27,652
edits
Changes
→Legal Charges Against ICANN
===Domain Justice Coalition Vs. ICANN===
===Domain Justice Coalition Vs. ICANN===
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 o 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 lawsuit 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 o 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>
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>
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 [[BulkRegister]] 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 Wait 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 [[BulkRegister]] expressed their enthusiasm to then ICANN President [[Paul Twomey]] to launch the WLS after the California District Court's denial of the temporary restraining order filed against the body. In addition, the companies also commented that the black out period for the 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>
===Newman & Newman Vs. Verisign & ICANN===
===Newman & Newman Vs. Verisign & ICANN===
# 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 of Virginia is the proper venue 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>
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 noted that the state of Virginia is the proper venue 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>
===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 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>
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 allegation against ICANN was due to its directive to Verisign to stop its implementation of the [[Site Finder]] Service for the [[.com]] and [[.net]] domain name space, which caused the weakening of the stability of the Internet as reported by the [[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 its complaint that the delay of the implementation of the '''Wait List Service'''. It claimed ICANN insisted on 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 are disadvantageous to the company's competitive service offerings. The company also pointed out that ICANN's delay of the WLS deprived Verisign profit from the service. Furthermore, Verisign noted 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 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>
United States District Court Judge Howard Matz dismissed the law suit filed by Verisign with prejudice on August 26, 2004. In his ruling, the judge noted 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===