<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Verisign spamming domain name registrants??
Why, if it is unique and targeted to the registrant, is it 'bulk' in any
meaningful way?
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, George Kirikos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> According to the ICANN Board's WLS decision (which is subject to
> ongoing appeals, however):
>
> "(d) ...there shall be an effective mechanism for actively notifying
> the current domain-name holder upon the placing of a WLS subscription
> on the name..."
>
> (from http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-02jun03.htm )
>
> If that notification is provided by email, doesn't that constitute
> Unsolicited Bulk Email? Certainly Verisign has no pre-existing business
> relationship with a significant number of the folks who would receive
> those notifications. Many want nothing to do with Verisign. It shall be
> interesting to see how residents of Washington and other strong
> anti-spam states will react, when they can take Verisign to court for
> possibly spamming them, or whether the "real-time blocking systems"
> will "BlackHole" Verisign's servers for spamming.
>
> As resellers and registrars, we'll need to explain to *our* clients
> exactly what these notifications mean, raising our support costs. Will
> we be compensated in any way by Verisign? And, most of us value our
> time at more than what Verisign pays its "world class" support
> personnel in the Philippines....
>
> Anyone who has had experience with the various companies who send out
> phony renewals notices knows exactly what I'm talking about.
> Furthermore, clients will assume that *we* provided their contact
> details for these unsolicited messages, which in many ways constitute
> crafty marketing. A client who owns more than one domain might feel
> *compelled* to purchase "protective" WLS subscriptions due to the Fear,
> Uncertainty and Doubt created by receiving a notification that someone
> anonymous has purchased a WLS subscription on one of their names. If
> you received an official-looking notification in the mail that someone
> had bought a life insurance policy that paid them $1,000,000 if *your*
> house burned down, wouldn't you be asking a lot of questions, and
> possibly taking precautions to protect yourself and your loved ones?
>
> Furthermore, Verisign does not even know what language(s) the domain
> registrants prefer correspondence, as they have no business
> relationship with the registrant. A client who does not understand
> English will easily be confused by the meaning of a notification sent
> by Verisign about their domain name if it is sent only in English. They
> might even wonder if their Registrar has gone out of business,
> wondering why they are receiving mail from Verisign instead. Some
> clients might even be visually impaired, and need correspondence in
> Braille. With no pre-existing business relationship, Verisign will not
> know these things, paying attention to the important "localizations"
> that registrars and resellers do day-in and day-out for *their*
> clients.
>
> It is even possible that Verisign will send these "notifications" by
> regular postal mail, instead of e-mail. I think many registrars will
> not appreciate having Verisign contacting their clients by mail, and
> will be accused by numerous clients of having sold their contact
> details for bulk mailings. Verisign has been in trouble in the past for
> sending out deceptive mail, for instance
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,101729,00.asp
>
> How does Verisign get around the fact that in order to send
> notifications, they will likely need to mine contact details from port
> 43 WHOIS? That WHOIS, even in bulk form at $10,000 per year (which I
> doubt Verisign has purchased from all ICANN-registrars), has stringent
> terms of use forbidding unsolicited bulk use, except for its own
> customers. With Verisign and its partners projecting millions of WLS
> subscriptions, I think that qualifies as "bulk", and a significant
> chunk of those are *not* Verisign customers.
>
> Any other party who mined WHOIS to send out informational notices, such
> as political messages, warnings to boycott various companies (e.g. 10
> million emails saying "Verisign sucks!" or "ICANN Rules" (as if...))
> would be in hot water. How is it Verisign receives preferential
> treatment, vis-a-vis others who wish to send out comparable
> "information notices"??
>
> Is it because there's a "consensus policy" ordering Registrars to abide
> by WLS, and turn a blind eye to the above abuse of their customer data?
> As ICANN's response to the Dotster Reconsideration Request admitted:
>
> http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-5.htm
>
> there *is* no consensus policy *for* WLS. Indeed, there was a consensus
> vote *against* WLS. Somehow ICANN thought they can sneak this through,
> violating consensus, but their admission of violating consensus will
> come back to haunt them and Verisign soon enough...
>
> I think ICANN and Verisign can expect to see challenges soon based on
> the above, as part of broader attacks on WLS which will include
> anti-trust and violation of registrar contracts, in order to protect
> consumers and registrars from this violation of the Consensus Policy
> against WLS that ICANN's Board ignored, at their own peril.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
--
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's hot here.<--
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|