Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    Alternate Roots New.net demands that ICANN retract statements
    posted by DavidP on Thursday July 26 2001, @02:49AM

    Buckshot6 writes "New.net's lawyers at Latham & Watkins have written a rather strongly worded letter to ICANN "demand[ing" that ICANN "publicly retract its recent defamatory and libelous statements" about New.net. It reads like the first shot in a possible action against ICANN for "business libel" or the equivalent; this, too, could get interesting."

    The letter reads, in full, as follows:

    July 16, 2001

    Board of Directors

    Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

    4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330

    Marina Del Rey, California 90292

    Attention and care of: Vint Cerf, Chairman

    Re: New.Net - Recent Actions by ICANN

    Dear Directors:

    This firm represents New.net. As the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is aware, New.net is a relatively new, market-based Internet addressing business, that seeks to add greater competition to the market for Internet domain names. We write as a result of recent efforts by the staff of ICANN both to malign New.net, and to discourage other parties from doing business with the company. New.net is particularly shocked and concerned by recent public statements of senior ICANN officers that: (i) New.net is "breaking the Internet," implying that New.net's product offering somehow does actual damage to how data is transmitted over the Internet; and (ii) New.net is "selling snake oil," implying that New.net is defrauding its customers. We can only assume that such defamatory statements are intended both to discourage Internet users from purchasing domain names through New.net, and to discourage prospective partners from working with New.net. New.net also is concerned about actions apparently being taken by senior ICANN officers to discourage key participants in the Internet industry from working with New.net. Moreover, New.net questions ICANN's other recent actions, including: (i) ICANN's creation of new "consensus policies" targeted directly at New.net's business, where no such consensus exists; and (ii) ICANN's attempts to use its substantial market position to compel other industry participants to agree to recognize ICANN's sole supremacy over Internet naming issues. In light of the above, New.net demands that ICANN publicly retract its recent defamatory and libelous statements, refrain from interfering with New.net's business relationships, and avoid taking inappropriate actions to discourage competition.

    Very truly yours,

    Daniel Scott Schecter Of LATHAM & WATKINS

    cc: Kerry Samovar, Esq. (Vice President & General Counsel, New.net)

    Bruce J. Prager, Esq. (Latham & Watkins)

      ICANNWatch Login  


    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

      Related Links  
  • rather strongly worded letter
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    New.net demands that ICANN retract statements | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 29 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    and ICANN responds...
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday July 26 2001, @03:57AM (#1468)
    User #2810 Info

    Read the rest of this comment...

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: New.net demands that ICANN retract statements
    by hofjes on Thursday July 26 2001, @06:16AM (#1474)
    User #60 Info
    Both sides make good points.

    I believe ICANN is correct in its assertion that it did not make any defamatory statements of fact.

    However, Net.Net is correct in pointing out that ICANN purports to be founded upon public consensus when, in fact, no consensus exists.

    Though I disagree with New.Net's legal claims, I am pleased by the discourse its frivolous demand letter engenders.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: New.net demands that ICANN retract statements
    by ldg on Saturday July 28 2001, @10:55AM (#1521)
    User #2935 Info | http://example.com/
    Since when are street lights not a business? Governments purchase them from private businesses and you and I are taxed to the hilt to pay for them.

    I also do not see Verisign, Neulevel, or Afilias as altruistic non-profits. There is nothing wrong with business. ICANN may be a non-profit (for the time being) but it is certainly backed by businesses - large businesses and working for their bottom line.

    ICANN FUD would have us all believe that any business outside their own framework is dirty, while they use every dirty trick in the books to crush them in the name of non-existent "consensus."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: New.net demands that ICANN retract statements
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Sunday July 29 2001, @02:01PM (#1534)
    User #2810 Info
    Whois idiot? The comment was:
    Confusing 85% of internet users to make 5% happy.
    The other 10% could be both unconfused and unhappy and the math works fine. Or some or all of the class of happy could overlap with the class of confused (there was no claim they were mutually exclusive), rendering your math of 10% incorrect and your idiot ad hominem mutually destructive.

    To further complexify the equation there is a class of internet users (lusers) who are happy when spreading confusion. While their relative size is unknown (Whois Anon returns a solitary answer), the target is so large it is impossible to tell a hit from a miss, or even attempted suicide, not that anyone else is keeping score. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 6 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com