Changes

==Waiting List Service (WLS)==

==Waiting List Service (WLS)==

On December 30, 2001, Verisign proposed the implementation of the Waiting List Service ([[WLS]]) to [[ICANN]]'s [[DNSO]]. Based on its proposal, the WLS will provide registrants the opportunity to reserve their preferred domain names that are currently registered by other subscribers for one year. Registrars will directly reserve and transact with Verisign to reserve the domain name under the WLS. A domain name will only be transferred to an individual who made the reservation if the original owner submitted a request to delete the domain name. Verisign proposed a $35 fee for the service.<ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-30dec01.pdf Domain Name Wait Listing Service]</ref>

On December 30, 2001, Verisign proposed the implementation of the Waiting List Service ([[WLS]]) to [[ICANN]]'s [[DNSO]]. Based on its proposal, the WLS will provide registrants the opportunity to reserve their preferred domain names that are currently registered by other subscribers. Registrars will directly reserve and transact with Verisign to reserve the domain name under the WLS. A domain name will only be transferred to an individual who made the reservation if the original owner submitted a request to delete the domain name. Verisign proposed a $35 fee for the service.<ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-30dec01.pdf Domain Name Wait Listing Service]</ref>

Verisign revised its WLS proposals twice in response to the public comments and discussions with [[registrar]]s and other organizations, on January 28, 2002, and March 20, 2002, respectively.<ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-28jan02.pdf WLS Revision January 28, 2001]</ref> <ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-20mar02.pdf WLS Revision March 20, 2002]</ref> On August 23, 2002, ICANN approved the renegotiation of Verisign's .com and .net registry agreement to incorporate the proper amendments for the implementation of the WLS for 12-month trial periods despite objections. The final subscription fee was $24.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/tap/2002-08-23+-+VeriSign+WLS+Proposal 2002-08-23 - VeriSign WLS Proposal]</ref>

Verisign revised its WLS proposals twice in response to public comments and discussions with [[registrar]]s and other organizations, on January 28, 2002, and March 20, 2002, respectively.<ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-28jan02.pdf WLS Revision January 28, 2001]</ref> <ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-20mar02.pdf WLS Revision March 20, 2002]</ref> On August 23, 2002, ICANN approved the renegotiation of Verisign's .com and .net registry agreement to incorporate the proper amendments for the implementation of the WLS for 12-month trial periods despite objections. The final subscription fee was $24.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/tap/2002-08-23+-+VeriSign+WLS+Proposal 2002-08-23 - VeriSign WLS Proposal]</ref>

On January 26, 2004, ICANN General Counsel and Secretary [[John Jeffrey]] sent 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 [[DOC|U.S. 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's failure 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 Jeffrey]] sent 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 [[DOC|U.S. 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's failure 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 noted 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 were unfavorable to the company. Furthermore, Verisign pointed out ICANN denied the company the ability to profit by delaying the WLS while other companies were able to offer 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>

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 noted 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 were unfavorable to the company. Furthermore, Verisign pointed out that ICANN denied the company the ability to profit by delaying the WLS while other companies were able to offer 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> Verisign and ICANN settled the lawsuit on February 28, 2006. The settlement permanently killed the WLS.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28feb06.htm Settlement Agreement]</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> Verisign and ICANN settled the lawsuit on February 28, 2006. The settlement permanently killed the WLS.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28feb06.htm Settlement Agreement]</ref>