Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Asks for Verisign Lawsuit Dismissal
morelife writes "ICANN has asked the court to send Verisign a cancellation on their recent lawsuit (breach of contract, violation of the Sherman Act (antitrust), essentially making the point that their interpretation of the contract is different from Verisign's interpretation of it. The
story is covered at CircleID ..."
> I worked for Verizon and it doesn't surprise me they're playing the 800lb Gorilla in the domain name business.
We might believe you if you knew the difference between Verizon and Verisign.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
What are you *talking* about?
ICANN handles standards -- Internet names and numbers. There's *always* a single ultimate organization in place to do this sort of thing. Is *ANSI* a monopoly? ISO?
Furthermore, ICANN hasn't been trying to leverage their position to make money, *as Verisign has*. Heck, ICANN's had numerous funding problems over the past few years, whereas Verisign has been funneling vast amounts of money into itself over that same period of time.
There is *exactly* one organization involved that has been abusing its unique, monopoly position (root name servers) in the past year, and that is very specifically Verisign (bleeding sitefinder). There was mass outcry, and ICANN responded, telling Verisign that Verisign was running amok and risking cancellation of its special, unique privileges.
It boggles the mind that ICANN (which isn't perfect, and *is* admittedly influenced by businesses) is being accused by *Verisign* (the most awful collection of monopolistic business scum you could get your hands on) of abuse of a monopoly position.
I just can't imagine a person siding *with* Verisign and against ICANN on something like this. Christ. It's insane.
May we never see th