Changes

In 2003, the [[Domain Justice Coalition]], comprised of 23 domain name registration companies, filed a law suit against ICANN due to its agreement with Verisign regarding the WLS. The Coalition argued that the Board's approval of the WLS eliminated competition between registrars and it gave an unfair advantage to [[Network Solutions]], Verisign's domain name registration subsidiary. According to them ICANN breached its terms of agreement with the registrars.<ref>[http://www.tax-news.com/news/ICANN_Sued_Over_Waiting_List_Agreement_With_Verisign____12674.html ICANN sued over WLS]</ref> The coalition filed a temporary injunction for the implementation of the WLS which was led by [[Dotster]], Inc., [[GoDaddy]] Software, Inc., and [[eNom]] Inc. to the California District Court.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/dotster-v-icann/motion-restraining-order-15jul03.pdf Motion for Temporary Restraining Order]</ref>

In 2003, the [[Domain Justice Coalition]], comprised of 23 domain name registration companies, filed a law suit against ICANN due to its agreement with Verisign regarding the WLS. The Coalition argued that the Board's approval of the WLS eliminated competition between registrars and it gave an unfair advantage to [[Network Solutions]], Verisign's domain name registration subsidiary. According to them ICANN breached its terms of agreement with the registrars.<ref>[http://www.tax-news.com/news/ICANN_Sued_Over_Waiting_List_Agreement_With_Verisign____12674.html ICANN sued over WLS]</ref> The coalition filed a temporary injunction for the implementation of the WLS which was led by [[Dotster]], Inc., [[GoDaddy]] Software, Inc., and [[eNom]] Inc. to the California District Court.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/dotster-v-icann/motion-restraining-order-15jul03.pdf Motion for Temporary Restraining Order]</ref>

On the other hand, then ICANN Spokesperson [[Mary Hewitt]] explained ICANN's position. She said, "The board voted for it because they thought it was a boon to consumers. This eliminates a ton of people pinging to see if the name is available at once. [As a consumer,] instead of me paying three different people to try to get a domain name I may not get, [with the WLS (wait listing service)], if I don't get it, I don't pay any money.''<ref>[http://www.tax-news.com/news/ICANN_Sued_Over_Waiting_List_Agreement_With_Verisign____12674.html ICANN sued over WLS]</ref>

Then ICANN Spokesperson, [[Mary Hewitt]], explained ICANN's position; she said, "The board voted for it because they thought it was a boon to consumers. This eliminates a ton of people pinging to see if the name is available at once. [As a consumer,] instead of me paying three different people to try to get a domain name I may not get, [with the WLS (wait listing service)], if I don't get it, I don't pay any money".<ref>[http://www.tax-news.com/news/ICANN_Sued_Over_Waiting_List_Agreement_With_Verisign____12674.html ICANN sued over WLS]</ref>

On November 2003, the California District Court denied the group's request for a temporary restraining order against ICANN's approval for Verisign to implement the Waiting List Service.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/dotster-v-icann/order-denying-dotster-pi-13nov03.pdf ORDER Denying Temporary Restraining Order]</ref> By December, Network Solutions, [[Register.com]] and [[Bulk Register]] expressed their enthusiasm to then ICANN President [[Paul Twomey]] to launch the WLS after the California District Court's denial on the temporary restraining order filed against internet governing body. In addition, the companies also commented that the black out period for WLS is unnecessary and they emphasized that an adequate and enforceable safeguard is already present in the RAA.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/registrars-to-twomey-03dec03.htm www.icann.org]</ref>

In November, 2003, the California District Court denied the group's request for a temporary restraining order against ICANN's approval for Verisign to implement the Waiting List Service.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/dotster-v-icann/order-denying-dotster-pi-13nov03.pdf ORDER Denying Temporary Restraining Order]</ref> By December, Network Solutions, [[Register.com]] and [[Bulk Register]] expressed their enthusiasm to then ICANN President [[Paul Twomey]] to launch the WLS after the California District Court's denial on the temporary restraining order filed against internet governing body. In addition, the companies also commented that the black out period for WLS is unnecessary and they emphasized that an adequate and enforceable safeguard is already present in the RAA.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/registrars-to-twomey-03dec03.htm www.icann.org]</ref>

In 2004, another law suit was filed by Newman & Newman, a law firm representing an ad hoc coalition of domain name registrars against ICANN and Verisign to stop the implementation of the WLS. The group accused ICANN and Verisign of:<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrars_file_lawsuit_against_icann_and_verisign Circleid.com]</ref>

In 2004, another law suit was filed by Newman & Newman, a law firm representing an ad hoc coalition of domain name registrars against ICANN and Verisign to stop the implementation of the WLS. The group accused ICANN and Verisign of:<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrars_file_lawsuit_against_icann_and_verisign Circleid.com]</ref>