Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Second Lawsuit Filed Against ICANN (and VeriSign)

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the more-the-merrier dept.

penciling_in writes "CircleID reports on a second lawsuit filed against ICANN and VeriSign. 'Newman & Newman, the law firm representing an ad hoc coalition of ICANN-accredited domain name registrars, has filed a lawsuit today against ICANN and VeriSign to Stop 'Anti-Consumer, Anti-Competitive' Wait List Service Implementation.' According to the report, "The complaint attacks ICANN and VeriSign based on 1) Unfair Trade Practices Act Violations; 2) Violation of California Business & Professions Code; 3) Unlawful Tying Arrangement; 4) Attempted Monopolization; 5) Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; 6) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 7) Breach of Contract; and 8) Declaratory Relief." Also a related website launched at fightwls.com."

11 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. Tech guru predicts the winner: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The lawyers.

  2. So let me get this straight... by nharmon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can buy the right to register Microsoft.Com if Microsoft Corp ever decides to stop renewing it. However, Microsoft could buy an 'insurance' which would prevent loss of the domain if someone forgot to renew it.

    Other than the same company is selling these two products, I find this comical at best. No way this should be illegal.

    Unless Verisign intends to make information about who owns 'domain insurance' private confidential, then I see no reason why both products cannot co-exist.

    As long as the person understands that they have about as much chance of registering microsoft.com as they do of winning the lottery, I see no reason why we should be holding consumers' hands and protecting them from their own stupidity.

    1. Re:So let me get this straight... by kindbud · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As long as the person understands that they have about as much chance of registering microsoft.com as they do of winning the lottery, I see no reason why we should be holding consumers' hands and protecting them from their own stupidity.

      But if Microsoft buys insurance from Verisign, then there is NO chance at all that the person who paid for WLS on Microsoft.com will ever get the domain. Thus, at best it is fraudulent for Verisign to offer WLS and insurance, and at worse, it is a racketeering operation with Verisign putting the squeeze on their own customers ("Buy insurance, Microsoft, look how many people are on the WLS for your domain. You wouldn't want to lose your domain to one of these people, would you?").

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:So let me get this straight... by Endive4Ever · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I sold a digital recording cable converter right on ebay last month. One that normally has a hard drive. I mentioned right on the bid page that the hard drive was removed and that it didn't have a smartcard.

      This morning I got email from the buyer 'where's the hard drive? where's the smart card?'

      Never underestimate the intelligence of somebody willing to give you money.

      --
      ---
  3. atlarge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Icann may be bad, but Icann@large is worse. There are many idiots that believe that Icann was a kind of internet government and they talk about democratic organisation and the like but aren't able to speak with one voice or organise themselves with their radical democratic principles that often lead to "takeovers". I often came to the conclusion: They waste our time in bylaws discussion and non-working organisational bodies. The atlarge community failed.

    You cannot deal with the atlarge guys atlarge.

    And ITU to take over ICANN? I don't want this, not even more UN breakfast directors and phrase driven policy. Icann is is too American but they don't pollute the debate with policy issues that are off-topic. However IPR and Icann is also fully off-topic.

    I fully agree with Karl Auerbach, what's all this ICANN fuzz about.

    Wipe the politicians out. Let the admins in.

  4. Just like a soap! by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 5, Funny

    Verisign: Mwahaha! Say hello to millions in advertisement revenue... We mean, Sitefinder!
    ICANN: Hey Verisign.
    Verisign: Yesh?
    ICANN: Fuck off.
    Verisign: ...
    Verisign: To hell with you, I'm going to sue you!
    Rest of the world: GO TO HELL, BOTH OF YOU!!!
    Return tomorrow for the next episode of "As the DNS resolves."!
    --
    Hate me!
  5. Conflict of interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Network solutions shouldn't have been allowed to get into any business besides selling domain names and providing DNS. Anything else (like selling ads on their sitefinder) and there is a risk they will do something to DNS to promote their other products rather than improve usability (as they did). They shouldn't even be allowed to send unlimited e-mails to domain name owners.

    TLD registrars and DNS providers should be small companies, run by people who are content to do a job and make a small profit, but not have unlimited freedom/growth potential of a private company that doesn't provide any exclusive service to the public.

    I hope ICANN moves in that direction right away and not even bother with separate lawsuits for various small points.

    Propz to the GNAA

  6. anti- W(hich) L(egal) S(tand) by jdkane · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Also a related website launched at fightwls.com."

    Granted most people who are going to the site for a reason know what the acronymn means, but for goodness sake, for the rest of us, put up some type of description about what that acronym WLS means. -- "Waiting-List Service" -- and tell a bit more about it up front.

  7. WLS an "OPTION" or a "CONTINGENCY FEE"? by Moblaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not entirely clear but it is important. Are the lawyers here talking about a service that you will be charged for regardless of whether or not you can actually buy a domain? Verisign is in the position to run a simple waiting list program, because they control the root servers. But this lawsuit seems to imply that you will be charged just for the "right" to purchase, not based on whether or not a purchase actually goes through (in this case, depending on whether the original registrant renews ahead of time or not).

    What I want to know is why Verisign can hold domains for a few days after they "expire" to let someone renew them. Other registrars will lose them right away (in some cases, to Verisign).

    1. Re:WLS an "OPTION" or a "CONTINGENCY FEE"? by tonyray · · Score: 5, Informative

      Verisign not only holds the domains for several *weeks* after they expire, they also lock them for several weeks *before* they expire so they cannot be transferred to another registrar. They do the latter because they charge twice as much as just about anyone else and once you get your bill from them, they know you will jump ship. By locking the domain you are stuck with either paying them or having your domain resolution halted for several weeks. Now, with a waiting list, Verisign can also threaten you with losing the domain altogether.

  8. I just thought of a great new game by Mixel · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's like the old "Rock, Paper, Scissors"... Only its called "Sue, Copy, PublicDomain"!

    Sue vs Copy -> Sue Wins
    Sue vs Public -> Public Wins
    Copy vs Public -> Copy Wins

    A game for artists, lawyers, hackers, CEOs and the whole family.