RE: [registrars] VeriSign's SiteFinder (antitrust) suit against ICANN dismissed

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric:

I concur that this was welcome news from a cost saving standpoint as
anti-trust litigation, particularly discovery, is VERY VERY costly. However,
to be realistic we are not out of the woods just yet. The dismisal with
prejudice was only in connection with the anti-trust claims which was
VeriSign's sole reason for being in Federal Court in the first place as
Declane. The remain contract and tort claims were NOT dismissed with
prejudice as noted in the article you cited. However, based on this most
recent article it appears that VeriSign does intend to continue the
remaining claims in state court, see
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=4C63B3A1-EDB0-4DA9-9625-8B6A6
2999A3F

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Eric
Brunner-Williams
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 6:46 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Cc: paul@xxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] VeriSign's SiteFinder (antitrust) suit against
ICANN dismissed


Oki all,

Moderately good news, which I hope will be followed by some staff comment
on the size of the ICANN budget earmarked for VGRS's litigation, which is
necessary for this to become Really good news.

Here's the URL for the story written up by Declan McCullagh and massaged
by Robert Lemos over at CNET.

http://news.com.com/VeriSign%27s+antitrust+suit+against+ICANN+dismissed/2100
-1030_3-5326136.html?tag=nefd.top

I suppose this will mean that VGRS will no longer be threatening Paul Vixie
and other "John Does" who fielded fixes for BIND and other implementations
of DNS that provided work-arounds for VGRS's unannounced, and technically
daft registry-level hack.

Eric