Slashdot Mirror
Court Case Against VeriSign, .Com Monopoly Revived
netczar writes "According to a post by John Levine on CircleID, as well as other sources, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reversed a lower court decision which threw out an antitrust lawsuit several years ago by the Coalition for ICANN Transparency (CFIT) against VeriSign. Levine writes: 'Back in 2005 an organization called the Coalition for ICANN Transparency burst upon the scene at the Vancouver ICANN meeting, and filed an anti-trust suit against VeriSign for their monopoly control of the .COM registry and of the market in expiring .COM domains. They didn't do very well in the trial court, which granted Verisign's motion to dismiss the case. But yesterday the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court and put the suit back on track.'"
I'm not a fan of VeriSign by any means, but aren't there several organizations in charge of TLDs? VeriSign does not control the .org TLD, nor (I believe) does it control the .co.uk TLD. So this is very much about treating .com special perhaps because it's the most popular and common. However, if VeriSign (or any granted monopoly) abuses their power, then they need to lose the privilege immediately, not when their term is up.
What is a bit more curious to me is why ICANN is still primarily U.S.-controlled. Why isn't it an international organization with bidding across nations for the privilege of being the .com (or any highly-sought TLD) operator.
ICANN should be international (because the Internet has become international), and TLD monopolies should still be allowed to exist (for logistical reasons), but those monopolies are subject to periodic review and loss if there is evidence of abuse brought before ICANN.
The other option of course is to assume that .com is U.S. only and VeriSign should be subject to U.S. anti-trust laws based on its practices alone -- no ICANN or other international involvement in this.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
icannhasdotcom?
Uhmmm, is the same appellate court of appeals that the current Supreme Court nominee is from? And her performance level is, is, 60% of her decisions have been overturned. Who would last in their current job at a 60% failure rate? Even if this isn't her court why in the world would you " See how it goes from here." , when it goes to the Supreme Court? And at times, that court makes less than solid decisions? Why not expect a reasonable decision to be the usual outcome, and based on the current law? And as for : " Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue. " (with the exception of those in the low income level) those who sue and lose, get to pay for all court costs as it used to be awhile ago, keeping unjust lawsuits to a minimum!