|
Declaration
of Daniel E. Halloran in Support of Defendant's Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(15 September
2003)
|
Jeffrey A. LeVee (SBN 125863)
Emma Killick (SBN 192469)
Courtney M. Schaberg (SBN 193728)
Jones Day
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4600
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 489-3939
Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
Attorneys for Defendant
INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DOTSTER, INC., GO DADDY SOFTWARE, INC., and eNOM,
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS,
Defendant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case No. CV03-5045 JFW (MANx)
DECLARATION OF DANIEL E. HALLORAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Date: September 29, 2003
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Courtroom: 16
{Original date: October 6, 2003}
Before the Hon. John F. Walter
|
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
I, Daniel E. Halloran, declare:
- I am an attorney admitted to the State Bar of California, and I
am the Chief Registrar Liaison and Acting Secretary of defendant Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"). I
have worked for ICANN since May 2000. I have personal knowledge of
the matters set forth herein and am competent to testify to those
matters. I make this declaration in support of ICANN's Opposition
to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
- This litigation concerns a proposal by VeriSign to offer a Wait
Listing Service ("WLS") for the .com and .net top level
domains of the Internet. In order to understand the WLS and the plaintiffs
separate contracts with ICANN (known as the Registrar Accreditation
Agreements ("RAA")), it is first necessary to understand
the manner in which the Internet’s domain name system works.
I.
THE INTERNET
- The Internet is a vast network of interconnected computers and computer
networks. Every computer connected directly to the Internet has a
unique number. These numbers, which are known as Internet Protocol
(“IP”) addresses, are necessary for computers to communicate with
each other over the Internet. An example of an IP address might be:
98.27.241.30.
- Because IP addresses can be cumbersome and difficult for Internet
users to remember or to use, the IP address system has been overlaid
with a more user-friendly system of "domain names," which
associates a unique alpha-numeric character string with a specific
IP number.
- Internet domain names consist of a string of “domains” separated
by periods. “Top level” domains, or “TLDs”, are found to the right
of the last period and include (among others) the domains “.com,”
“.gov,” “.net” and “.biz,” which are sometimes referred to as “generic”
TLDs (known as “gTLDs”), and domains assigned to countries or sovereign
bodies such as .us, .fr, and .uk, referred to as “country code” TLDs
(known as “ccTLDs”). “Second level” domains (“SLDs”) are those immediately
to the left of the top level domains, such as “uscourts” in “uscourts.gov.”
- There are approximately 250 different top level domains, including
both gTLDs and ccTLDs, administered and operated by numerous different
entities, both inside and outside of the United States. There are
over 50 million total SLDs within all the various TLDs.
- Because domain names are essentially “addresses” that allow computers
connected to the Internet to communicate with each other, each domain
name must be unique, even if it differs from another domain name by
only one character (e.g., “uscourts.com” is different from
“uscourt.com” or “us-courts.com”). A given domain name, therefore,
can be registered to only one entity or person.
- VeriSign is the “registry” for the SLDs in .com and .net TLDs. A
registry operates like a phone book, keeping a comprehensive listing
of all registered domain names and making sure that no two domain
names are exactly alike. Thus, VeriSign maintains the definitive directory
that associates registered domain names in these TLDs with the corresponding
IP addresses of the respective domain name servers. These domain name
servers are independent of the registry and, accordingly, beyond its
control. The domain name servers, in turn, associate the domain names
with resources such as websites and email systems on the Internet.
- A domain name does not exist until it is registered in the registry’s
master database. The individual or organization that requests the
specific registration of a domain name is a referred to as the “registrant.”
Prospective registrants must register desired domain names through
companies that act as domain name “registrars” for the .com and .net
TLDs. A registrar is responsible for selling these domain names and
coordinating those operations with registries. Registrars provide
direct services to registrants and prospective registrants. Registrars
have a contractual relationship with registrants and keep all information
as to the registrant. Typically, those contracts last one or two years,
and at the end of that term, the consumer is given the option to renew
the contract so as to retain that particular domain name. Neither
ICANN nor VeriSign (in its capacity as a registry) has a contractual
or other relationship with a registrant.
- Registering, transferring, and deleting a domain name requires interaction
between a registrar and the registry. This interaction is highly structured
and automated, and it takes place through a Registry-Registrar Protocol
(“RRP”). Registry-registrar communications occur over a secure electronic
connection. The registry’s role is entirely passive and automated
– namely to process registrars’ domain name registration requests
on behalf of registrants, comparing those requests against the registry
tables of registered domain names to prevent duplicate registrations
of the same domain name and registering the domain name in the registry
database if it is not already registered.
- Registrars initiate all changes to the registry database with respect
to a particular domain name record by issuing electronic commands
to the registry, such as “add,” “check,” “delete,” “transfer,” and
“renew,” all as more fully described in the RRP.
- Registrars submit their registrants’ registration requests to the
applicable TLD registry to determine if a requested domain name is
available for registration, i.e., that the domain name is
not already registered to someone else. In connection with VeriSign’s
operation of the registry for the .com and .net TLDs, if a requested
domain name is not already in the registry’s database, the registry’s
computer will record the new domain name, the corresponding nameservers
associated with the new domain registration, and the name of the registrar
effectuating the registration for the customer-registrant, in its
master database. The registration process is then complete.
II.
ICANN
- ICANN is a not-for-profit corporation that was organized under
California law in 1998. ICANN is responsible for administering certain
aspects of the Internet's domain name system.
- In November 1998, the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”)
first entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with ICANN.
The MOU granted ICANN responsibility for, among other things, the
technical management of the domain name system. A true and correct
copy of the MOU, as amended to date, is attached hereto as Exhibit
1. ICANN continues to operate today pursuant to the MOU, which provides
the context for most of ICANN’s activities. The DOC, however, retains
ultimate approval over many of these activities, as explained in the
MOU.
- Pursuant to the MOU, ICANN has entered into Registrar Accreditation
Agreements (“RAA”) with registrars that permits those registrars to
sell the right to use domain names in a particular domain (such as
".com," ".net," and ".biz"). ICANN has
entered into separate but identical Registrar Accreditation Agreements
with more than 170 Internet domain name registrars. Only ICANN-accredited
registrars can register domain names in gTLDs. A true and correct
copy of the standard Registrar Accreditation Agreement is attached
hereto as Exhibit 2.
III.
VERISIGN'S WAIT LISTING SERVICE
- Beginning in late 2001, VeriSign proposed to offer the WLS at the
registry level. The WLS would operate by permitting ICANN-accredited
registrars who contracted with VeriSign to offer the service, acting
on behalf of customers to place reservations for currently registered
domain names in the .com and .net top-level domains. It is important
to note that the offering of WLS is a voluntary service that can be
offered by registrars contracted with VeriSign. That is, a registrar
can be ICANN-accredited to register names in both the .com and .net
gTLDs, and decide not to elect to offer WLS. Only one reservation
would be accepted for each registered domain name. Each reservation
would be for a one-year period. WLS reservations for names would be
accepted on a first-come/first-served basis, with the opportunity
for renewal. VeriSign would charge the registrar a fee, which would
be no higher than $24.00 for a one-year reservation and would be the
same for all registrars. The registrar's fee to the customer would
be established by the registrar, not VeriSign. In the event that a
registered domain name is not renewed and is thus to be deleted from
the registry, VeriSign would check to determine whether a reservation
for the name is in effect, and if so would automatically register
the name to the customer. Or, if there were no reservation, VeriSign
would simply delete the name from the registry, so that the name is
returned to the pool of names equally available for registration through
all registrars, also on a first-come/first-served basis.
- VeriSign has proposed to implement the WLS for a twelve-month trial.
At the end of the trial, VeriSign would evaluate whether the WLS was
a service that should be continued, in discussion with ICANN. In the
event the WLS is not continued, reservations extending beyond the
trial would be honored.
- In order to provide this service and charge a fee, VeriSign is
required by its registry agreement with ICANN to obtain ICANN's approval
to modify that agreement, which requires a modification to the registry
agreement for the offering of any new registry service for which a
fee will be charged. In addition, the MOU between ICANN and the U.S.
Department of Commerce, requires ICANN to submit for DOC approval
any material change to the .com and .net registry agreements between
ICANN and VeriSign.
IV.
EFFECT OF THE WLS
- The WLS does not affect current domain name registrations at all.
An existing registrant will continue to be the registrant of its domain
name for so long as it continues to renew the domain name in a timely
fashion and to meet the requirements of its chosen registrar. A WLS
subscription matures into an actual domain name registration only
when a domain name is finally deleted by the registry after the end
of all applicable grace periods after receiving a specific request
from a registrar to delete a domain name.
- The WLS will not change the manner in which a deleted domain name
is processed when there is no WLS subscription for the domain name.
At the end of the grace period, if the domain name has not been redeemed
or renewed, the deletion of the domain name is effectuated by the
registry and the domain name ceases to exist in the registry database
until and if registered again at some time in the future. In the absence
of a WLS subscription, the deleted domain name becomes available for
creation and registration through any ICANN-accredited registrar on
a first-come/first-served basis, just as it was before the WLS.
- However, if the deleted domain name is the subject of a WLS subscription,
the domain name is automatically added to the registry database, using
the WLS data supplied by the registrar sponsoring the WLS subscription
at the time the subscription was created. The WLS “subscriber” then
becomes the new registrant of the domain name. The registry, through
its automated system, notifies the subscription registrar, which updates
its registration record to reflect the new domain name registrant.
The subscription is cleared from WLS, and a new WLS subscription order
can be placed for that domain name through any accredited registrar.
- All ICANN-accredited registrars will have an equal opportunity,
at the same wholesale price, to participate in the WLS. Registrars
also have the option of not participating, since the WLS is an entirely
optional service. Indeed, some registrars may elect not to offer the
WLS, while others might invest substantial resources marketing their
WLS services. Those registrars that elect to offer WLS services likely
will compete on the basis of price, among other things. And those
registrars who elect not to participate in the WLS may still register,
delete, transfer or otherwise make registered domain names available
in the secondary market (e.g., auctions, person-to-person transactions,
etc.). ICANN has no input into or control over whether registrars
participate in the WLS; each registrar will make its own decision.
- Registrars participating in WLS will be in brisk competition with
each other with respect to offering the WLS. The WLS services at the
registrar level might be differentiated through customer service,
marketing, registrar value-added services, or other creative actions,
and through retail pricing. Moreover, registrars can offer the WLS
in conjunction with or to support other recently deleted domain name
services with ample differentiation as between those services. Registrars
may also elect to continue to offer the deleted domain services they
offer currently, in competition with the WLS.
V.
THE PLAINTIFFS’ “WAIT-LISTING SERVICES”
- Presently, several registrars, including the three plaintiffs, provide
their own forms of "wait list services" at the registrar
level, although these services are much different than the WLS. According
to plaintiffs, about 50 of the 170 ICANN-accredited registrars offer
some type of “wait list service.” Under each of these services, a
consumer who wants to register this name may sign up in advance, and
in many cases pay in advance, for the opportunity to try to obtain
that name when and if it is deleted at some point in the future. Upon
receiving such a request from a consumer, the relevant registrar would
then watch for the particular name to be deleted and, if and when
that happened, immediately attempt to register it. However, none of
these services can provide a customer with any certainty that a particular
domain name will be registered to it (if and when the name is deleted
from the registry) because there may be numerous registrars that have
sold to different customers the chance to obtain the right to use
the very same deleted name, and only one of those registrars will
be successful in registering that name for its customer.
- In contrast to the various “wait list services” offered by plaintiffs
and other registrars, the WLS would permit a consumer to sign up with
any participating registrar to be placed on the waiting list for a
particular name if there was not already a WLS registration for that
name, and such a registration would guarantee that consumer the right
to register that particular name should it subsequently be deleted.
None of the “wait list services” presently offered by any registrar
can provide this type of guarantee.
VI.
CONSENSUS POLICIES
- Plaintiffs mischaracterize the proposed new WLS as a change in "policy"
for ICANN, and assert that because instituting the WLS is a policy,
it falls within the requirements of section 4 of the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement, which mandates that certain consensus activities must take
place before a new policy or specification is adopted and implemented.
- Under subsection 4.1 of the RAA, all ICANN-accredited registrars
agree to comply with new or revised "policies" that apply
to all registrars and are developed during the term of the agreement,
provided they are established according to a consensus process described
in subsection 4.3 and on topics prescribed in subsection 4.1.2. Registrars
thus contractually agree that, through this process, they may be compelled
to take action in compliance with a duly-established Consensus Policy
without an amendment to their RAAs.
- Although not defined in section 4.3.1, section 4.3.5 of the RAA
makes clear what qualifies as a policy, which are those policies with
far-reaching effect and binding on all accredited registrars.
- ICANN has only two consensus policies affecting the ICANN-accredited
registrars that are currently in effect, while two proposed policies
are still working their way through the steps laid out in 4.3.1 of
the RAA. For example, the procedure set forth in 4.3.1 was used for
the WHOIS Data Reminder Policy ("WDRP"). The WDRP requires
that, at least annually, a registrar must present to the registrant
the current Whois information, and remind the registrant that provision
of false Whois information can be grounds for cancellation of their
domain name registration. Registrants must review their Whois data,
and make any corrections.
- The proposed new WLS is clearly not a policy that requires the “Consensus
Policy” process. It is a service to be offered by VeriSign pursuant
to the amendment of the agreement VeriSign has entered into with ICANN.
ICANN is not requiring registrars to abide by, adopt, offer, or implement
this proposed new service.
- To be clear, the WLS does not involve changes to Plaintiffs' obligations
nor does it impose any obligations on any registrars. A registrar
is free to participate in the WLS or not — just as a registrar is
free to participate in a current form of wait listing service or not.
Indeed, while some registrars do offer a current form of wait listing
service, most do not. As noted above, about fifty of the approximately
170 accredited registrars are involved in some kind of wait list service
for newly-deleted or soon-to-be deleted domain names. Even plaintiffs
do not assert that all registrars would be affected by the
implementation of the WLS.
- Furthermore, there is nothing in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
that requires ICANN to act only by consensus when ICANN amends a registry
agreement or takes other actions that do not impose some type of policy
or obligation on all registrars; if that was the case, all agreements
entered into by ICANN with various parties involved in the registration
of domain names and operation of the relevant domain name registries
would be suspect since they were not the basis of consensus policymaking.
The consensus policy language in the RAA limits what policies ICANN
can require registrars to follow; the language (and the RAAs generally)
has no effect at all on actions taken under, or modifications made
to, ICANN’s agreements with third parties, such as registries.
- Under plaintiffs' interpretation, registrar consensus would be
required before ICANN could enter into any agreement with a third
party that might affect domain name registration, transfer, oversight,
et al. in any respect. Yet, ICANN did not approve the plaintiffs’
decision to offer their own form of “wait-listing services,” nor did
the plaintiffs even ask ICANN whether those services could be offered
under the RAA.
- The consensus policy process applies in limited situations and similar
provisions to those of Section 4.1 of the RAA exist in other ICANN
agreements. For example, Article 4, of the forms of unsponsored TLD
agreements ICANN has entered into with gTLD registry operators — such
as the operators of the .com, .biz and .name registries — contains,
in Section 4.1, a provision mirroring that of Section 4.1 of the RAA.
And Article 4 of the forms of sponsored TLD agreements ICANN has entered
into with TLD registry operators contains similar provisions regarding
development of consensus policies by ICANN. None of these other agreements
between ICANN and registries or ICANN and registrars envision usage
of the consensus policy procedure every time a registry or registrar
contemplates a new product.
- Contrary to the inference that plaintiffs seek to leave with the
Court, ICANN has been clear from the beginning of the WLS process
that neither ICANN nor the Names Council, which includes the Registrar
Constituency (of which plaintiffs are a part), has ever taken the
position that an amendment to Verisign's Registry Agreement to allow
the WLS requires a Consensus Policy under the terms of the RAA. For
example, ICANN's General Counsel recommended, in his first analysis
of Verisign's request for an amendment to its Registry Agreement,
"that the Board establish the following procedure for obtaining
public comment to illuminate its consideration of [the WLS]"
because such procedures did not already exist. Attached hereto as
Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the April 17, 2002 General
Counsel's analysis. Subsequently, the Transfers Task Force issued
a Final Report, which was adopted by the Names Council (which includes
the Registrar Constituency), that assumed the Consensus Policy procedure
of the RAA did not apply. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and
correct copy of the Transfers Task Force's Final Report. The General
Counsel's second analysis of the WLS, which detailed the various steps
ICANN was voluntarily taking to develop consensus on the WLS (if a
consensus was possible), makes no reference to an RAA requirement.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the August
22, 2002 General Counsel's analysis. The Board's final resolution
on the WLS, which sets forth a thorough discussion of why the Board
reached its decision on the WLS makes no mention of a contractually
required consensus policy process. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is
a true and correct copy of Resolution 02-5. ICANN's Reconsideration
Committee later clearly stated the WLS was not a consensus policy
issue. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of
the May 20, 2003 Reconsideration Committee response. ICANN's General
Counsel communications with plaintiff Dotster's counsel (true and
correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits 8 and 9) reiterated
this point:
"As noted in Reconsideration Committee recommendation RC
02-5, the Board's action was not taken pursuant to subsection
4.3.1. This point is not in dispute: both your 9 September 2002
letter and recommendation RC 02-5 are in full agreement on this.
In fact, the Board's action on VeriSign's Wait-Listing Service
proposal was not taken pursuant to any provision of Dotster's
Registrar Accreditation Agreement, and does not create any obligation
of Dotster under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement."
- Finally, ICANN's Board adopted the Reconsideration Committee's
position and made yet another clear statement that the WLS is not
a consensus policy issue. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is Resolution
02-6.
- Furthermore, plaintiffs have never before taken the position that
an amendment to Verisign's Registry Agreement requires a consensus
policy under the terms of the RAA. In the Spring of 2001, ICANN and
VeriSign proposed modifications to VeriSign's Registry Agreement.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of the March
1, 2001 proposed revisions to the VeriSign agreement. ICANN sought
public input regarding these proposed modifications. Attached hereto
as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of the March 13, 2001 ICANN
Board Meeting Minutes reflecting the public input sought and received
regarding the proposed changes to the VeriSign agreement. No consensus
was reached, but ICANN decided to proceed anyway and make these substantial
changes to VeriSign's Registry Agreement. Attached hereto as Exhibit
13 is a true and correct copy of the April 2, 2001 Board Meeting Minutes
approving the revisions to the VeriSign agreement.
- ICANN is a body that seeks to develop consensus wherever possible.
Indeed, that is its principal reason for existence. Attached hereto
as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of ICANN's bylaws. Because
the Internet is a global resource, it is extremely difficult as a
practical matter, and highly undesirable as a conceptual matter, for
the nations of the world to seek individually to set policy for important
technical elements of the Internet such as the Domain Name System.
Thus, the realistic options for appropriate coordination of technical
aspects of the Internet are a multinational treaty organization or
a global private sector organization like ICANN, where governments
and private actors come together to attempt where possible to create
consensus policies that will allow the Internet to continue to grow
as an engine of global commerce and communication. For now, the world
has chosen the private sector route, on the theory that if that can
succeed, it will be more efficient and effective than a treaty organization.
VII.
DECISION TO PROCEED WITH WLS
- Because of its role, ICANN believed that it was appropriate to
seek public input regarding the WLS as an aid to its decisional process,
and therefore it invited input from various ICANN constituencies,
including the Registrar Constituency of which plaintiffs are a part.
- This search for public input resulted in ICANN’s “Registrar Constituency”
issuing a position paper opposing WLS and urging ICANN to withhold
permission for its implementation on March 10, 2002. The registrars
supporting the paper were those who already had their own version
of a wait list service in place, including the plaintiffs in this
action. Several registrars that did not offer such wait listing services
dissented from the paper.
- On August 23, 2002, the ICANN Board determined that the WLS “promotes
consumer choice” and that the “option of subscribing to a guaranteed
‘wait list’ service is a beneficial option for consumers.” For these
reasons, the Board approved a resolution (Resolution 02-100), authorizing
ICANN's President and General Counsel to negotiate appropriate revisions
to VeriSign’s registry agreements to allow for the offering of the
WLS (with certain conditions, imposed largely to address the stated
concerns of registrars and other Domain Name Supporting Organization
constituencies). A true and correct copy of the Minutes of the August
23, 2002 Special Meeting of the Board reflecting this resolution is
attached hereto as Exhibit 15.
- On September 9, 2002, after the Board had approved the WLS, counsel
for Dotster, Inc. (“Dotster”), filed a letter and formal request for
reconsideration of the Board’s decision regarding the WLS. As is its
usual practice, ICANN posted a copy of Dotster's letter on its website.
A true and correct copy of Mr. Brannon’s letter is attached hereto
as Exhibit 16. On May 20, 2003, ICANN’s Reconsideration Committee
determined that Dotster’s request lacked merit and recommended that
the Board take no action on it.
- July 16, 2003, plaintiffs initiated this litigation and filed a
request for a temporary restraining order, which the Court denied
via its order of July 18, 2003.
VIII.
VERISIGN'S RECENT REPRESENTATIONS
- VeriSign has made public statements on its website and in other
communications providing a launch date for the WLS of October 27,
2003, stating that its affiliate Network Solutions, Inc., is accepting
pre-orders, and explaining that it will begin testing of the WLS shortly.
However, VeriSign has not yet reached an agreement with ICANN to modify
the .com and .net registry agreements between VeriSign and ICANN,
nor has the DOC approved this modification to the agreements governing
VeriSign's registry services, as required by the MOU. Once these approvals
occur — and ICANN and VeriSign continued to negotiate the conditions
for the offering of the WLS as recently as four days ago — VeriSign
would still then have to undertake the significant technical and operational
tasks of implementing the WLS, regardless of any testing it instigates
now.
IX.
ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING THE WLS IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
- As noted above, several registrars and others have been providing
wait-listing type services of various kinds at the registrar level.
In essence, these services watch for a desired domain name to be deleted
and immediately seek to register it with the registry. To do so successfully,
they must be the first registrar (among the many that may be seeking
the same domain name for their respective customers) to submit a registration
request to the registry for the domain name after it has been deleted.
The services therefore have to engage in a high-tech “race” with other
registrars to “grab” a deleted domain name just as soon as it becomes
available, by running automated or robotic “scripts” that continuously
query the registry database by submitting “add” domain name commands
for domain names that will, be deleted in an attempt to register the
desired domain name. Their results for customers are entirely hit-or-miss
and often provide for a confusing and exploitative experience for
consumers.
- In addition, when the registrars with wait list services attempt
to win a domain name that has just been deleted from a registry, they
bombard the registry database with "add" requests that actually
clog the system and, in turn, actually disadvantage the majority of
registrars.
- Thus, the benefits of the WLS extend not only to VeriSign’s direct
customers (registrars) but also to end-users (registrants and prospective
registrants). The WLS provides a simple, fair, low-cost and easy to
understand procedure for registering recently deleted domain names.
By contrast, the wait list services offered by registrars have low
efficacy rates, and the consumers who pay money for these services
have no guarantee that they will get a particular domain name, even
if that name is not renewed by its current registrant. The WLS, on
the other hand, provides a 100% certainty that, if the domain name
is deleted, the domain name will be registered to the WLS subscriber,
with the attendant certainty for the WLS subscriber of knowing it
is “first in line” or pre-registered for a particular domain name
should it become available.
X.
WHY A BOND IS NECESSARY
- Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of an
article from The Business Journal, November 8, 2002, regarding Go
Daddy's revenues.
- 49. Should an injunction issue, a bond is necessary because ICANN
will be dramatically affected by a preliminary injunction. Effectively,
all contracts with ICANN would be rewritten with the stroke of a pen,
because anyone who has agreed to the Consensus Policy procedures would
have a veto over any ICANN action that they believed was inconsistent
with their private economic interests
- A bond is also necessary to protect the public interest. ICANN is
entrusted with protecting the global Internet community. If ICANN
is enjoined from adopting and implementing the WLS at the expense
of the public interest, then it is the plaintiffs who should have
to take the risk that the public interest will be harmed. While the
harm to the global Internet community is not measurable in dollars,
it is substantial and worthy of requiring the plaintiffs to post a
bond. Under these circumstances, a bond in the amount of $25 million
or more would not be inappropriate.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
This declaration was signed on 15 September 2003 at Los Angeles, California.
|
__________________________
Daniel E. Halloran
|
Comments
concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site
should be sent to webmaster@icann.org.
Page Updated
07-Jan-2008
(c) 2003
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
All rights
reserved.
|