy. I remember getting an obfuscated  'Domain Name Expiration
>>Notice,' where they ask for 'renewal' which ultimately ends up in you
>>unknowingly transferring your domain to them. I knew it was a scam but I
>>wonder how many people didn't.
>>
>>Here's an example of the letter
>>http://www.proper.com/ICANN-notes/VeriSign-deception.html
>>
>>The only 'sweet deal' Verisign deserves is a fine and some time behind
>>bars given their track record.
>>
>>-Mike
>>
>>Steve Phariss wrote:
>>
>>>I just learned that ICANN and verisign have penned a deal giving
>>>verisign
>>>a sweetheart deal for .com registrations.  This deal is still subject to
>>>the Commerce department approval. Here is the letter I sent (hard copy
>>>and
>>>via the online forms) to my representatives:
>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>Dear __________:
>>>
>>>I am amazed and disheartened about the recently approved .COM registry
>>>agreement and settlement between ICANN and VeriSign. This agreement is
>>>anti-competitive and bad for consumers, small business, and the Internet
>>>community as a whole.
>>>
>>>The agreement provides VeriSign with the ability to increase prices by
>>>7%
>>>annually in four of the next six years without cost justification.
>>>Furthermore, under the agreement, VeriSign's monopoly would run in
>>>perpetuity as the agreement would automatically renew without the
>>>opportunity for competitive bidding. VeriSign and ICANN should not be
>>>allowed to establish a perpetual monopoly without Congressional
>>>oversight
>>>and the opportunity for input from the Internet community.
>>>
>>>Verisign has also, in the past, proven that they do not care about the
>>>well being of the internet.  In September of 2003, verisign
>>>"commandeered"
>>>all misspelled and non-existant URL's.  See this link to the original
>>>advisory. http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-19sep03.htm
>>>
>>>Verisign was forced to back down, however they have made several
>>>attempts
>>>to reintroduce this "service".  My question is simple, should a monopoly
>>>be allowed to be granted to a company with a proven track record of
>>>disdain for the industry they purport to represent?
>>>
>>>As your constituent, I want to make you aware that the ICANN Board has
>>>approved this anti-competitive agreement on February 28th, 2006. The
>>>next
>>>step is for the NTIA to approve the deal. I urge you to bring our
>>>concerns
>>>to the attention of the NTIA.
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>
>>>--
>>>Benjamin Franklin once wrote, "Those who would give up essential
>>>Liberties
>>>for a measure of Security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security!"
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------
>>>PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
>>>http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------
>>PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
>>http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>
> 
> 
>