Wait Listing Service: Difference between revisions
Applied modification ruleset: Corrections using AWB-ICW patterns |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==WLS Negotiations== | ==WLS Negotiations== | ||
In March, 2002, during the [[ICANN Bucharest|ICANN Meeting in Bucharest]], Verisign presented its revised proposal to the [[ICANN Board]] regarding implementation of its Wait List Service. Under its new proposal, Verisign informed the Board that it included all the concerns and recommendations submitted by registrars to the [[DNSO|Domain Name Supporting Organization]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-20mar02.pdf Domain Name Wait Listing Service]</ref> Verisign's revised proposal ignited contradicting reactions from the | In March, 2002, during the [[ICANN Bucharest|ICANN Meeting in Bucharest]], Verisign presented its revised proposal to the [[ICANN Board]] regarding implementation of its Wait List Service. Under its new proposal, Verisign informed the Board that it included all the concerns and recommendations submitted by registrars to the [[DNSO|Domain Name Supporting Organization]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-20mar02.pdf Domain Name Wait Listing Service]</ref> Verisign's revised proposal ignited contradicting reactions from the Internet community. Some expressed their strong opposition while others supported the WLS proposal. To resolve the issue,the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 02.100 on August 23, 2002 delegating its president [[Paul Twomey]] and general counsel [[John Jeffrey]] to negotiate and make proper amendments to the [[.com]] and [[.net]] Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign to be able to offer the proposed WLS under certain conditions:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-23aug02.htm#02.100 ICANN Board Special Meeting]</ref> | ||
# A redemption grace period for 6 months for all deleted domain names to give opportunity to the domain owners who unconsciously let their domain name expired to retrieve it | # A redemption grace period for 6 months for all deleted domain names to give opportunity to the domain owners who unconsciously let their domain name expired to retrieve it | ||
# A test run for one year | # A test run for one year | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
===Newman & Newman Vs. Verisign & ICANN=== | ===Newman & Newman Vs. Verisign & ICANN=== | ||
In 2004, another | In 2004, another lawsuit was filed by [[Newman & Newman]], a law firm which represented Register.com and several other registrars against ICANN and Verisign to stop the implementation of the WLS. The group accused ICANN and Verisign of:<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrars_file_lawsuit_against_icann_and_verisign Circleid.com]</ref> | ||
# Unfair Trade Practices Act Violations | # Unfair Trade Practices Act Violations | ||
# Violation of California Business & Professions Code | # Violation of California Business & Professions Code | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
===Verisign Vs. ICANN=== | ===Verisign Vs. ICANN=== | ||
On February 26, 2004, [[Verisign]] filed a | On February 26, 2004, [[Verisign]] filed a lawsuit against ICANN alleging that the Internet governing body seriously abused its technical coordination function. The company also stated that ICANN conducted a "blatant breach of the registry agreement, and an interference with Verisign's contractual relations and prospective economic relationships".<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/verisign-v-icann/icann-cross-compl-12Nov04.PDF Verisign Vs. ICANN]</ref> The company's allegation against ICANN was due to its directive to Verisign to stop its implementation of the [[Site Finder]] Service for the [[.com]] and [[.net]] domain name space, which caused the weakening of the stability of the Internet as reported by the [[IAB|Internet Architecture Board]] (IAB) and [[SSAC|Security and Stability Advisory Committee]].<ref>[http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/031001a.html ICANN Takes Action with respect to Verisign's Site Finder]</ref> In addition, Verisign also included its complaint that the delay of the implementation of the '''Wait List Service'''. It claimed ICANN insisted on the introduction of new procedures not required by the 2001 .com Registry Agreement, such as the price reduction for the intended WLS based on competitors' suggestions and for Verisign to accept other conditions suggested by ICANN. Verisign argued that such conditions benefit the different constituencies of ICANN but are disadvantageous to the company's competitive service offerings. The company also pointed out that ICANN's delay of the WLS deprived Verisign profit from the service. Furthermore, Verisign noted that other companies are offering similar services to the WLS.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/verisign-v-icann/verisign-v-icann-complaint-26feb04.pdf Verisign Vs. ICANN]</ref> | ||
United States District Court Judge Howard Matz dismissed the | United States District Court Judge Howard Matz dismissed the lawsuit filed by Verisign with prejudice on August 26, 2004. In his ruling, the judge noted that Verisign failed to sufficiently prove its anti-trust complaint against ICANN.<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-federal-district-court-dismisses-verisigns-anti-trust-claim-against-icann-with-prejudice-71761617.html U.S. Federal District Court Dismisses VeriSign's Anti-Trust Claim Against ICANN with Prejudice]</ref> In response to the court's dismissal of the case, Verisign re-filed its anti-trust complaint against ICANN at the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles.<ref>[http://www.fateback.com/news/domain_names/data/VeriSign_refiles_lawsuit_against_ICANN.html Verisign Re-files lawsuit against ICANN]</ref> | ||
===ICANN & Verisign Settlement Agreement=== | ===ICANN & Verisign Settlement Agreement=== | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
[[Category:Glossary]] | [[Category:Glossary]] | ||