ICANN and VERISIGN sued for price fixing by wadnd.com

[DrDomains]

I'm not aligning myself with VeriSign. Far from. Check the WHOIS for VeriSignSucks.com. I was posting and acting against VeriSign within ICANN's structures years before WADND took an interest. Ask Monte.

You can assist by having more WADND members posting on the Settlement Comments forum. That's the immediate thing ICANN's Board is looking at THIS WEEK. Why else do you think VeriSign is trying to stuff it with positive comments in the final few days before the meeting?

George...my point is simple: let's stop ripping on each other, arguing about BS, etc and focus on ways to get our point of view across and claim victory.

Deal?

 

[Fearless]

Finally, your "Vendetta" against me is showing again. :-D

Rick, you can't win any intellectual arguments with George. Stop being a hard headed donkey and admit you were wrong for kicking George out of your little club and invite him back. It's much better to have George on your side.

 

[seeker]

Rick, you can't win any intellectual arguments with George. Stop being a hard headed donkey and admit you were wrong for kicking George out of your little club and invite him back. It's much better to have George on your side.

what a dumb a## statement.
if you cared about what we are talking about you would not bring up such a statement.
read the darn subject of this thread.

 

[Fearless]

if you cared about what we are talking about you would not bring up such a statement.

I do care. That's why I made the statement. It's obvious Rick could use George in this battle but he's too hard headed to realize it.

 

[GeorgeK]

VeriSign continues to try to sway things, via the public comments forum. Compare the last couple of days:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/settlement-comments/

with all the prior days. Recall it was public outrage that won the day over SiteFinder.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

you really think this helps this 'cause'????
what can I say......

I am justing asking if Schwartz is for real in what he posted, implying that vendettas are no good.

Rick, are you for real?

 

[seeker]

Daddy, you are being a jerk this moment.
whatever your problem, do you *think* this is the right thread to resolve your issues????
come on....
united we stand, divided we fall.
and we are falling apparently....

 

[WhoDatDog]

Being domainers, couldn't you come up with something better than WADND?

 

[Dave Zan]

Guys, focus! :-D

 

[jberryhill]

I wonder what it will take to get Bob Parsons to jump on the bandwagon.

Bob Parsons is not going to jump on this bandwagon.

ICANN and Verisign put in an allowance for Verisign to provide "volume pricing" in the apparent hope of buying off the larger registrars.

George, if you want to find an attorney who is:

-admitted in California

-knowledgeable in antitrust law

-an experienced litigator

...and get him up to speed on every detail of the ICANN zoo on short notice, then you have a tall order. That WADND was able to get this done is impressive and constructive.

I personally wouldn't care if the plaintiff was al Qaeda, as long as someone was trying to throw a spanner into the works of this oncoming train wreck.

 

[GeorgeK]

I personally wouldn't care if the plaintiff was al Qaeda, as long as someone was trying to throw a spanner into the works of this oncoming train wreck.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Hmmmm, when VeriSign was suing ICANN, which one was my friend? :laugh:

 

[Whois-Search]

Well your making the news over here - nice one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4482292.stm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/30/icann_versign_sued/

We need more suits and bad press like this - only language Veri$ign and Icannt understand.

 

[JMJ]

Bob Parsons is not going to jump on this bandwagon.

Actually they did make a statement of opposition. Not Bob himself but atleast they are against it.

http://forum.icann.org/lists/settlement-comments/msg00269.html

Finally an article which points out some of the real topics at hand rather than only the 7% increase.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051129/icann_verisign_lawsuits.html?.v=3

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Finally an article which points out some of the real topics at hand rather than only the 7% increase.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051129/icann_verisign_lawsuits.html?.v=3

Good find.

From the above article:

"John Jeffrey, ICANN's general counsel, called the lawsuits an attempt by special interests to hijack public debate."

That is heavy spin, if not an outright lie.

Lawsuits are the ultimate public debate.

I don't agree with WADND on everything, but they are not "special interests" in this instance.

"Special interests" are usually rich and powerful groups who seek special privileges, legislation, benefits, and who have major self-interests at stake, and who almost always want to stick it to the taxpayers. Does that sound familiar here?

Domain owners are simply the public at large, the oodles of citizens and small businesses who use domains for their online endeavors.

In this instance, "special interests" seems to apply more accurately to: 1. the rich and powerful and monopolistic company VeriSign and 2. the rich and powerful law firm ICANN's counsel

 

[JMJ]

Good find.

From the above article:

"John Jeffrey, ICANN's general counsel, called the lawsuits an attempt by special interests to hijack public debate."

That is heavy spin, if not an outright lie.

Lawsuits are the ultimate public debate.

I don't agree with WADND on everything, but they are not "special interests" in this instance.

"Special interests" are usually rich and powerful groups who seek special privileges, legislation, benefits, and who have major self-interests at stake, and who almost always want to stick it to the taxpayers. Does that sound familiar here?

Domain owners are simply the public at large, the oodles of citizens and small businesses who use domains for their online endeavors.

In this instance, "special interests" seems to apply more accurately to: 1. the rich and powerful and monopolistic company VeriSign and 2. the rich and powerful law firm ICANN's counsel

Oddly enough I found it as the first link under VRSN's stock quote on Yahoo. lol Seems strange that it's up with the threat of two anti-trust lawsuits. But then again it may be a norm as I don't follow the market very much. I also wonder how much of that increase is being bought from within to try and keep some stability?

 

[GeorgeK]

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30nov05.htm

"ICANN Lawsuit Update: Judge Rules in ICANN's Favor and Denies Application for Temporary Restraining Order
30 November 2005

A US Federal Judge has ruled in ICANN's favor and denied an application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against ICANN sought by industry group CFIT in the US District Court, Northern District of California.

The application for a TRO was an attempt to block the proposed settlement of a long-standing dispute between ICANN and VeriSign.

ICANN continues to seek comment from the public and its various stakeholder groups on the proposed settlement during this week's ICANN meetings taking place in Vancouver, Canada."

I believe ICANN won this ruling on technical grounds, because the TRO was sought way too soon. In particular, it would have made more sense to bring it after the ICANN Board voted to accept it, and thus before the US DOC had to approve it. Right now, ICANN can dance around saying it's just a "proposal", and win motions like these. The actual ruling hasn't been posted to ICANN's litigation page yet:

http://www.icann.org/general/litigation.htm

I doubt CFIT would have expected to win the TRO, so it's questionable why they made the strategic choice to do it, and thus lose momentum. Their lawsuit could have been filed equally well without the TRO application.

 

[JMJ]

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30nov05.htm

"ICANN Lawsuit Update: Judge Rules in ICANN's Favor and Denies Application for Temporary Restraining Order
30 November 2005

A US Federal Judge has ruled in ICANN's favor and denied an application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against ICANN sought by industry group CFIT in the US District Court, Northern District of California.

The application for a TRO was an attempt to block the proposed settlement of a long-standing dispute between ICANN and VeriSign.

ICANN continues to seek comment from the public and its various stakeholder groups on the proposed settlement during this week's ICANN meetings taking place in Vancouver, Canada."

I believe ICANN won this ruling on technical grounds, because the TRO was sought way too soon. In particular, it would have made more sense to bring it after the ICANN Board voted to accept it, and thus before the US DOC had to approve it. Right now, ICANN can dance around saying it's just a "proposal", and win motions like these. The actual ruling hasn't been posted to ICANN's litigation page yet:

http://www.icann.org/general/litigation.htm

I doubt CFIT would have expected to win the TRO, so it's questionable why they made the strategic choice to do it, and thus lose momentum. Their lawsuit could have been filed equally well without the TRO application.

Seems like a slap in the face to anyone challenging their decision to post that on the main page of announcements and not the actual lawsuit filing aswell. Doing so appears to me they have already made their decision on which way they plan to go.

 

[GeorgeK]

Just an added note, a copy of the order can be found at:

http://blog.lextext.com/blog/_archives/2005/11/30/1429430.html
http://blog.lextext.com/PDFofNov302005Order.pdf

Next court date will be February 10, 2006.

 

[CashCowDomains]

DOMAINERS OF THE WORLD -- UNITE

roy
dnsresearch inc. d/b/a sneakers.com

 

[GeorgeK]

ICANN updated its litigation page, to publish the CFIT case files:

http://www.icann.org/general/litigation.htm
http://www.icann.org/general/litigation-cfit.htm