ICANN/Verisign Sued For Monopoly Abuse

Andy_R writes "The BBC is reporting that the World Association of Domain Name Developers (WADND) have filed suit against ICANN and Verisign for alleged violations of antitrust, conspiracy, monopolization and price fixing laws. The suit alleges that the two are entering an unlawful agreement that gives VeriSign a permanent monopoly over the all .com and .net domain name registrations, and the right to raise prices at 7% per annum forever. The text of the lawsuit is available as a .pdf from WADND." ZDNet has the story as well.

Comments

Shrug

[hammackj]

Domain registrations should cost $100 a year, just to help stop idiots from buying every domain name for $8.95 and reselling them for more than they are worth.

court?

[Janek Kozicki]

the court in which country will handle this? I don't see this, since it is international problem here. Is there any interantional court? Geneva? US? UN? Japan? we are talking about whole earth...

Re:hm

[Rude Turnip]

I think the whole DNS system should be shaken up perhaps to the point that it rattles apart. The internet is the next generation of printing press, turning everyone into a publisher. YET...the only way to get your name out there is to revert back to a huge, political beaurocracy to register your domain name. There must be a better way...perhaps an open, democratized "AOL-type" system based on keywords?

Cheaper eh?

[saskboy]

I'd like to see domain names to be much cheaper, so that neophytes can get a domain name for $1US/year.

What pays for the DNS system anyway, and why aren't domain names sold directly to the public instead of through registr[ars][ants?]?

Re:Cheaper eh?

[ZachPruckowski]

I'd like to see domain names to be much cheaper, so that neophytes can get a domain name for $1US/year.

Cheap domains are bad, because for every one we get from an amateur, interested neophyte (like me), we'll get 3 spammers picking up cheap sites. A medium cost, and one with a reasonable rate hike, not an excessive one, would allow people with interest to get a site (while encouraging them not to drop something they paid decent money for), and stopping mass pickups of dozens of names.

Sounds like a bunch of fuckweasels to me.

[Tackhead]

Hmm.

http://wadnd.com/

Appears to be part of...

Targetedtraffic.com, who appear to be working with folks at the reputable-sounding domain names americanflags.com, revenue.net, golfcourses.com, ireit.com, erealestate.com, and it looks like they all hail from Delray Beach, Floriduh.

Congratulations, guys! I don't know whether you're spammers or not, but it takes talent to sound like a filthier bunch of domain-hijacking cockgobblers than the entire marketing department of Verisign. I mean, seriously -- I read those domains and was surprised when I didn't see any of you on the ROKSO list of the top 100 spammers. I actually looked. About the only way you could have looked like a bigger bunch of dirtballs would have been to have been based in Boca Raton, FL, or Slidell, LA.

I hate to say this guys, but even though you're not on the ROKSO list - after seeing who you're working with, I kinda hope Verisign/ICANN wins.

Re:Sounds like a bunch of fuckweasels to me.

[merc]

I'd mod you up for that background research (really interesting) but you're already at 5 ;-) Good job though.

Whatever happened to Godaddy's (et al) lawsuits against VerminSlime?

Re:Solution...

[ralphclark]

I see...so, if some Republicans are corrupt, then we can assume Republicans and Republicanism itself are all evil? Is that what you're saying?

Re:Solution...

[glitchvern]

The U.N. is not a for-profit organization, and U.N. commitee members cannot profit from such unethical practices. They don't have shareholders whom they are obligated to turn a profit for. As such, it makes them much more suitable for running a global communication infrastructure that's just as important to our global society as other shared public infrastructures such as roads and sewage systems. So if anything, these abuses by ICANN should make us reconsider the legitimacy of their monopolistic control.

ICANN is also not a for-profit organization, and it doesn't seem to have stopped them from screwing things up. At least they can be taken to court for violating anti-trust laws, try that with the UN in control. Devil you know, devil you don't. I can imagine ways in which the UN can do worse, not that I have to since they gave us proposals which were worse. This is why people want to keep the status quo even though people aren't particularly pleased with that either.

Re:Solution...

[Roger_Explosion]

It's really interesting how differently the UN is viewed in the United States compared to the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, it is viewed as a force for good, which although has a few problems like any large beaurocratic organisation, has it's heart in the right place and does much more good than harm. In the United States however it seems to be viewed as some sort of corrupt, evil, old boys club where the members sit around taking bribes and criticise America's unilateral approach to world affairs. It's pretty ridiculous when you think of all the good the UN has done over the years with it's food and health programs, the international court of justice etc. As well as it's various peace-keeping roles. It just amazes me how thoroughly the American public has been brainwashed, just because the UN doesnt do exactly what the United States government wants. The United Nations is no more corrupt, morally or financially, than the current US administration.

Despite the few controversies lately involving the UN, I'd much rather they had control of the .com and .net registers than Verisign, which is a company who serves the interests of shareholders, and shareholders alone. They also have a pretty patchy track record. Sitefinder anyone?