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)

    Verisign/NSI Brett Fausett's Law Firm an Interested Party Now
    posted by Mueller on Saturday March 18 2006, @06:55PM

    Tom Galvin writes "If ICANN Watch is going to spotlight Bret Fauset's views, it should also point out that Bret now has a direct financial interest in seeing the ICANN-VeriSign settlement defeated. His law firm Cathcart, Collins and Kneafsey is now representing CFIT in litigation against ICANN and VeriSign.

    Bret did the right thing by sending the email below to the GNSO explaining his conflict. But he hasn't, I don't believe, included this conflict on his blog so readers know where his business interests lie. He should do that.

    Actually, wouldn't it be great if everyone disclosed their interest? I will start, I am a former VeriSign employee who now serves as a VeriSign consultant on ICANN communications issues. How about Marilyn Cade goes next?"

    Dear Councilors,

    On Friday, my law firm was formally retained to represent the Coalition For Internet Transparency ("CFIT") (http://www.cfit.info/) in its lawsuit over the anti-competitive award of .COM and .NET to Verisign. For those of
    you not familiar with this, you can read details of the lawsuit on the ICANN website:
    Other lawyers at my firm will handle the day-to-day responsibilities on the case, but I will be providing advice and assistance from time to time.

    If you have any questions about this or how this representation may affect my work for the ALAC and Council, please let me know. By a separate
    e-mail, I am sending an updated Statement of Interest to Glen for inclusion on the website.


      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  
    · VeriSign/NSI
    · At Large Advisory Committee
    · ICANN
    · http://www.cfit.info/
    · http://icann.org/general/litig ation-cfit.htm
    · Tom Galvin
    · More Verisign/NSI stories
    · Also by Mueller
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Brett Fausett's Law Firm an Interested Party Now | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 4 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.
    Bret did report the conflict
    by GeorgeK on Sunday March 19 2006, @06:07AM (#16651)
    User #3191 Info | http://www.kirikos.com/
    Bret (one 't', not two) DID disclose this on his blog, in the Podcast of March 7, 2006 [lextext.com]. Play the MP3, and fast forward to a few minutes before the end. The disclosure, in audio, begins with "My law firm has been hired by CFIT". Bret isn't going to handle the day-to-day litigation, but will help tell them "where the bodies are buried." :)

    As for me, no conflicts of interest to report -- I'm a domain registrant like millions of other people. The closest relationship I have to VeriSign is that I own VerisignSucks.com [verisignsucks.com]. :) I'm not a litigant, or have a financial interest in any party who is a litigant.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Note to Tom
    by lextext on Sunday March 19 2006, @10:48AM (#16654)
    User #6 Info | http://www.lextext.com
    Wow. Verisign's officially calling me out for not being transparent? What next, you folks want to call me a monopolist too?

    Here are a couple of facts. First, my disclosures are both on my website (my podcast, which preceded the GNSO-ALAC disclosures, by the way) and in the GNSO/ALAC public records. Second, neither I nor my law firm has an interest in the *outcome* of the litigation. We're paid by the hour, win or lose. Yes, like all lawyers we very much want to win on behalf of our clients, but I believe the statement that we have "a direct financial interest in seeing the ICANN-VeriSign settlement defeated" is somewhat misleading. We are certainly being paid to work toward that end in the California courts, but the people with a direct financial interest are the parties to the lawsuit (and more generally, registrants everywhere).

    So, Tom, when will we get more complete disclosure from Verisign on the people it hires? Those folks from the things called the"Centers for Competitive Studies," or whatever their names were, didn't just suddenly decide to show up in Vancouver because they became interested in ICANN overnight. And what about the paid bloggers who post pro-Verisign statements under pseudonyms?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply 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