WLS goes to trial

Bret Fausett reports that after extensive oral argument Judge Webster has decided to ask ICANN whether it wants to put off implementing WLS until after a December trial date. If ICANN says it's unwilling to do that, then he'll issue an injunction opinion in the next week or so.
It looks from Bret's report as if it's a toss-up what will happen here. I'm disturbed by the judge's questioning about the consensus policy clauses — ICANN should have made clear to him (and tried to in its papers) that registries are free to roll out services unless there exists a consensus policy to the contrary, that ICANN was only asking registrars (and the GNSO) for advice on Appendix G, and that the registrar opposition to WLS (which itself isn't uniform) doesn't represent a consensus policy. In my mind, he must be leaning towards some kind of injunctive relief, which would be a set-back for ICANN generally.
Also, I'm concerned that ICANN views its negotiations with VeriSign as having a long way to go. Didn't ICANN make a suggestion about Condition C? And didn't V ask that that be reconsidered? So couldn't V withdraw its request for reconsideration — and wouldn't ICANN then be obligated to wind up the negotiations? If ICANN asks for more (in a move to placate the registrars) that will be a clearly anti-competitive action on ICANN's part. ICANN has no authority to negotiate the details of registry services — unless they break the registry-registrar protocol in some way. Which this doesn't.
All in all, a bleak (if brief) report. Looking forward to more details.

October 21, 2003 | Filed Under main page 

Comments

3 Responses to “WLS goes to trial”

  1. Anonymous on October 21st, 2003 1:46 pm

    > registrar opposition to WLS … doesn't represent a consensus policy
    No? Then what does?

  2. Anonymous on October 21st, 2003 6:42 pm

    It should be pointed out that only until recently, Susan was with Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, the same law firm Becky Burr is at, which was hired by SnapNames to lobby for WLS. The conflict of interest is for the reader to decide.

  3. Anonymous on October 21st, 2003 6:50 pm

    P.S. And Susan directly was involved in the debate working for SnapNames. See this submission for instance.
    Google, as usual, is our friend.

Got something to say?