Re: [registrars] Litigation Update

["Joyce Lin" <joyce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm surprised that it was not even mentioned anywhere in the court paper
that WLS so disproportionably favors Network Solutions.

Joyce Lin
007names.com



----- Original Message -----
From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Registrars Constituency"
<registrars@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:32 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Litigation Update


> 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
>
>