Company doesn’t want to provide accounting information to Verisign.
Web.com is fighting back against a Verisign request for more information about how the registrar accounted for .xyz domain name registrations.
Verisign is suing .XYZ for false advertising after .XYZ boasted about its registration volume — which Verisign alleges was inflated by a Network Solutions giveaway. Web.com owns Network Solutions, which gave away hundreds of thousands of .xyz domain names to its customers.
At issue appears to be an agreement by .XYZ to pay Network Solutions for advertising at the same time the registrar was giving away free .xyz domain names.
According to Web.com counsel (pdf), it’s none of Verisign’s business how it accounted for the free domains on its books.
Web.com, which is not a party to the lawsuit, already allowed Verisign to interview its COO Jason Teichman about the matter.
But, according to Web.com, Verisign increased the scope of its subpoena just two business days before it interviewed Teichman. Web.com says that Verisign’s move to add seven topics was “blatant bait and switch”. Its attorney also said that it informed Verisign prior to the interview that Teichman might not have knowledge of the additional topics.
In its opposition filing, Web.com also states “Verisign’s gamesmanship is particularly inappropriate given the glaring lack of relevance of the testimony sought.”
It’s one thing to question how .XYZ accounted for the free registrations, it argues, but it’s completely irrelevant how Web.com accounted for them on its books.
Web.com also points out something I mentioned previously, about how Verisign is ruffling the feathers of one of its biggest customers:
…the entire inquiry smacks of an illegitimate effort by Verisign—one of Web.com’s most significant business partners—to acquire useful competitive intelligence into Web.com’s business.
At a time when Verisign is seeing spun-domain shelf space taken over by new TLDs, is it really smart to upset domain name registrars?
The Verisign vs. .XYZ trial is scheduled for early November.
Wonder how many weeks Web.com would survive if they didn’t have the ability to sell .com’s and .net’s.
Web .com is on the wrong side here. Everyone knows about the .xyz scam and they did exactly as verisign claims.
This is the same smarmy Web.com which unapologetically mugs unwitting Network Solutions account holders with a $25.99 “Reinstatement Fee” to renew expired domain names — atop its already onerous $35.99 consumer renewal rate.
The Web.com corporate tarantula likely has rightful concern that discovery made public will shed light on creepy-crawly business practices worthy of arachnophobia. The more they protest, the more convincing the suspicions that they’re hiding uncomfortable truths.
This does appear to be an attempt at Verisign to gain access to information that it shouldn’t be allowed to. Guess Verisign is looking to gain marketing strategy documents because their own marketing team is ineffective.
My guess (and this is only a guess) is that Verisign discovered more info about the NetSol deal after issuing the first subpoena. That’s why they wanted to add some stuff to the Web.com interview. If they can get information from Web.com that makes the .xyz deal look more like smoke and mirrors, they think it will help them.