RE: [registrars] Litigation Update

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The other interesting point is that the court primarily looked to the "public interest"?

Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
Fax   (212) 629-9309
ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx 


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 3:46 PM
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: [registrars] Litigation Update


Hello All:

For those that may not be aware, the court has ruled in connection with the
preliminary injunction brought on behalf of several registrars to halt the
WLS implementation, decision available here
http://www.icann.org/legal/dotster-v-icann/order-denying-dotster-pi-13nov03.
pdf.

Independent of registrars views of the WLS service, I believe the following
language is something that ALL registrars should be keenly aware of because
of its potential impact on registrar business operations.

"The Court rejects Plaintiffs suggestion that ICANN is required to obtain
registrar consensus before it can enter into any agreement with a third
party that might affect domain name allocation. If the Court adopted this
interpretation, the registrars would effectively have the power to veto any
contract that affected their economic interests."

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage