Talk:Domain name scam

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Domain name scam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The same scammers appears to be run under various names:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Various domains:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

If you are aware of any additional ones, please add them. --Hm2k (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Virtually all of those are resellers of Brandon Gray Internet Services. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Persistent vandalism

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article semi-protected. --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Negative bias article

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

After reading this article on Domain Registry of America and others, I find it to be written with extreme negative bias. I know the company has been in business for over 11 years and manages hundreds of thousands of domains worldwide. I am certain that there must be some positive information that can be written about this company as I am yet to see 1 actual complaint about their products or services anywhere on the web.

For example I just read the article on Bell Canada. In case you are not aware, they just pled guilty to misleading advertising which is a criminal offence and paid a record fine of $100 million as a penalty. This is not the first time Bell Canada has been found guilty of fraudulent acts, yet when you read their wiki, there is no mention of it or any other bad actions that the company has taken. I also looked at Microsoft, which I am sure you are aware paid Euros$650 million is fines along with others, but once again no mention on the wiki article.

While Domain Registry of America is not the size of Microsoft or Bell Canada, it is a very large company with hundreds of thousands of customers worldwide and it along with others has had its differences with the regulartory bodies, but like other companies it has resolved them.

It is unfair that entire Domain Registry of America page forwards to a heading of "domain slamming". A wikipedia article should be informative, and provide all the available information regarding a company, not just the negative.

In case you are not aware there was a process introduced by ICANN in 2004 which requires authorization codes in order for a domain to be transferred between Registrars so "domain slamming" is a process that can no longer be carried out by anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.106.226 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is no evidence to suggest that Domain Registry of America is notable for anything besides domain slamming, nor is there any evidence to suggest that domain slamming is no longer possible. --Hm2k (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

There actually is an entire wikipedia page on transfer codes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_secret

Other domain name companies like Enom, do not have anything notable yet they have a wiki ariticle that is not written with bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.87.177 (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

eNom does not engage in domain slamming and is notable independently of any other subject, which is why it has it's own article. The Transfer secret does not mention 2004, nor that it has stopped domain slamming. --Hm2k (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Multiple concerns

Looking through this article, it seems to me that there are a couple of issues here. First, I have to agree that there are NPOV concerns. For example, Liberty Names of America redirects here, but our source actually says that they are not guilty of domain slamming (though the source does say they are engaging in sleazy marketing). So, both the redirect and the section here have NPOV problems and are potentially libellous. Second, the one sentence section on "New Zealand Domain Registration Ltd" is copied verbatim from the source.

I haven't looked hard at the rest of the article, but it seems a major overhaul is needed here.--Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Although the sofixit template still applies, I've addressed the two issues you mentioned. I advice you look hard at the entire article, rather of the two smallest sections before advising a "major overhaul". --Hm2k (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Maybe "major overhaul" is too strong. You've made a good start, and I look forward to working with you to improve the article.--Kubigula (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

ICANN page to stop unauthorized transfers

"Domain Slamming" is a slang term for "unauthorized transfers" and therefore you will never see an "official" article from any governing body saying they have stopped "domain slamming". Please see the enclosed ICANN page about stopping unauthorized tranfers: http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/epp-status-codes-30jun11-en.pdf I can tell you that these "EPP Codes" came into effect in 2004 and there can and has never been an instance of "domain slamming" or an "unauthorized transfer" since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.87.177 (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I was able to add additional details to the article about "unauthorized transfers" helping to prevent domain slamming. I did not however find any evidence to suggest that it had "stopped", while there is plenty of evidence to suggest that scam notices are still being received, which means that domain slamming is still being attempted.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--Hm2k (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

For someone who knows how to write, it appears you are having difficulty reading or never took the time to read any advertisements by Domain Registry of America. A simple read of any solictations sent by Domain Registry clearly state "now is the time to transfer your domain name from your current Registrar to Domain Registry of America" on the first line...is that your idea of slamming? How much more clear can the purpose of the advertisement be? A child with a grade 4 education can understand exactly what that means. So please tell me what "scam" notices you are referring to? The Federal Trade Commission, Canadian Competition Bureau, and British ASA have all been sent copies of these solicitations for their review because of people like yourself who somehow conclude its a "scam", and all these agencies have confirmed that they meet their standards. Between the wording of all the advertisements sent by Domain Registry of America and ICANN's authorization code system, even if someone were to make a mistake and inadvertently attempt to transfer their name, ICANN's system ensures it cannot happen. If you are that concerned; register a name with any Registrar and then try to transfer it to another and you will see for yourself how difficult a procedure it is and you will be satisfied that "domain slamming" is impossible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.87.177 (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

In 2009 in the UK, ASA issued an adjudication on Domain Registry of America for misleading direct mailings, there are reports in the article that shows this continues in 2010. In 2011, I see users are still receiving these direct mailings so I have no reason to believe domain slamming attempts have stopped. --Hm2k (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are correct, the "ASA" looked into the mailings after 3 people complained...must have been 3 people like you who are competitors to Domain Registry of America. I believe you live in the UK and you should know that the ASA is NOT a regulatory body, rather an "independant watchdog" just like the BBB (Better Business Bureau) in North America. Are you aware that companies that pay the BBB get and "A" rating and those that do not get an "F" rating, therefore we rely on actual regulatory bodies to do their jobs and regulate. Since you must know, the company spoke and resolved the ASA's concerns, but of course you would need proof of that, so I suggest you contact them to satisfy your concerns as you clearly have plenty of time on your hands to deal with nonsense like this.

The company has sent out over 10 million solicitations in the UK over the past 8 years and a whopping 3 people complained, 2 of which said the toll free number didnt work...and for that reason you have concluded its a "scam". It is crystal clear that your motive for doing this is something other than making a partial "POV" on wikipedia and your actions must be stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.87.177 (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is becoming quite clear there is a conflict of interest. To resolve this, it would be wise to declare your interest. --Hm2k (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Name change

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I think the recent name change by Hm2k is probably a step in the right direction, as the scope of the article went beyond just domain slamming. However, I think we may be in danger of blurring too many concepts in one article - "Domain name registration scams", "Domain name renewal scams" and "Domain slamming" (which seems to be a subset of "Domain name renewal scams"). I'm not really sure why the two scams should be lumped together in one article, and, other than in the lede, we do not discuss the concept of domain name registration scams.

So, I propose to rename the article to Domain name renewal scams, which I think properly encompasses all the current content without the distraction of an essentially unrelated scam. Any objections?--Kubigula (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Until the "Domain name registration scams" expands, I think we are safe to assume they can be bundled into this one article. You'll also note that the OFT is quite happy to bundle them together on one page, so I'm happy to stick to this convention. The definition of "domain slamming" has become woolly anyway so it made sense to broaden the article to include related scams together. --Hm2k (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

But why should they be bundled into this one article? OFT doesn't have much content as to either scam, so I guess it makes sense for them to bundle them together on one page. However, we have a lot of content about one scam and almost zero about the other, so it does not make editorial sense to bundle them.--Kubigula (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I hope to expand the article into registration scams and web directory scams. The companies outlined in this article partake in these activities, so it makes sense to bundle them together under one title. This article is still finding it's feet really. Technically these are all "direct mailing scams", but I'm not sure that would be a more suitable title either. Give it time to mature a bit. --Hm2k (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

BLP

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I point out that living persons can not be accused on Wikipedia of criminal or even unethical behavior with multiple fully reliable sources. Please,everyone, be sure this is true in every case. This applies to talk pages also. I have accordingly removed a part of section one of this talk page. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can't see anywhere in the WP:BLP article that suggests you cannot reference people who have been accused of criminal or unethical behaviour with reliable sources. Please can you clarify. --Hm2k (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think they meant to write without multiple fully reliable sources. Their follow-up sentence seems to suggest as much. 89.217.186.193 (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Source info copied from my talk page

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Domain Scams edit:

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/03052.html#tab6

Alan Benlolo, Elliot Benlolo, Simon Benlolo, Victor Serfaty, Yellow Business Pages.com and Yellow Business Directory.com

Date: 2004-03-23 and 2004-10-01 Event: Convictions and Sentences Court: Ontario Court of Justice Court File Number: F871/02 Accused – individuals: Alan Benlolo, Elliot Benlolo and Simon Benlolo of Thornhill, Ontario and Victor Serfaty of Toronto, Ontario. Provision(s): 52 (1) of the Competition Act – False or misleading representations Product: Internet business directory

Summary: On April 23, 2004 a jury found Alan and Elliot Benlolo guilty on 10 counts under the false or misleading representations provisions of the Competition Act (Section 52). Also convicted were Victor Serfaty on eight counts and Simon Benlolo on two counts for their involvement in a Yellow Pages scam.

The individuals sent out mail pieces that falsely appeared to be bills or invoices from Bell Canada or Yellow Pages, when in fact they were solicitations to have the recipients' business details appear in Internet-based directories operating under the names Yellow Business Pages.com and Yellow Business Directory.com. Between May and December 2000, they sent the mail pieces to approximately 900,000 businesses and non-profit organizations in Canada and generated sales of over $1 million.

The Competition Bureau received more than 4,400 complaints about the phoney invoices which asked recipients to send either $25.52 or $37.40 to a postal box in Toronto.

On October 1, 2004, Madam Justice Molloy of the Ontario Superior Court sentenced Alan and Elliot Benlolo to three years in federal penitentiary and a $400,000 fine each for their involvement in the scam. Victor Serfaty received a 18-month conditional jail sentence (including six months house arrest), 100 hours of community service and a $15,000 fine. Simon Benlolo received a nine-month conditional jail sentence (including three months house arrest) and a $100,000 fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.6.130 (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/law-firms-put-go-daddy-notice-registration-abuses
Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Brandon Gray resellers and entities, reliable sources

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here are four reliable sources (ICANN and court documents) that go into the connection between Brandon Gray and some of its resellers and entities: NameJuice.com,^[1] Internet Registry of Canada (IROC),^[2]^[3] Domain Registry of America (DROA),^[3]^[4]^[2] Domain Registry of Canada (DROC),^[3]^[4]^[2] Registration Services Inc. (RSI),^[4] Domain Registry Services (DRS),^[4] Domain Renewal Group (DRG),^[4] Yellow Business^[2]

References

^ Stathos, Amy (24 October 2008). "Response to Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Request" (PDF). ICANN. p. 1. Retrieved 2 September 2014.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Brandon Gray v. CIRA, CV-10-0100675-00, pages 11-19 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 9 September 2010).
^ ^a ^b ^c Brandon Gray v. CIRA, CV-10-0100675-00, pages 5-7 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 7 October 2010).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Smigelski, Owen (18 July 2014). "Notice of Breach - Brandon Gray (IANA 636) - Final (public)" (PDF). ICANN. p. 2. Retrieved 2 September 2014.

--82.136.210.153 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Domain name scams. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://comingsoon.tucows.com/.court_case/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Domain name scams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Domain name scams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[ICANN_2008-10-24-1] Stathos, Amy (24 October 2008). "Response to Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Request" (PDF). ICANN. p. 1. Retrieved 2 September 2014.

[OSCoJ_2010-09-09-2] Brandon Gray v. CIRA, CV-10-0100675-00, pages 11-19 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 9 September 2010).

[OSCoJ_2010-10-07-3] Brandon Gray v. CIRA, CV-10-0100675-00, pages 5-7 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 7 October 2010).

[ICANN_2014-07-18-4] Smigelski, Owen (18 July 2014). "Notice of Breach - Brandon Gray (IANA 636) - Final (public)" (PDF). ICANN. p. 2. Retrieved 2 September 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]