«

Gurble wrote:
> Unbelievably, those australian scamsters T/A Domain Names NZ are at
> it again, and have again sent out a misleading invoice-like letter to
> people that have registered .nz domain names.
>
> As usual, they have obtained details of registrants (breaching the
> DNC's rules at the same time), and have sent out an invoice-like
> letter for registration of a similar name (eg www.gurble.net.nz if you
> had previously registered www.gurble.co.nz) for the measly fee of $237
> for 2 years. (Of course, this would only cost around $90 everywhere
> else, or $70 at www.discountdomains.co.nz, but that's not the point).
>
> I thought these scamsters had been closed down last time, but
> obviously not.
>
> It's about bloody time the Commerce Commission got involved. This is
> the third or fourth time they've tried this scam, and they must hook
> some unsuspecting people every time to make it worthwhile.
>
> I note that this time they have removed their 0800 number, probably
> after the number of complaints they received last time round.
>
> IMO, these scamsters are lower on the food chain than a smelly dead
> slug, half-squashed with it's rotting guts hanging out, and should be
> treated as such. Wankers.
Why not send them Polite letter and demand that they surrender the
domain name after all arnt they doing the squatting?

--
RecylerMan ICQ 22245595


Mail to :- l i n u x u s r AT i h u g DOT c o DOT n z

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:35:38 +1200, RecylerMan
<> had this to say:

>Gurble wrote:
>> Unbelievably, those australian scamsters T/A Domain Names NZ are at
>> it again, and have again sent out a misleading invoice-like letter to
>> people that have registered .nz domain names.
>>
>Why not send them Polite letter and demand that they surrender the
>domain name after all arnt they doing the squatting?

They aren't even squatting... They haven't even registered the
domains. They're hoping that you wont notice that the domain isn't the
one you've registered, and that with a generic name like "Domain Names
NZ" you'll think that your domain name is expiring, and just pay their
overinflated price...

A computer illiterate client of mine recieved several letters from
companies saying that thier domain name were expiring, and asking them
to pay xxx or else the domain will be terminated. Luckily they were
tight wads and thought the amounts were too much and asked me to sort it
out.

Think about all those ppl that have been decieved in thinkin their
domain was expiring and paying the renew fees.

Bloody scammers.....

TEX

Gurble wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:35:38 +1200, RecylerMan
> <> had this to say:
>
>
>>Gurble wrote:
>>
>>>Unbelievably, those australian scamsters T/A Domain Names NZ are at
>>>it again, and have again sent out a misleading invoice-like letter to
>>>people that have registered .nz domain names.
>>>
>>
>>Why not send them Polite letter and demand that they surrender the
>>domain name after all arnt they doing the squatting?
>
>
> They aren't even squatting... They haven't even registered the
> domains. They're hoping that you wont notice that the domain isn't the
> one you've registered, and that with a generic name like "Domain Names
> NZ" you'll think that your domain name is expiring, and just pay their
> overinflated price...

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:39:20 +1200, TEX wrote:

> A computer illiterate client of mine recieved several letters from
> companies saying that thier domain name were expiring, and asking them to
> pay xxx or else the domain will be terminated. Luckily they were tight
> wads and thought the amounts were too much and asked me to sort it out.
>
> Think about all those ppl that have been decieved in thinkin their domain
> was expiring and paying the renew fees.


They're just following the example set by ICONZ in the mid 1990s.

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:35:38 +1200, RecylerMan
<> wrote:

>Gurble wrote:
>> Unbelievably, those australian scamsters T/A Domain Names NZ are at
>> it again, and have again sent out a misleading invoice-like letter to
>> people that have registered .nz domain names.
>>
>> As usual, they have obtained details of registrants (breaching the
>> DNC's rules at the same time), and have sent out an invoice-like
>> letter for registration of a similar name (eg www.gurble.net.nz if you
>> had previously registered www.gurble.co.nz) for the measly fee of $237
>> for 2 years. (Of course, this would only cost around $90 everywhere
>> else, or $70 at www.discountdomains.co.nz, but that's not the point).
>>
>> I thought these scamsters had been closed down last time, but
>> obviously not.
>>
>> It's about bloody time the Commerce Commission got involved. This is
>> the third or fourth time they've tried this scam, and they must hook
>> some unsuspecting people every time to make it worthwhile.

I encourage anyone who received the "Offer" to contact the Commerce
Commission at to register your complaint.


--
Please remove '_SpamTrap' when replying. You know why

Peter Ingham
Lower Hutt
New Zealand

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:39:20 +1200, TEX <> wrote:

>A computer illiterate client of mine recieved several letters from
>companies saying that thier domain name were expiring, and asking them
>to pay xxx or else the domain will be terminated. Luckily they were
>tight wads and thought the amounts were too much and asked me to sort it
>out.
>
>Think about all those ppl that have been decieved in thinkin their
>domain was expiring and paying the renew fees.

Actually very few if any have responded it seems. Some have decided
to get a net.nz name but done it through their normal registrar.

Also the scamsters made the mistake of including their auckland
landlord in their mailout, and their lease has been terminated and any
mail sent to them returned to sender.

DPF
--
Blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz
E-mail:
ICQ: 29964527
MSN:

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 02:03:43 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
<alanb+> wrote:

>They're just following the example set by ICONZ in the mid 1990s.
>
ICONZ? I can't think of any thing they were doing in the mid-90's
except seeming to get perilously close to going out of business yet
survive every time.

Care to elucidate, Alan?

cheers

mark

--
"Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully."
- Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:24:48 +1200, Mark Harris wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 02:03:43 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
> <alanb+> wrote:
>
>>They're just following the example set by ICONZ in the mid 1990s.
>>
> ICONZ? I can't think of any thing they were doing in the mid-90's except
> seeming to get perilously close to going out of business yet survive
> every time.

Indeed, that too

> Care to elucidate, Alan?

Several of my customers came to me during 1996 with Invoicey looking
things for their domain names which upon closer inspection were actually
"please transfer my current domain registration to ICONZ and here's $150"
requests, complete with tear-off strips etc.

2 were actually silly enough to do it, then decided that as they'd paid
the money they may as well move. They came back shortly afterwards.

The rest were asking why they were getting an invoice for their domain
names from ICONZ when that wasn't their ISP.


As I said, the scams we've been seeing in the last 2 years aren't much
different to the example set by ICONZ in the mid 1990s

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:24:48 +1200, Mark Harris wrote:

> ICONZ? I can't think of any thing they were doing in the mid-90's except
> seeming to get perilously close to going out of business yet survive
> every time.


You missed "being built up with stolen equipment purchased on hot credit
cards".


I understand ICONZ sold to Ron Woodrow for around $350,000. I also
understand that ICONZ' 3 largest creditors showed up shortly afterwards
wanting $LARGE outstanding bills settled _immediately_. The overall cost
to Ron was just under $1,000,000 by all accounts.

Jon Clarke had already left the country by that point.

If Woodrow hadn't bought the company, it would in all liklihood have been
shut down 10 days later. As it was, the ISP was a losing proposition for
him almost until the day he sold it to Asia Online for $35,000,000 and
made a tidy profit on all money spent.



As for _why_ he bought it: It was going to become the official Melco ISP
and all Melco retailers would have been forced to use it for purchase
orders. the Melco
board refused to buy the company, so Woodrow bought it himself and
apparently attempted to present it to the board as a done deal.


Others here can fill in the details more clearly, some will doubtless deny
everything.


ICONZ also signed into deals with all the Enterprise boards around NZ to
have them acting as resellers. This put most Enterprise boards in direct
violation of their charters which state they are not to compete with local
businesses and jeopardised funding from several councils. What ICONZ would
have been paying them was less than 5% of the funding put at risk by
reselling the company.

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 15:33:41 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
<alanb+> wrote:

[stuff about ICONZ of which I was unaware]

Thank you for that. Most edifying.

cheers

mark
--
"Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully."
- Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse