VeriSign is often criticised for acting as both registry and
registrar. As registry, it controls the database for every domain
name ending .com, .net and, for the time being, .org. Every seller
of domain names – the registrars – must pay a fee to VeriSign for
each name sold or renewed. Controversially, VeriSign also operates
as a registrar – giving it a competitive advantage over other
registrars.
The marketing campaign at the heart of the lawsuit began in
April 2002. VeriSign sent "Expiration Notices" to domain name
owners, including customers of BulkRegister, which had a "deadline"
for reply of 15th May 2002, with the implication that the domain
name was about to expire.
However, BulkRegister argues that there was no relation between
the reply deadline and the actual expiration date of the domain. In
a statement, the company said:
"The notice appears to be an invoice of $29
dollars to renew each domain, more than double BulkRegister's
wholesale rates. The unsuspecting recipient would not only be
paying significantly more money for a premature renewal, but would
also be approving the transfer of their domain to VeriSign, which
could result in loss of domain name service (DNS) services
associated with the domain as well as differences in quality
customer support offered by BulkRegister."
BulkRegister is seeking a temporary restraining order and
injunction against VeriSign in a Maryland court. A hearing on the
matter is scheduled for today.
In March, a similar marketing campaign led to accusations of
illegal conduct against VeriSign by a smaller registrar, Go Daddy
Software, although legal action was not taken. Instead, the
President of the company, Bob Parsons, appealed to his customers to
complain both to VeriSign and to ICANN, the internet’s supervisory
body to which VeriSign is answerable.
