ICANN Sued Over Wait List

Greedo writes "According to their press release, "Pool.com, one of the Internet's hottest new ventures (their words, not mine), has launched a lawsuit challenging the right of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to proceed with a monopolistic new Wait-Listing Service (Google cache) this fall." You can read Pool.com's Statement of Claim, if you like."

Thank God!

[Chasuk]

Regardless of the motive, it is good to see an example of litigiousness that might actually benefit us all.

ICANN needs to be slapped, and slapped hard, and NOT with an open palm. I don't know anything about Pool, but I'm hoping that they have a big enough fist, or good enough lawyers (which are effectively the same thing) to send ICANN's head spinning.

broken link

[xilmaril]

the statement of claim is actually here [pool.com]

IANAL but...

[spuke4000]

It seems that pool.com's business model was based on something that is pretty tenuous. If ICANN wants to change their rules for letting people reserve domain names, isn't that their right? (again, IANAL, that's a question, not a statement.)

I realize this is a big kick in the pants for pool.com, I don't see that they have much of a case here. They should consider themselves lucky that only one reservation can be put on one domain name.

Re:IANAL but...

[realdpk]

The way it is now is nearly pure competition. If you're good, and with a bit of luck, you'll get the expired domain. There is actual competition over getting the domains.

The way Verisign..excuse me ICANN (little difference) wants it, only Verisign can reserve domain names. Other companies can resell Verisign's reservation system for "only" $24-$28/year.

This matches Verisign's past work, basically killing, neutering and then buying (essentially) ICANN so they remained the one source for .com/.net/etc. It's

Basically

[Otter]

If I understand this correctly (which may well not be the case) -- Pool.com specializes in grabbing expired domain names. ICANN is proposing a method in which reservations could be placed for names before they expire, instead of a first-come, first-served system upon expiration.

Waving around the word "monopolistic" seems a bit silly here -- like with broadcast spectrum allocation, this is a case where you need a central authority. Whether or not you like ICANN and whether or not a waiting-list is better than a free-for-all, there doesn't seem to be anything at issue here except Pool.com's business model.

(Incidentally, pool.com is the sort of sweet domain that got swept up in the '90's and become available again now. Apparently their system works.)

Re:Basically

[realdpk]

You don't *need* a central authority - they're doing it just fine now as it is. Sure, it's hard to be the one "lucky" enough to get the domain after it expires, but them's the breaks.

The reason the word "monopolistic" is exactly correct is that Verisign themselves will be collecting $24-$28/year from the other registrars to provide this service. It's not like ICANN, or a non-profit, is getting the fee to run this database "for the greater good".

But as we all know (or we all should know) ICANN is firmly in

Monopoly favors existing players

[abulafia]

True, pool.com has a vested interest. One can't expect expensive lawsuits to be driven by people with no income and no vested stake - that doesn't happen often.

If I'm not mistaken, the "reservation" system is explicitly handed to one company. There are other models that would work, pool.com's being one of them. ICANN, in typical fashion, handed out a freebie to an incumbent.

And you're actually factually incorrect: the reason ICANN has the power it has is that people who choose to participate in the distri

Dips on Microsoft.com

[infonography]

So does this mean when it's up for renewal next, i could get it? I been eyeing mit.edu for quite a while now.

Re:Dips on Microsoft.com

[SuDZ]

May 3rd 2012 is when it expires. I will make a note to remind you.

SuDZ

They will still have a business model

[CowboyMeal]

This won't kill pool.com's business model, they can just grab the expired waiting list registrations if it goes through.

We could call it meta-squatting!

Call me a counter-counter-culturist, but

[Dachannien]

I am of the firm belief that a significant amount of total shit on the Internet would not have appeared had domain name registration not been "privatized". Pool.com should be counting their blessings that they can even broker in domain names in the first place.

I'm tired of domain name issues

[fm6]

It's a little late in the game for me to raise this issue, but I think this all goes to show how stupid it was to insist on "free market" domain registration. When Network Solutions had a monopoly on com, net, and org registrations, their high fees meant that only serious web site operators could buy TLDs. Yeah, these same fees put TLDs out of the reach of those with limited means. But what's wrong with second-level domains? Web presence providers gave them away for free, and it allowed more people to have vanity domain names.

It was, of course, unfair for Network Solutions to reap such large profits from a service that cost them little to opeate. But it would have made more sense to divert this money into Internet operations or research. Cutting the fees has just enabled wholesale domain squatting and the strange business of grabbing popular names for porn sites.

What the heck. I think it's time to stop trying to "fix" the domain system and think of it as a set of arbitrary addresses. For actually finding the web site you want, we need some kind of keyword system and/or a central registry of people and organization that own domain names.

Re:I'm tired of domain name issues

[dlosey]

For actually finding the web site you want, we need some kind of keyword system...

Isn't this what a search engine is, really? In essence its a phone book of web pages which you can sort by keyword. Google currently seems to have the best algorithm to sort those keywords.

Just my $.02

Re:I'm tired of domain name issues

[fm6]

Sure, the Google system is very useful, but it's too unstructured. You can't find people on it unless they have unusual names. Same goes for businesses. I'd like a way to say, "restrict this search to sites that have an address in Poodunk County".

You may be tired, but...

[abulafia]

Why do you want only those with a lot of cash to own domains? This flies in the face of, say, US trademark law, which (though much maligned here) allows me, for instance, legal acknoledgement of my term. With a flat namespace, first mover wins. So be it- that's how it always works. Should a cash reserve change that?

Don't talk about "need" - I don't need the 15 or so domains I own (I'm not even sure how many at this point). I have them. That's what counts.

Trademarks are not addresses

[fm6]

Your understanding of how trademarks work is... well, worse than Spike Lee's. Owning a trademark doesn't mean you have exclusive use of the mark. It just means that any mark that might be confused with yours isn't allowed. So you can call your company "McDonald's" as long as your company isn't any kind of restaurant.

Another difference: to grab a domain name, all you have to do is pay the registration fee. To grab a trademark, you have to identify the mark with something of potential value: a product, a se

Don't be dense

[abulafia]

You're completely misrepresenting what I said.

Read it again, think a bit, and drive through.

Ahem.

I'm not dense, you are!

[fm6]

Yeah, I know that's a childish response. But so's yours. If you see a flaw in my reasoning, let's hear it.

irrelevant lawsuit?

[danoatvulaw]

Someone please tell me how a suit filed in canada is going to have any effect over a US corporation. Unless there is some treaty that allows for them to execute their judgment here, or a US court enforcing a judgment, i just cant see anything actually happening as a result. Seems more of a futile gesture then anything that will have a real effect.

Sounds Like ICAAN is going to get it's ass kicked

[TubeSteak]

Couldn't cut and paste out of the pdf, but basically points 10. a. and b. say that the ICAAN Supporting Council rejected the WLS plan and that ICAAN did not create an Independant Review Panel, which is required to be established by the ICAAN bylaws when requested. Point 11. mentions the creation of a "Fair, Transparent and Competitve Naming Act" that has been put into the House of Representatives to challenge ICAAN's authority to create the WLS (but nobody mentions who/what is pushing the bill...)

Their busi