1,278
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 73:
Line 73: − + − + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
in May 2002, BulkRegister sued VeriSign for domain slamming. <ref>[http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/1121321/BulkRegister-Sues-VeriSign-for-Slamming.htm Internet News]</ref> BulkRegister claimed VeriSign "engaged in unfair practices" with a recent marketing campaign that attempted to get domain owners to use VeriSign to renew their existing policy. In 2003, VeriSign was found not to have broken the law and as a result did not need to pay any fine. However, VeriSign have been barred from suggesting domain renewal or expiration prospects.<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/25/verisign_slammed_for_domain_renewal/ The Register.co.uk]</ref>
in May 2002, BulkRegister sued VeriSign for domain slamming. <ref>[http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/1121321/BulkRegister-Sues-VeriSign-for-Slamming.htm Internet News]</ref> BulkRegister claimed VeriSign "engaged in unfair practices" with a recent marketing campaign that attempted to get domain owners to use VeriSign to renew their existing policy. In 2003, VeriSign was found not to have broken the law and as a result did not need to pay any fine. However, VeriSign have been barred from suggesting domain renewal or expiration prospects.<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/25/verisign_slammed_for_domain_renewal/ The Register.co.uk]</ref>
==Site Finder Service==
==Site Finder Service and issues with ICANN==
VeriSign launched Site Finder September,2007, where when an user would type an unregistered address it would be redirecting the surfer to its Site Finder search engine. [[ICANN]] published a report against this policy stating "VeriSign violated architectural principles, codes of conduct and good practice."
VeriSign launched Site Finder September, 2007, where when an user would type an unregistered address it would be redirecting the surfer to its Site Finder search engine. [[ICANN]] published a report against this policy stating "VeriSign violated architectural principles, codes of conduct and good practice." ICANN had declared Site Finder in violation of VeriSign's contracts for running the master address lists for ".com" and "[http://www.out-law.com/page-4716 Out-law.com]</ref>
Later [[ICANN]] asked VeriSin to suspend Site Finder service. <ref>[http://www.out-law.com/page-3921 Out-law.com]</ref>
In October,a hearing took place place in Washington, D.C. to review technical issues where U.S. Department of Commerce gives permission to VeriSign to operate the DNS for .com and .net and VeriSign shuts down the service.
Later in February 2004, VeriSign sued [[ICANN]] claiming it had unlawfully been prevented from adding new features to .com and .net. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038-5165982.html CNet News]</ref>. In August 2004, The claim was moved from federal to California state court.
<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/litigation-verisign.htm ICANN.org]</ref>Eventually in In late 2005 VeriSign and ICANN announced a proposed settlement introduces terms for a new registry services in the .com registry.
The document of these agreements are publicly avilable in [[ICANN]]'s official website and can be viewed from [http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/settlement-agreements.htm here].It should be mentioned that the terms of these agreement were subject to a lot of public criticism.
Also in other domain name negiotiations with [[ICANN]] VeriSign traded .org top-level domain in return for continued rights over .com. In mid 2005, when VeriSign's contract for operation in .net expired, VeriSign and 5 other company bid for it. VeriSign was supported by renowned IT companies like Microsoft, [[IBM]], [[Sun Microsystems]], [[MCI]]. Finally on June 8, 2005 ICANN announced that VeriSign had been approved to operate .net until 2011. <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/dotnet-reassignment/dotnet-general.htm]</ref>
==References==
==References==