9,082
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 23:
Line 23: − + − + Line 32:
Line 32: + +
→Legal Charges Against ICANN
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 the 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 the 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 which represented Register.com and several other 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>
# Unfair Trade Practices Act Violations
# Unfair Trade Practices Act Violations
# Violation of California Business & Professions Code
# Violation of California Business & Professions Code
# Unlawful Tying Arrangement
# Unlawful Tying Arrangement
# Attempted Monopolization
# Attempted Monopolization
# Breach of Contract
# Breach of Contract
# Declaratory Relief
# Declaratory Relief
On November 16, 2004, Judge Gerald Rosenberg ruled that the Superior Court of California is not the proper venue to legally decide the case filed by Register.com against ICANN and Verisign regarding the issue of WLS. The court decided to dismiss or alternatively, stay the First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight causes of action against Verisign on the basis of forum non conveniens. The court pointed that the state is Virginia is the proper for the complaint.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/registersite-v-icann/ps-and-as-support-motion-to-dismiss-or-stay-05nov04.pdf Register.com vs. Verisign and ICANN]</ref>
==References==
==References==