9,082
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 164:
Line 164: + + + +
→Waiting List Service (WLS)
On January 26, 2004 ICANN General Counsel and Secretary [[John O. Jeffrey]] sent to Verisign the Conclusion of the Negotiation regarding ICANN's conditions prior to the implementation of the WLS wherein a special provision stated that the amendments made to the [[.com]] and [[.net]] registry needed approval from Department of Commerce ([[DOC]]). <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/jeffrey-to-lewis-26jan04.pdf Conclusion of WLS Negotiations]</ref> The implementation of the WLS was delayed due to Verisign refusal to seek approval from the DOC and to make necessary changes to its .net registry agreement.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/verisign-v-icann/icann-net-arbitration-request-12nov04.pdf International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration ICANN vs. Verisign]</ref>
On January 26, 2004 ICANN General Counsel and Secretary [[John O. Jeffrey]] sent to Verisign the Conclusion of the Negotiation regarding ICANN's conditions prior to the implementation of the WLS wherein a special provision stated that the amendments made to the [[.com]] and [[.net]] registry needed approval from Department of Commerce ([[DOC]]). <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/jeffrey-to-lewis-26jan04.pdf Conclusion of WLS Negotiations]</ref> The implementation of the WLS was delayed due to Verisign refusal to seek approval from the DOC and to make necessary changes to its .net registry agreement.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/verisign-v-icann/icann-net-arbitration-request-12nov04.pdf International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration ICANN vs. Verisign]</ref>
Verisign filed a legal case against ICANN on February 26, 2004. The company accused ICANN of seriously abusing its technical coordination function by requiring Verisign to stop its Site Finder Service to the .com and .net domain name space. The company also added in the complaint the delay of the implementation of the WLS and the inclusion of new procedures not required by the 2001 .com and .net registry agreements such as the price reduction for the WLS service. According to Verisign, the conditions benefited the different ICANN constituencies but unfavorable to the company.Furthermore, Verisign pointed out ICANN denied the company to earn profit by delaying the WLS while other companies are offering similar services to internet users.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 lawsuit on August 26, 2004. According to the judge, Verisign failed to provide sufficient evidence to 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> Verisign, elevated the case to 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>
==References==
==References==