ICANN Asks for Verisign Lawsuit Dismissal 11
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 ..."
Re:Verizon (Score:5, Funny)
We might believe you if you knew the difference between Verizon and Verisign.
Mildly amusing... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Mildly amusing... (Score:2)
They're saying that the other allegations only have merit if VeriSign is found to be correct in its interpretation. Therefore it's idiotic to argue them while that point is still up in the air. ICANN's just saying that they should prove the underlying point first, and then come back and deal with the other stuff later if they're found to be correct.
Antitrust (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe it need to be stated that ICANN is in fact violating the anti-trust law. While ICANN has been authorized by Congress, Congress has no legitimate authority to create such a monopoly organization.
The only monopolies Congress is authorized to establish are copyright and patents if they creates progress in sciences and useful art.
I cannot see how this definition fit ICANN. Therefore I believe it is time that ICANN is given back to the people. I believe only then we will see domain name services
Re:Antitrust (Score:2)
Congress is authorized to regulate interstate commerce. There is no monopoly in the domain registar space. There are 193 companies that ICANN has accredited as registars. ICANN regulates these registars, and it is well within congressional authority to set up such a regulatory organization.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Verisign == scum (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Antitrust (Score:2, Interesting)
Congress has plenty of power here to do what it pleases. They have a "monopoly" over interstate commerce, to begin with. ICANN is basically a public utility, that the department of commerce oversees. Think of them as the internet gas company. They can do what they wish, but like the gas company they have a restrictive tarriff (in the form of a contract with the DoC, a memorandum of understanding with the DoC and a cooperative research agreement). The DoC can review ICANN's actions (t
In other news... (Score:1)
Satan was quoted as saying, "It's all ICANN's fault. They did something that benefits the 'Net community at large, instead of just corporate interests. Go figure!"