Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    Verisign/NSI VeriSign still locking domains/ICANN diverting complaints
    posted by michael on Friday February 01 2002, @04:21PM

    consumernet writes "Veri$ign (formerly Network Solutions) is still locking domains for those that want to transfer out. Now they aren't even manually processing the complaints any more. ICANN won't enforce the agreement .... and there is nobody else to file a complaint with. Below is an ICANN reconsideration request I just filed."

    -----Original Message-----
    From: admin@consumer.net [mailto:admin@consumer.net]
    Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 6:09 PM
    To: 'reconsider@icann.org'

    I am seeking a reconsideration request for the actions, or more appropriately, inaction by a member of the ICANN staff Dam Halloran as well as general ICANN policy for handling complaints from individual domain registrants. I am a reseller and provide domain registration services at TheNIC.com. The actions (and inactions) by the ICANN have served to allowed both the VeriSign Registrar and Registry (formerly Network Solutions) to disrupt competitors of the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) including my business as well as domain holders.

    The issue concerning Dan Halloran is his refusal to enforce the registrar transfer procedures described in the letter from Louis Touton to Ms. Russo of the VeriSign Registry:

    Mr. Halloran has received hundreds of complaints and has verified that the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) has not followed the procedures outlined in the ICANN agreement and the letter above. Specifically, the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) denies all transfers if they, as the losing registrar, claim they did not receive a properly processed authorization request.

    This placed a tremendous burden on registrars competing with the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) since the administrative work was substantially more in these cases. While this situation has lasted many months, in the past the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) has provided a contact of someone who processed requests manually. Now the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) has provided a new contact for such manual submissions (denab@verisign.com). However, requests to process the transfers manually are not completed and e-mail sent to this address is not answered. According to a telephone conversation with Christine Russo, Manager, Contracts and Compliance VeriSign Global Registry Services, she stated she was unable to take any action against the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) and could probably not find out who at the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) who could manually transfer locked domains that should have been transferred to another registrar under the rules.

    The second issue concerns the overall ICANN policy at http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi

    The policy states:

    “If you cannot resolve your complaint with the registrar, you should address it to private-sector agencies involved in addressing customer complaints or governmental consumer-protection agencies. (The appropriate agency will vary depending on the jurisdiction of the registrar and the customer.) …. ICANN does not resolve individual customer complaints. ICANN is a technical-coordination body. Its primary objective is to coordinate the Internet's system of assigned names and numbers to promote stable operation.”

    Diverting domain name consumers to “other” private or governmental agencies is not practicable or reasonable in most cases. The majority of complaints involve issues that solely relate to domain names and few, if any, other agencies or organization would be able to help with, or even understand, the issues involved. Further, if action is to be taken, it is ICANN or the VeriSign registry who would take such action in almost all cases. Since the majority of complaints involve the VeriSign Registrar if is not reasonable to expect the VeriSign registry to take any action against their sister company. Therefore, ICANN is the only possible agency or organization who can assist with these matters and is the only party who can enforce the contracts ICANN has with the registrars and registry. This task falls well within “coordinate[ion] the Internet's system of assigned names and numbers to promote stable operation.”

    I am requesting that ICANN require the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) to comply with the register transfers rules. I am also requesting ICANN to provide reasonable information to domain registrations who wish to file a complaint and set up system within ICANN to process and resolve such complaints as well as taking enforcement action when the complaints involve enforcing the ICANN contracts.

    Russ Smith

      ICANNWatch Login  


    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

      Related Links  
  • TheNIC.com
  • http://www.icann.org/correspon dence/touton-to-russo-27aug01. htm
  • http://www.internic.net/cgi/re gistrars/problem-report.cgi
  • consumer.net
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    VeriSign still locking domains/ICANN diverting complaints | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 9 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: VeriSign still locking domains/ICANN diverting
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday February 01 2002, @07:19PM (#4791)
    User #2810 Info
    Russ Smith of consumer.net writes:
    Diverting domain name consumers to “other” private or governmental agencies is not practicable or reasonable in most cases. The majority of complaints involve issues that solely relate to domain names and few, if any, other agencies or organization would be able to help with, or even understand, the issues involved.
    I wouldn't be so quick to give up on the US Federal Trade Commission. Their record includes actions regarding...

    1. The pagejacking exploit (1999) I mentioned here in my XXX-piring namespace submission.

    2. The domain name monitoring faux fax. (2001).

    3. The internic.com scam (1999).

    4. John Zuccarini, the prolific typosquatter (2001).

    That's just a few of the more high profile cases which involve the DNS in some fashion. The FTC Staff was also on the record urging competition for Network Solutions at the registry level back in 1998. The FTC has shown a willingness to act in many such situations, more importantly it has shown that it is sophisticated enough to understand the issues involved.

    Admittedly the above examples were against fringe players, but if the FTC were to receive hundreds of complaints (surely not hard to imagine) about 800 pound gorilla Veri$ign, they could either choose to act or face having to explain why they are not acting. The ICANN forums are full of fed up customers, I wonder how many of them have bothered to file an online complaint using the prominent link off the FTC home page.

    Your letter raises a point that I think is crucial. Is ICANN some self-regulating trade association that accepts responsibility for its accredited agents? ICANN's statements and actions to date leave that open to interpretation. ICANN is long overdue to delineate in which areas it will, or wishes to, be primarily responsible for its agents' actions, and in which areas it denies responsibility, so that other agencies can then accept, or be asked or made to accept, responsibility. If ICANN continues to be obtuse it is up to the USG (and/or the courts) to step in with explicit guidelines. Personally, given ICANN's actions in various areas to date, I think the less they are responsible for, the better. Regardless, if ICANN can't or won't act, the government must, and the FTC's record to date isn't too shabby. As long as this isn't spelled out one way or the other by one body or the other, consumers will continue to fall through the cracks. Responsibility shared too often means responsibility denied. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: VeriSign still locking domains/ICANN diverting
    by Consumernet on Saturday February 02 2002, @02:24AM (#4795)
    User #2897 Info
    Under the rules VeriSign (formerly Network Solutions) has a right to review the authorization that was obtained from the new (winning) registrar. It is my understanding that VeriSign (formerly Network Solutions) has full access to these authorizations

    VeriSign (formerly Network Solutions) then essentially says "that is not good enough" and uses their own authorization system in addition to the one used by the "winning registrar." This causes a number of problems:

    -VeriSign (formerly Network Solutions) puts a time limit on the response (now 3 days, it was shorter). Many people have claimed they did within the time limit but it still resulted in rejections

    -VeriSign (formerly Network Solutions) process adds a couple of days to the process causing some domains to expire that otherwise would have been processed [btw VeriSign (formerly Network Solutions) has informed me that a domain expires at 12:01 AM on the date listed in the WHOIS. If the request comes in 1 second after that it is automatically locked.

    -Batch requests often require a single approval from the winning registrar if the domains all have the same owner. VeriSign (formerly Network Solutions) requires the owner to process each and every one individually. In the case I am dealing with now they overflowed the admin contact's e-mail box so the authorizations could not be completed and then they expired and were locked on the second attempt.

    -I have been receiving complaints that the e-mail renewal notices from VeriSign (formerly Network Solutions) are coming right before expiration so there is often little time to complete a transfer.

    I have to contact them just about every day for some problem. Now they no longer respond to these requests which is why I insist ICANN take action to enforce the agreements.

    Russ Smith

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: VeriSign still locking domains/ICANN diverting
    by Consumernet on Saturday February 02 2002, @04:01AM (#4797)
    User #2897 Info
    Look what I just found about VeriSign:

    BBB Reliability Report

    Veri Sign, Inc.
    487 E Middlefield Rd
    Mountain View, CA 94043

    General Information

    Principal: Vincent Walcott
    Phone Number: (888) 642-9675
    Type-of-Business Classification:

    Customer Experience

    Our file experience shows that the company has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau.Specifically, our records show a pattern of non-response to consumer complaints brought to its attention by the Bureau.

    Additional Information

    Additional Addresses: 1350 Charleston Rd, Mountain View, CA 94043
    Additional Phone Numbers: 650-429-3377

    Report as of 02/02/2002
    Copyright 2002 Better Business Bureau of Silicon Valley, Inc.

    As a matter of policy, the Better Business Bureau does not endorse any product, service or company. BBB reports generally cover a three-year reporting period, and are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information contained herein is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy. Reports are subject to change at any time.

    The Better Business Bureau reports on members and non-members. Membership in the BBB is voluntary, and members must meet and maintain BBB standards. If a company is a member of this BBB, it is stated in this report.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com