Changes

===Verisign Vs. ICANN===

===Verisign Vs. ICANN===

On February 26, 2004, [[Verisign]] filed a law suit against ICANN alleging that the internet governing body seriously abused its technical coordination function. The company also stated that ICANN conducted a  "blatant breach of the registry agreement, and an interference with VeriSign's contractual relations and prospective economic relationships."<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/verisign-v-icann/icann-cross-compl-12Nov04.PDF Verisign Vs. ICANN]</ref> The company's allegations against ICANN was due to the internet governing body's directive to Verisign  to stop its implementation of the [[Site Finder]] Service to the [[.com]] and [[.net]] domain name space which caused the weakening of the stability of the internet as reported by Internet Architecture Board ([[IAB]]) and [[SECSAC|Security and Stability Advisory Committee]].<ref>[http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/031001a.html ICANN Takes Action with respect to Verisign's Site Finder]</ref> In addition, Verisign also included in its complaint the issue regarding the delay of the implementation of the Waiting List Service until October 2003 which became indefinitely. It also cited that ICANN insisted the introduction of new procedures not required by the 2001 .com Registry Agreement, the price reduction for the intended WLS based on competitors suggestions and for Verisign to accept other conditions suggested by ICANN. Verisign argued that such conditions benefit the different Constituencies of ICANN but disadvantageous to the company's competition and service offering. The company also pointed out that ICANN's delay of the WLS deprived Verisign to gain profit from the service. Furthermore, Verisign claimed that other companies are offering  similar services to the WLS which competes to Verisign's WLS.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/verisign-v-icann/verisign-v-icann-complaint-26feb04.pdf Verisign Vs. ICANN]</ref>

On February 26, 2004, [[Verisign]] filed a law suit against ICANN alleging that the Internet governing body seriously abused its technical coordination function. The company also stated that ICANN conducted a  "blatant breach of the registry agreement, and an interference with VeriSign's contractual relations and prospective economic relationships".<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/verisign-v-icann/icann-cross-compl-12Nov04.PDF Verisign Vs. ICANN]</ref> The company's allegations against ICANN was due to its directive to Verisign  to stop its implementation of the [[Site Finder]] Service to the [[.com]] and [[.net]] domain name space, which caused the weakening of the stability of the Internet as reported by [[IAB|Internet Architecture Board]] (IAB) and [[SSAC|Security and Stability Advisory Committee]].<ref>[http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/031001a.html ICANN Takes Action with respect to Verisign's Site Finder]</ref> In addition, Verisign also included in its complaint the issue regarding the delay of the implementation of the '''Waiting List Service''' until October 2003, which became indefinitely. It also cited that ICANN insisted the introduction of new procedures not required by the 2001 .com Registry Agreement, such as the price reduction for the intended WLS based on competitors suggestions and for Verisign to accept other conditions suggested by ICANN. Verisign argued that such conditions benefit the different constituencies of ICANN but disadvantageous to the company's competition and service offering. The company also pointed out that ICANN's delay of the WLS deprived Verisign to gain profit from the service. Furthermore, Verisign claimed that other companies are offering  similar services to the WLS.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/verisign-v-icann/verisign-v-icann-complaint-26feb04.pdf Verisign Vs. ICANN]</ref>

United States District Court Judge Howard Matz dismissed the law suit filed by Verisign with prejudice on August 26, 2004. In its ruling the judge cited that Verisign failed to sufficiently prove its anti-trust complaint against ICANN.<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-federal-district-court-dismisses-verisigns-anti-trust-claim-against-icann-with-prejudice-71761617.html U.S. Federal District Court Dismisses VeriSign's Anti-Trust Claim Against ICANN with Prejudice]</ref> In response to the court's dismissal on the case, Verisign re-filed its anti-trust complaint against ICANN at the the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles.<ref>[http://www.fateback.com/news/domain_names/data/VeriSign_refiles_lawsuit_against_ICANN.html Verisign Re-files lawsuit against ICANN]</ref>

United States District Court Judge Howard Matz dismissed the law suit filed by Verisign with prejudice on August 26, 2004. In its ruling the judge cited that Verisign failed to sufficiently prove its anti-trust complaint against ICANN.<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-federal-district-court-dismisses-verisigns-anti-trust-claim-against-icann-with-prejudice-71761617.html U.S. Federal District Court Dismisses VeriSign's Anti-Trust Claim Against ICANN with Prejudice]</ref> In response to the court's dismissal of the case, Verisign re-filed its anti-trust complaint against ICANN at the the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles.<ref>[http://www.fateback.com/news/domain_names/data/VeriSign_refiles_lawsuit_against_ICANN.html Verisign Re-files lawsuit against ICANN]</ref>

==ICANN & Verisign Settlement Agreement==

==ICANN & Verisign Settlement Agreement==