[governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
carlos a. afonso
ca at rits.org.br
Mon Jun 8 06:48:42 EDT 2009
Yes, curious reaction, I do not understand as well what really motivated
McTim to do it. I think this is an open space and we can of course post
anything anyone of us feel relevant to the others as piece of
information, news etc.
--c.a.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "'McTim'" <dogwallah at gmail.com>,
"'Pranesh Prakash'" <pranesh at cis-india.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:47:35 -0700
Subject: RE: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure that I agree... For those of us without a professional
> interest
> in the subject matter here (and other things to be doing) the
> occasional
> background piece or reference or URL for providing context can be
> extremely
> valuable--the piece that Pranesh sent along certainly would, to my
> mind, fit
> within that category.
>
> Especially in light of current/recent discussons.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 1:25 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Pranesh Prakash
> Subject: Re: [governance] Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust
> Suit
>
>
> All,
>
> If I want to read CircleID or IGP blogs I do that on my own.
>
> Please don't just regurgitate, it's bad form, really.
>
> If you feel you must, then at the very least,
> make some editorial comment about what you insist on posting.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route
> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>
>
> On 6/6/09, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> > From:
> >
> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/20090605_appeals_court_revives_c
> f
> > it_anti_trust_suit_against_verisign/>
> >
> > Appeals Court Revives the CFIT Anti-Trust Suit Against VeriSign
> Jun
> > 05, 2009 4:19 PM PDT
> >
> > By John Levine
> >
> > Back in 2005 an organization called the Coalition for Internet
> > Transparency (CFIT) 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.
> >
> > In the decision [PDF], a three judge panel told the district court
> > that the suit has enough basis to proceed. CFIT claims that
> VeriSign
> > engaged in a variety of predatory conduct including financial
> > pressure, astroturf lobbying, and vexatious lawsuits to get ICANN
> to
> > renew the .COM agreement on very favorable terms, including what
> is
> > in practice eternal renewal of the contract with annual price
> > increases. As part of that process, VeriSign settled the suit,
> paid
> > ICANN several million dollars, and promised never to lobby against
> > ICANN again.
> >
> > In the 20 page decision, the appeals court basically said that
> CFIT's
> > claims about the .COM renewal, the domain market, and the expiring
> > domain market were plausible, crediting a brief from the Internet
> > Commerce Association for explaining the expiring domain market to
> > them. They note that an earlier case from 2001 that didn't find a
> > separate market in expiring domains appears no longer relevant,
> since
> > the domain market has evolved a lot since then.
> >
> > CFIT made similar claims about the .NET market, which the appeals
> > court found less persuasive, so they instructed the trial court to
> > look at them again and decide whether they should be dismissed or
> > continue. But the case with respect to .COM definitely is going
> > ahead.
> >
> > This suit could have a huge effect on the domain market, since
> there
> > were credible bidders who said they could run the .COM registry for
> $3
> > per name, under half of what VeriSign charges. It is also a huge
> > embarassment for ICANN, since it shows them to be inept, corrupt,
> or
> > both when managing the .COM domain which, due to its dominance, is
> the
> > most important thing they do. In the original version of the suit
> > ICANN was a defendant, but they were dropped a few years ago so
> now
> > they're just an uncomfortable observer.
> >
> > Perversely, if CFIT gets its way, ICANN could come out ahead. They
> > get a fixed 20 cents per domain, unrelated to the $6.42 that
> VeriSign
> > currently charges. If the price were to drop to $3, ICANN would
> still
> > get their 20 cents, and presumably if the price were a lot lower,
> > there'd be a lot more registrations.
> >
> > CFIT's attorney is Bret Fausett, who's been an active ICANN
> observer
> > just about since the beginning, and gets great credit for this
> > surprising reversal. CFIT themselves, despite their name, is about
> as
> > opaque an organization as there is, having a broken web site and no
>
> > other public presence I can find. A 2005 article in The Register by
>
> > Kieren McCarthy (back when he was a journalist) claims it's funded
> by
> > Rob Hall, founder of momentous.ca/pool.com, a large registrar that
> > does a lot of business with domain speculators and provides a
> popular
> > domain sniping service to grab expiring domains. Although I am not
> a
> > great fan of the speculators, I'm no fan of VeriSign either, and I
> > look forward to the progress of this suit, not the least for the
> > interesting documents that are likely to appear in the discovery
> > stage.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pranesh Prakash
> > Programme Manager
> > Centre for Internet and Society
> > W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list