Archive

Posts Tagged ‘network solutions’

Millions of Network Solutions Parked Pages Were Serving Malware

August 16th, 2010

Armorize, a web security company, reported on their blog today that Network Solutions had been displaying a widget box that contains malware.  The company was notified and quickly remedied the parking pags.  Based on a yahoo search only, there are over 5 million domain names with NSI parked landers that may have been affected by this drive by malware.


Continue Reading at Source

Armorize, a web security company, reported on their blog today that Network Solutions had been displaying a widget box that contains malware.  The company was notified and quickly remedied the parking pags.  Based on a yahoo search only, there are over 5 million domain names with NSI parked landers that may have been affected by this drive by malware.

According to Help Net Security, the malware is a drive-by variety that doesn’t take much to infect the users computer. Simply visiting a parking page hosted by NSI would trigger the download.

The malware then modifies the registry, monitors four of the most popular browsers, redirects users using popular search engines to other websites, pops up advertisement according to a list of search terms and duplicates and renames itself to resemble a varied assortment of legal and illegal software (mostly key generators and cracked software versions). It then “phones home” to several URLs in order to receive further instructions and download more malware.

Only 50% of the antivirus solutions included in VirusTotal’s check detected this malware a couple of days ago, and it was discovered to have the ability to block well-known by download analysis services such as Wepawet and jsunpack.

This attack definitely marks the beginning of the exploitation of hosting providers as a means to compromise a massive amount of domains and spread malware to millions of users in a short period of time. Let’s hope that hosting providers will take this occurrence seriously and rethink their defenses from top to bottom.

This is not good news for parking companies and domain owners who rely on parking revenue. As parked pages become synonymous with malware or problems, users will shift away from clicking more and more. . . Is this just another nail in the coffin for domain parking?

(c) 2010 DomainNameNews.com

Advertisement
Offer: .com/.net domains only $7.98/yr! Specializing in .kr domains $40/yr
Get expired / deleting domains $14.98/yr fixed price


Domain Names , , ,

Register.com partners with AfternicDLS

April 6th, 2010

After partnering with Network Solutions a while back, AfternicDLS has now also added Register.com as a partner registrar for their Domain Listing Service thus increasing the reach to end users and small business customers for their domain sales.


Continue Reading at Source

After partnering with Network Solutions a while back, AfternicDLS has now also added Register.com as a partner registrar for their Domain Listing Service thus increasing the reach to end users and small business customers for their domain sales.

Domains listed with the (more expensive) premium promotion option have an average sales price (ASP) of $1,600, 33% higher than the expanded promotion ($1,200) and 78% higher than sales within the basic promotion level ($900). The premium level is currently only available for domains registered through Network Solutions or Register.com for domain names with a fixed price.

Premium Promotion partners are:

  • Network Solutions
  • Register.com
  • Afternic
  • Buydomains
  • GoDaddy
  • DomainTools
  • Tierranet
  • DomainDiscover
  • DomainsBot
  • Miss Domain
  • directNIC
  • PremierDomains
  • Ultimate Domains
  • domize
  • Instant Domain Search
  • FreshDrop
  • JustDropped.com
  • DomainsNewsletter.com
  • Rick Latona
  • Premium Domains

See the full press release after the jump.

Register.com Expands Distribution for Domain Name Sales through NameMedia

Register.com to Join NameMedia’s Domain Listing Service as a Premium Promotion Registrar

-

NEW YORK, NY —April XX, 2010 — Register.com, a leading provider of web services and domain registration, today announced that it has signed an agreement to join NameMedia’s Domain Listing Service (DLS). Under the terms of the deal, Register.com’s customers will have access to more than two million domain names currently offered for sale through the DLS service located at AfternicDLS.com.

Similar to the MLS network for physical real estate, the DLS network provides a source of liquidity for digital real estate, or domain names, that are currently registered but are available for purchase. By listing their domain on DLS, domain owners expose their property to the largest source of potential buyers through a global distribution network, now including Register.com.

We are excited to provide our customers with an additional opportunity to buy and sell premium domains,” said Register.com CEO Larry Kutscher. “This strategic partnership allows Register.com to couple our award winning customer service with expanded access to the Domain Reseller Marketplace.”

Register.com is one of the industry’s leading registrars and its addition as a premium promotion partner for DLS will add significant value to Register.com and AfternicDLS customers,” said NameMedia CEO Kelly Conlin. “Through its global distribution network, AfternicDLS now receives more than 35 million requests each month by consumers looking for a domain name, making it the most productive platform for connecting domain sellers with domain buyers.”

About Register.com

Leveraging 15 years of experience in the domain business with over two and a half million domain names under management, Register.com (www.Register.com) has built a reputation as a leading provider of global domain name registration, email, web site design and web hosting services. Register.com enables businesses and resellers, such as ISPs, Web Hosts and Portals, to create a dynamic web presence without the need for extensive technical knowledge. Register.com is the only web services provider to earn the JD Powers award for outstanding customer service for the last five years.

About NameMedia

NameMedia is a leader in the acquisition; development and trading of digital real estate through a network of highly targeted websites and a marketplace for premium domain names. The company’s website development focuses on creating compelling online communities in niche categories. The company’s marketplace allows owners of premium domain names to list their domain properties for sale, and for domain buyers to review the largest available inventory. Through its ownership of one of the largest domain portfolios in the world, its innovative website development platform, and its broad distribution, NameMedia now serves more than 50 million visitors to its network of websites and sells domains to customers in more than 100 countriesHeadquartered outside Boston in Waltham, Massachusetts, more information is available at www.namemedia.com.

(c) 2010 DomainNameNews.com

Advertisement
Upcoming Domain Industry Events, Conferences & Auctions


Domain Names , , , , , ,

Network Solutions Takes Over RollingStone.com ?

February 22nd, 2010

As of this writing, the RollingStone.com website has become a Network Solutions domain parking page.  Gawker Media first pointed out that the music industry website was no longer active.


Continue Reading at Source

As of this writing, the RollingStone.com website has become a Network Solutions domain parking page.  Gawker Media first pointed out that the music industry website was no longer active.

I know what you are thinking, the domain expired and NSI took it over.  WRONGO!  The domain doesn’t expire until September 2011.

The company refers to the problem as a “glitch” .  A pretty good size glitch given that according to Compete.com the site averages over 1 million monthly unique visitors.  This seems like a pretty large mistake  for a well-known publishing company to make on their own, so we’re left wondering who dropped the ball here.

Mashable is also covering the story and a commenter pointed out that the domain may be experiencing issues with their DNS provider or Akamai.

(c) 2009 DomainNameNews.com

Advertisement
Upcoming Domain Industry Events, Conferences & Auctions


Domain Names , , , , , ,

3 Charged With Comcast.net Hijacking at Network Solutions

November 20th, 2009

Three hackers — Christopher Allen Lewis, 19,  James Robert Black Jr., 20, and Michael Paul Lebel, 28 — have been hit with a federal conspiracy charge this week due to their involvement in the 2008 hijacking of Comcast.net – a prank that took down the cable company’s homepage and email service for more than five hours and supposedly cost the company over $128,000.


Continue Reading at Source

Three hackers — Christopher Allen Lewis, 19,  James Robert Black Jr., 20, and Michael Paul Lebel, 28 — have been hit with a federal conspiracy charge this week due to their involvement in the 2008 hijacking of Comcast.net – a prank that took down the cable company’s homepage and email service for more than five hours and supposedly cost the company over $128,000.

According to the indictment, the hackers gained control of the Comcast.net domain along with 200 other domains with two phone calls to Network Solutions, the company’s domain registrar, as well as one email sent from a hacked Comcast email account.

This gave them entry to the Network Solutions control panel for all of Comcast’s domains.

Then, after changing the contact information for Comcast.net, the hackers phoned Comcast’s original technical contact to tell him what they’d done. When the Comcast manager scoffed at their claims, the hackers decided to take it a step further and redirect the site’s traffic to servers that were under their control.

The hackers are being charged under the US. Code for fraud and related activity in connection with computers.

“I wish I was a minor right now,” said hacker James Robert Black Jr., “because this is going to be really bad.”

[via Wired]

(c) 2009 DomainNameNews.com

Advertisement
The 9th Domainer Dinner in Toronto, November 25th


Domain Names , , , ,

Businesses Urge ICANN To Initiate New gTLDs Without Further Delay

September 23rd, 2009

It seems ICANN is getting it from both sides these days – with Republican lawmakers opposing the new TLDs and trying to delay the process as well as supporters of the new system urging the Board of Directors of ICANN to “initiate the new top-level domain application period without further delay.”


Continue Reading at Source

It seems ICANN is getting it from both sides these days – with Republican lawmakers opposing the new TLDs and trying to delay the process as well as supporters of the new system urging the Board of Directors of ICANN to “initiate the new top-level domain application period without further delay.”

Sixty-one businesses, organizations, and individuals including many notable players within the domain industry — such as Antony Van Couvering of Minds+Machines; Paul Stahura, CEO of eNom; Jonathon Nevett, Senior VP of Network Solutions; Elliot Noss of Tucows; and many more — sent a letter to ICANN detailing the reasons why new top-level domains are required without further delay.

The letter [click here to view] stated that the new TLDs will help fix a number of issues including consumer demands, safety considerations, Internet stability, innovation, and ICANN’s own credibility.

“The undersigned, many of whom helped create ICANN and over the course of years have a keen understanding of the domain name market, and many of whom have significant experience dealing with intellectual property,” the document states, “respectfully but forcefully request the Board of Directors of ICANN to fulfill ICANN’s original mandate to introduce choice and competition to the domain name market.”

Seperately, the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) sent a letter to the US government on September 22, 2009, calling for a full-scale audit of ICANN. The letter offers a ‘Top Ten List’ of things wrong with ICANN, stating the organization is a captured regulator, not independent, not transparent, fueled by profits, not accessible, ignorant of numerous Internet issues, incompetent in regards to the new gTLD process, not looking at itself critically, risking cybersecurity, and not connected to relevant agencies within the US government. [click here for letter]

(c) 2009 DomainNameNews.com

Advertisement
Do you park domains? EARN MORE. Visit above.com to find out more.


Domain Names , , , , , ,

“No Evidence of Front Running” Says Internet Security Expert Following ICANN-Commissioned Study

August 5th, 2009

Front-Running has been a significant issue within the domain industry in the past - most notably with Network Solutions - however Benjamin Edelman, an Internet security expert, has exclaimed that he found “no evidence of current front running” following a ten-month study at ICANN’s request.


Continue Reading at Source

Front-Running has been a significant issue within the domain industry in the past - most notably with Network Solutions - however Benjamin Edelman, an Internet security expert, has exclaimed that he found “no evidence of current front running” following a ten-month study at ICANN’s request.

Edelman’s study involved testing 604 domains (304 .com, 200 .net, and 100 .info) on 200 domain registration and domain availability-checking websites to see whether front-running was taking place.

“My tests offer no evidence of front-running,” stated Edelman. “Not one of the domains I requested, in any of the three rounds of testing, was registered during the seven-day period during which availability was checked twice each day.”

Sadly, after looking through the official testing report, the study fails to deliver the evidence that most domainers would be looking for. Not only does it fail to mention any of the specific websites Edelman searched for, but it also excludes any mention of the registrars or whois services he searched at.

“My methodology cannot prove that front-running is not occuring or that front-running has not occured in the past,” concluded Edelman. “Rather, I have simply failed to find evidence of current front-running via the test scenario I used. It is possible that front-running occurs based on leads from web sites I did not test or based on data sources other than web sites (e.g. NXDOMAIN data from ISPs, navigation requests obtained from client-side software, etc). It is possible that front-running occurred at some point in the past. I cannot rule out these possibilities via the methodology used in this report.”

Yes…it is possible.

[via ICANN]

(c) 2009 DomainNameNews.com

DomainConvergence | August 12-13, 2009 | Toronto, ON, Canada
Keynote speakers: The Castello Brothers on "Branding your Domain"
Christian Heilmann, Developer Evangelist, Yahoo!


Domain Names , , , , ,

Network Solutions Releasing New Website, Improving Products and Services

July 29th, 2009

Network Solutions is getting ready to launch its new website - and along with the fresh design it has also improved its services by offering additional features and content.


Continue Reading at Source

Network Solutions is getting ready to launch its new website - and along with the fresh design it has also improved its services by offering additional features and content.

“We are reinventing ourselves to better meet your needs,” the Network Solutions website preview says. “Beyond the redesign of our website, we’ve made some changes to our products and services to help you be more successful in your online ventures.”

Some of the changes include:

  • Redesigned website for a more customized experience.
  • Improved support and educational materials.
  • Communities feature tools for connecting with others and growing your business.
  • More product features than ever before.
  • New website design services.

Visit preview.networksolutions.com to browse through all the changes.

[via Network Solutions]

(c) 2009 DomainNameNews.com

DomainConvergence | August 12-13, 2009 | Toronto, ON, Canada
Keynote speakers: The Castello Brothers on "Branding your Domain"
Christian Heilmann, Developer Evangelist, Yahoo!


Domain Names ,

Redesigned Fabulous.com and DomainDistribution.com Launched

July 2nd, 2009

fab_logoDark Blue Sea, parent company to Fabulous.com and DomainDistribution.com, released newly updated sites for both services today.  Domain name registrar Fabulous.com announced new enhanced security features and whois privacy just short of two weeks ago. The new Fabulous site coincides with the launch of these new features and gives the registrar a fresh new face.


Continue Reading at Source

fab_logoDark Blue Sea, parent company to Fabulous.com and DomainDistribution.com, released newly updated sites for both services today.  Domain name registrar Fabulous.com announced new enhanced security features and whois privacy just short of two weeks ago. The new Fabulous site coincides with the launch of these new features and gives the registrar a fresh new face.

When asked about the upgrades, DBS CEO Gregory Platz stated  “Our new branding positions Fabulous.com as THE complete solution for domain professionals. Our premium services encompass registration, monetization and domain sales. The introduction of free WHOIS privacy and the Fabulous.com security key are the first of many new initiatives.”
DDN logoIn addition the Domain Distribution Network (DDN) has been redesigned.  DDN is an aftermarket sales channel for domain names that connects domain name sellers and domain sales channels together providing a much easier way to sell domains at multiple sites. The newly updated site provides a greater amount of information on the process from both a domain sellers and distribution partners perspective.   I noticed the site also include the DDN partners which it had previously not included.  Platz stated, “We’re very proud to list our Domain Distribution Network partners. No other domain sales network provides sellers with the reach that we do.”  Distribution partners include Godaddy.com, Network Solutions, Register.com, OpenSRS.com, SnapNames, FreshDrop, LeaseThis.com and DomainTools.com

(c) 2009 DomainNameNews.com

Upcoming Domain Industry Events, Conferences & Auctions


Domain Names , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Network Solutions Front-Running Leads to $1 Million Class Action Settlement

April 29th, 2009

Network Solutions just emailed notices regarding a class action settlment that came about from the NSI front running domains incident back in January 2008.   The email which can be seen after the jump details a class action lawsuit settlement which could cost the domain name registrar up to $1 million .  The complaint was originally filed against both NSI and ICANN by plaintiffs Chris McElroy, Todd Matzke and James Lee Finseth in  The US District Court for the Central District of California. The Court has approved the proposed settlement.  Anyone who has registered a domain at NSI between December 14  2007 and March 15 2008, may want to look in to this settlement.


Continue Reading at Source

Network Solutions just emailed notices regarding a class action settlment that came about from the NSI front running domains incident back in January 2008.   The email which can be seen after the jump details a class action lawsuit settlement which could cost the domain name registrar up to $1 million .  The complaint was originally filed against both NSI and ICANN by plaintiffs Chris McElroy, Todd Matzke and James Lee Finseth in  The US District Court for the Central District of California. The Court has approved the proposed settlement.  Anyone who has registered a domain at NSI between December 14  2007 and March 15 2008, may want to look in to this settlement.

According to the notice, the class action involves anyone who purchased a domain name registration and have not received a refund.  Any domains searched on NSI between December 14  2007 and March 15 2008 that were reserved by NSI and then subsequently registered with NSI within that same session (sub class 1) or up to 4 days later (sub class 2).

There are 2 classes of registrants in this case.  The first are those who purchased the domain name during the same session as when the initial search for the domain availability was conducted. The second class are those who purchased a domain name up to 4 days after having conducted a search for the domain availability .

A $6 credit applicable to any NSI purchase will be issued to the first sub class for each “same session” domain purchased and $9.91 will be issued for each domain purchased in the 4 day sub-class.

NSI will be paying out up to $375,966 to the first sub-class of registrants who purchased the domain names in the same session, meaning they searched for the domain and then bought the domain from NSI .  The  second sub-class involves registrations made within four (4) days of having conducted a search for that domain name’s availability with Network Solutions, but not within the same session in which they conducted the original search.  NSI will pay up to $500,000 to members of this class.  NSI estimates approximately 113,094 domains were registered during the period, 62,661 in the same session class and 50,433 within the 4 day class. NSI will be shelling out $171,995 to the plaintiffs legal team as well.

It should be noted that Network Solutions continues to deny any wrong doing .

There has been no finding of any wrongdoing by Network Solutions, and Network Solutions does not admit to any liability. Network Solutions wishes to settle to avoid further costly, disruptive, and time-consuming litigation. This settlement is the result of extensive negotiations between Network Solutions, the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs’ attorneys (”Class Counsel”). Class Counsel believe that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Plaintiffs and the Class.

The practice of front running has been eliminated by the new tasting rules put in to effect by ICANN at the beginning of April.  When this news broke some legal experts weighed in on this incident and felt that NSI might be liable base on consumer protection laws.

If you believe you are part of this class, please consult the document below for contact information. Full contents of the class action notice appear below :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In The Matters of
McElroy v. Network Solutions LLC, et. al, Case No. CV 08-01247 PSG (VBKx)
Finseth v. Network Solutions LLC, Case No. CV 08-01537 PSG (VBKx)

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

To: All persons who, on or between December 14, 2007 and March 15, 2008, searched for the availability of an internet domain name through Network Solutions, LLC’s services, had the searched-for domain name reserved by Network Solutions and subsequently registered that domain name through Network Solutions, LLC’s services in the same internet session or within four days of having conducted the internet domain search, and who have not already received a full refund for the registration.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO AN AWARD FROM THIS SETTLEMENT.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK REGARDING THIS ACTION.

I. INTRODUCTION

This “NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT” (”NOTICE”) is to inform you that this court has preliminarily approved a class action settlement between the Class Representative Plaintiffs, Chris McElroy, Todd Matzke and James Lee Finseth, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, who searched for internet domain names through Network Solutions, LLC (hereinafter “Network Solutions”) on or between December 14, 2007 and March 15, 2008, had the searched-for domain name reserved by Network Solutions and subsequently registered that domain name through Network Solutions in the same internet session or within four days of having initially conducted the domain name search, and who have not already received a full refund for the registration, on the one hand, and Defendant Network Solutions LLC, on the other hand.

THIS NOTICE IS TO INFORM YOU ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE LAWSUIT, INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF YOUR RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE; YOUR ESTIMATED SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT; YOUR OPTION TO FILE WITH THE COURT ANY OBJECTIONS YOU MAY HAVE TO THE SETTLEMENT; AND YOUR OPTION TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT BY “OPTING OUT.”

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT


On February 25, 2008, a complaint was filed by plaintiff Chris McElroy against Network Solutions and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) (Case No. CV 08-01247). A first amended complaint was filed by Chris McElroy and Todd Matzke on April 14, 2008. A second complaint was filed in the Court by plaintiff James Lee Finseth against Network Solutions on March 5, 2008 (Case No. CV 08-01537), and a first amended complaint was filed on April 18, 2008. The two cases were deemed related cases and are hereinafter referred to as the “Litigation.” Through the respective and operative complaints in the Litigation, the plaintiffs allege on behalf of a putative class comprised of certain users of Network Solutions’ domain name services that Network Solutions, through its Customer Protection Measure, committed unfair business practices prohibited by California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq,, fraud, deceit and negligence and benefited from unjust enrichment during the Class Period, December 14, 2007 through March 15, 2008.

Network Solutions denied and continues to deny each of the claims alleged by Plaintiffs and the Class. Network Solutions has asserted and continues to assert defenses thereto, and has expressly denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing or legal liability arising out of any of the facts or conduct alleged in the Litigation. There has been no finding of any wrongdoing by Network Solutions, and Network Solutions does not admit to any liability. Network Solutions wishes to settle to avoid further costly, disruptive, and time-consuming litigation. This settlement is the result of extensive negotiations between Network Solutions, the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs’ attorneys (”Class Counsel”). Class Counsel believe that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Plaintiffs and the Class.

On April 3, 2009, 2009, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. This NOTICE was sent to you because Network Solutions’ records indicate that, during the Class Period, you searched for one or more internet domain names through Network Solutions’ web site, had the searched-for domain name reserved by Network Solutions, subsequently registered that domain name through Network Solutions within four days of having conducted the original domain name search, and have not already received a full refund for the registration. If you are included in the Class described above, this settlement may affect your rights.


III. SUMMARY OF TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT


The Class is comprised of all people who purchased a Settlement Registration, who have not already received a full refund for the Settlement Registration. The term “Settlement Registration” as used herein shall have the same meaning as the proposed Settlement Agreement and Stipulation, and shall mean a domain name registration purchased through Network Solutions where the domain name was (a) searched for on the Network Solutions web site on or between December 14, 2007 and March 15, 2008; (b) reserved by Network Solutions; and (c) then registered with Network Solutions either within the same session that the domain name was searched for or within four days of the domain name having been searched for via Network Solutions’ web site. The Class consists of two sub-classes. One sub-class, referred to as the Same-Session Purchasing Sub-Class, consists of all users who purchased a Settlement Registration during the same internet session in which the user searched for the domain name’s availability through Network Solutions. Network Solutions has agreed to provide credits for Network Solutions services to members of this Same-Session Purchasing Sub-Class, with a value of up to $375,966, to resolve all claims of those customers who are within this sub-class. A second sub-class, referred to as the Four-Day Purchasing Sub-Class, consists of all users who purchased a Settlement Registration within four (4) days of having conducted a search for that domain name’s availability with Network Solutions, but not within the same session in which they conducted the original search. Network Solutions has agreed to pay up to $500,000 to members of this Four-Day Purchasing Sub-Class to resolve all claims of those customers who are within this sub-class. Approximately 113,094 Settlement Registrations were registered during the Class Period and are subject to this settlement, approximately 62,661 of which fall within the Same-Session Purchasing Sub-Class and approximately 50,433 of which fall within the Four-Day Purchasing Sub-Class.

According to Network Solutions’ records, you are a member of the Four-Day Purchasing Sub-Class.

The proposed settlement provides that Class Counsel may apply to the Court for reasonable compensation for their work in this matter, in an amount up to $171,995 (up to 12.5% of the value of service credits provided to the Same-Session Purchasing Sub-Class plus up to 25% of the settlement amount provided to the Four-Day Purchasing Sub-Class), inclusive of their expenses and costs.

A $6 credit applicable to any Network Solutions service purchased on the Network Solutions website, valid for one year from the date of the issuance of the credit, shall be issued to each member of the Same-Session Purchasing Sub-Class who does not “opt out” (see Section V below) for each Settlement Registration purchased by such member within the same internet session. For example, if a participating class member purchased two Settlement Registrations during the Class Period in the same internet session within which he or she conducted searches for the availability of those domain names through Network Solutions’ website, he or she can expect to receive two separate credits for Network Solutions’ services, each valued at $6.

A payment of $9.91 shall be made to each member of the Four-Day Purchasing Sub-Class who does not “opt out” (see Section V below) for each Settlement Registration purchased by such member within four (4) days of having conducted the availability search, but not within the same internet session. For example, if a participating class member registered two Settlement Registrations through Network Solutions during the Class Period within four (4) days of having also conducted searches for the availability of those domain names through Network Solutions’ website, he or she can expect to receive payment of $19.82.

The summary of the proposed settlement agreement in this NOTICE does NOT include all of the terms and conditions of the settlement. The only complete statement of the terms of the proposed settlement is in the actual Settlement Agreement and Stipulation (”the Settlement Agreement”), that has been tentatively approved by the Court. The proposed Settlement Agreement is available for inspection at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, which is located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. PLEASE DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR JUDGE.

IV. BINDING EFFECT AND CLASS RELEASE


If approved by the Court, the proposed Settlement Agreement will be binding on all members of the Class who do not timely “opt out” of the settlement, and such members of the Class who do not timely “opt out” of the settlement will fully and finally release and discharge Network Solutions, and each of its past or present officers, directors, shareholders, members, employees, agents, principals, heirs, representatives, accountants, auditors, consultants, executors, insurers and reinsurers, and its and their respective successors and predecessors in interest, subsidiaries, affiliates, parents and attorneys from any and all claims, known and unknown, arising from Network Solutions’ automatic registration, for a limited time, of any domain name for which a name availability search was made (referred to by Network Solutions as its Customer Protection Measure) under any state or federal statute, ordinance, regulation, common law, or other source of law, whether or not such claims are in the nature of damages, penalties, attorneys’ fees or injunctive or other equitable relief, whether in contract, tort or pursuant to a statutory remedy, related to or arising out of any claims stated in the underlying litigations, including but not limited to any of the following: (1) any claims for unfair business practices (including unlawful, deceptive or unfair business practices prohibited by the California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.); (2) any claims for fraud or deceit; (3) any claims for negligence; (4) any claims for unjust enrichment or restitution; and (5) any claims for aiding and abetting the aforementioned alleged unlawful acts.

These releases include any unknown claims, as set forth above, that the releasing members of the Class do not know or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of this Notice which, if known by them, might have affected their decision not to object to or opt-out from the settlement of the Litigation. Those members of the Class not objecting to, or opting out from, the settlement of the Litigation shall be deemed to have, and have, expressly waived and relinquished, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the provisions, rights and benefits of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code to the extent it is applicable (or any other similar provision under federal, state or local law, to the extent any such provision is applicable). Section 1542 provides:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.

Thus, if members of the Class hereafter discover facts in addition to or different from those they know or believe to be true with respect to the subject matter of this release, they shall be deemed to have, and have, fully, finally and forever settled and released any and all of the claims released herein, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, which now exist, or heretofore have existed under any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into existence in the future with respect to the subject matter of this release as described above, including but not limited to conduct that is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any duty, law or rule without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such different or additional facts.

V. OPT-OUT PROCEDURE


If you choose to not participate in this lawsuit and this settlement (”opt-out”) (a) you will have no right to receive any money or credits under the settlement of this case, as detailed in the Settlement Agreement; (b) you will not be bound by the settlement in this lawsuit and the Settlement Agreement; and (c) you may bring or participate in a separate lawsuit against Network Solutions. If you opt out of this lawsuit and this settlement and bring or participate in a separate lawsuit, you may lose your case and receive nothing, or you may obtain less money or service credit than you could get under this lawsuit even if you prevail, and it may take several years to obtain any such money. To opt out of this lawsuit, you must submit a written notice stating that you want to opt out of this settlement. This written notice must contain your name, address and telephone number. The written notice must also state:

“I wish to opt out of the settlement of McElroy v. Network Solutions, et al. (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV 08-01247) and Finseth v. Network Solutions (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV 08-01537). I understand that by requesting to be excluded from the settlement I will receive no settlement award under the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into by Network Solutions. I understand that if I am excluded from the class settlement, I may bring a separate action. I understand that in any separate lawsuit, I may receive nothing or less than I would have received if I had not opted-out out of receiving a settlement award pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.”

This written opt-out statement must be sent by U.S. mail to counsel for Network Solutions pursuant to Paragraph VIII, below. To be timely, this opt-out statement must be postmarked no later than June 22, 2009. Please retain a copy of the envelope depicting the post-mark for your records.

VI. OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

If you believe that the proposed Settlement Agreement should not be finally approved by the Court for any reason, you may object to the proposed Settlement Agreement. If you want to object to the proposed Settlement Agreement, you must file an objection in writing with the Court (see Section III, above, for the Court’s location) and serve a copy of your written objection on counsel for the parties (see Section VIII, below, for counsels’ contact information). This written objection must state the basis of your objection and include an indication of your intent to appear at the hearing scheduled for August 10, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 790 at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012, to have your objection heard by the Court. If you object to the proposed Settlement Agreement, you or your counsel must appear at this hearing.

Any written objection to the proposed Settlement Agreement must be filed with the court and served on counsel for the parties, at the addresses included in Section VIII below, no later than June 22, 2009. Objections not previously filed in writing in a timely manner will not be considered.

All objections or other correspondence must state the names and numbers of the cases, which are: McElroy v. Network Solutions, et al. (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV 08-01247) and Finseth v. Network Solutions (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV 08-01537).

VII. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

You will not have to pay Class Counsel for representing you in this lawsuit. As noted above in Section III, the Court will consider and award at the time of final hearing an amount to be paid to Class Counsel as reasonable compensation for their time incurred in this matter and for their actual expenses and costs incurred, which will be paid by Network Solutions from the Settlement Amount.


VIII. FURTHER INFORMATION AND ADDRESS OF CLASS COUNSEL

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR CONTACT THE COURT. If you have any questions about the Settlement Agreement, you may contact Class Counsel listed below for more information:

Brian S. Kabateck
Richard L. Kellner
Alfredo Torrijos
Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
644 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017

and

Daniel G. Whalen
Paul A. Traina
Gregory P. Waters
Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, P.C.
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067

Any question you may have about the Settlement Agreement should be addressed to the above Class Counsel. However, in the event that you need to contact Network Solutions (such as to serve an opt-out statement pursuant to paragraph V or a written objection pursuant to paragraph VI, above), you should contact Network Solutions’ counsel:

Valerie M. Goo, Esq.
Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90017

IX. IF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT APPROVED

If the Settlement Agreement is not approved by the Court, or if any of its conditions are not satisfied, the conditional settlement will be voided, no money or credits will be paid, and the case will revert to litigation. However, if that happens there is no assurance: (a) that any decision at trial would be in favor of Class members; (b) that a favorable trial decision, if any, would be as favorable to the Class members as this settlement; or (c) that any favorable trial decision would be upheld if an appeal was filed.

X. NO OPINION EXPRESSED AS TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE

On April 3, 2009, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and found that the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable. However, the Court has expressed no opinion regarding the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims or Networks Solutions’ liability. DO NOT WRITE OR CALL THE COURT REGARDING THIS SETTLEMENT.


(c) 2009 DomainNameNews.com

Upcoming Domain Industry Events, Conferences & Auctions

Domain Names , , , , ,

Mixed Domain News: Mar 23-29, 2009 featuring Frank Schilling, Bido.com, Bulk Development, Auction Results

March 26th, 2009