Slashdot Log In
ICANN/Verisign Sued For Monopoly Abuse
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Nov 29, 2005 03:27 PM
from the now-we-see-some-fireworks dept.
from the now-we-see-some-fireworks dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Nineteen Registrars Decry ICANN Arrangement 150 comments
hpcanswers writes "ICANN, the governing body for Internet domain names, recently gave VeriSign exclusive control of the top-level .com domain until 2012. Now, nineteen registrars, including GoDaddy and Network Solutions, have petitioned ICANN to reconsider on the basis that VeriSign will most likely increase registration fees. A few of the registrars have also asked the US Department of Commerce to veto the deal." From the article: "The new deal permits VeriSign to increase the price of domain name registrations by 7 per cent in four of the next six years. In the two remaining years, VeriSign will only be able to raise prices if it can show the rises are necessary for security reasons. It also gives VeriSign a presumptive right to renewal of the .com registry, on the proviso that it complies with certain aspects of the agreement."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Is this why... (Score:5, Funny)
And at the end of the day.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And at the end of the day.... (Score:5, Funny)
But then you'd be part of the problem, instead of part of the other problem
Re:And at the end of the day.... (Score:3, Informative)
I strongly considered this right after receiving my computer science degree. I actually have a friend who is going down this road. Nevertheless, I interned in the IT department of a smallish (b
hm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hm (Score:3, Interesting)
court? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:court? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:court? (Score:4, Funny)
show me the money! (Score:3, Insightful)
already too expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
The price is already too high, in my opinion - companies like verisign (and other domain name registers) are making money by charging for something that is essentially free to create. For-profit companies should be kept out of domain registration - isn't that part of the point of ICANN in the first place?
Re:already too expensive (Score:4, Funny)
Sore losers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. Being a monopoly is not a crime. It only becomes so when abuse of monopoly power can be demonstrated. This does not look like it (yet), as there is a big difference between what you are contractually allowed to do, and what you actually end up doing.
Re:Sore losers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see, ICANN abuses the power it have as a not for profit body to create a monopoly for a for profit business.
Yes, this does not look like abuse of economical power, it is more like normal corruption and abuse of *(political) power, that give jail time to the people, instead of regulations.
Cheaper eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 me
Which side, again? (Score:5, Funny)
I can't see any UN involement here, so I guess we can safely be against ICANN?
Sounds like a bunch of fuckweasels to me. (Score:4, Interesting)
http://wadnd.com/ [wadnd.com]
Appears to be part of...
Targetedtraffic.com [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.
Two groups suing ICANN? (Score:3, Informative)
CFIT appears to be muc
off to a good start (Score:4, Funny)
Re:it is possible that... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
They probably wouldn't. I know saying anything in a sarcastic matter-of-factly tone makes you sound witty, but there's not much merit or logical basis for assuming that the U.N. would make the same kind of abuses. 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.
Re:Solution... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Shrug (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shrug (Score:4, Insightful)