Injunction issued against Neulevel .biz plan
Date: Friday October 12 2001, @05:29AM
Topic: New gTLDs

A couple of days ago we posted an article suggesting that the judge in Smiley v. Neulevel seemed sympathetic to the argument that Neulevel's .biz distribution scheme amounted to an illegal lottery. According to attorney Bret Fausett, the other shoe has now dropped: the judge in has indeed ruled thatit is "more probable than not" that NeuLevel's scheme is an illegal lottery under the California penal code (and that California has sufficient "contact" to the lottery to justify the application of California law to it).

The court has now issued a preliminary injunction against NeuLevel (and not against any other participants) prohibiting it from going forward with its "lottery,"; if Neulevel wants to allocate the 53,000 names in a "legal" way, it may do so. Neulevel is required to deposit $3,000,000 into the Court (1,500,000 applications for the 53,000 Category IIB names x $2.00 per name.), and the plaintiffs were required to post a security bond of $1,600,000 (to protect Neulevel against damage it may suffer if, after a full trial, the court determines that this is NOT an illegal lottery).

Neulevel has sent a message to the registrar community, assuring it that "more than 80% of the domain names applied for during the .BIZ Domain Name Application process are unaffected by this decision and will be "live" by October 23rd," and that the decision "does not impact NeuLevel's schedule to launch the .BIZ registry on October 23rd." As for the .biz domains for which there were multiple applicants, "these names . . . will not resolve on Oct. 23rd as a result of the court's decision," and will only go live "upon resolution of the legal proceedings."

As Neulevel notes in its message, the plan it came up with was "developed in conjunction with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ." So is ICANN going to be hit with an injunction as well? It's going to get messy out there for a while, what with everyone trying to figure out who's responsible for what, what happens to the people who paid Neulevel for their chance to get a .biz name, what ICANN's role in all this has been, ....

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Injunction issued against Neulevel .biz plan | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 39 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Threshold:
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.
Re: Injunction issued against Neulevel .biz plan
by challenge on Friday October 12 2001, @07:16AM (#2835)
User #3020 Info
I thought names that didn't have multiple applicants were awarded and started resolving on October 1st !!!!

Something doesn't add up and as it happened before with Afilias, their estimates about disputed names are probably off on the lower end of the scale. Remember Afilias made a statement that only 10% of Sunrise registrations were fraudulently registered !!!!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: Injunction issued against Neulevel .biz plan
by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday October 12 2001, @07:47PM (#2862)
User #2810 Info
ICANN has responded to the judges ruling with an advisory. It includes this jem:
ICANN is particularly concerned that the judge's ruling applied California law to domain-name applications having no relation to California...
Only those enamored of their own reflection in the ICANN black is white, fiat is consensus, topsy turvy house of mirrors could write, or read, this with a straight face. How this is somehow more threatening to internet stability than having some WIPO unelected/unimpeachable judge rule under the UDRP in some country that someone in another country should give up their domain name to someone quite often in a third country is left unexplained. See also CNET coverage here. -g
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
A question for the lawyers
by alexander on Saturday October 13 2001, @12:02AM (#2866)
User #22 Info | http://www.icannchannel.de
"plaintiffs were required to post a security bond of $1,600,000"

Does that mean that the plaintiffs already have posted such a bond? Or does it mean that they have to? If they don't post this bond, what happens?

I'm simply a bit surprised about the amount of money the plaintiffs are/must be able to deposit. How much money could the plaintiffs possibly win?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: Hmmmm
by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday October 12 2001, @11:01AM (#2843)
User #2810 Info
How do you know they weren't registrants? Those 90% of posts (I think it was a bit lower) made up about 1% of useful content there. I think Christopher Ambler and IOD were treated atrociously by ICANN, but their supporters didn't do them any favors either. -g
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re: Hmmmm by fnord Friday October 12 2001, @12:42PM
    • Re: Hmmmm by fnord Friday October 12 2001, @07:22PM
      • Re: Hmmmm by fnord Friday October 12 2001, @08:21PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
Re: Injunction issued against Neulevel .biz plan
by kodo (binaryloop@nospam.yahoo.com) on Friday October 12 2001, @11:50AM (#2847)
User #21 Info | http://www.paradigm.nu/icann
How do you know that it wasn't me? Or another person on the Net who supports Image Online Design's fight? Believe it or not there are a LOT of people out there who support IOD and what they stand for. Basically, they represent the little-guy, the common man, the underdog. NSI and ICANN represent the man, the aristocrats, the big money. Even if you don't have a vested interest in IOD you can still support their stuggle against ICANN.

I have supported IOD since 1996 when I first heard about them. Why should there be only ONE company that offers Top Level Domains? Why did we have to stop at .com, .net, and .org ?

That post reflected my feelings on the issue (even though I didn't post it!) So, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that IOD or members of their company are "trolling the message boards". They don't have to waste their breath to prove that ICANN, Afilias, and NeuLevel are incompetent -- they are doing a fine job on their own!

And, if you really have something serious to say about it, why are you hiding behind and "Anonymous Coward" moniker instead of posting your true identity?

- Kendall Dawson
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 9 replies beneath your current threshold.




  • This article comes from ICANNWatch
    http://www.icannwatch.org/

    The URL for this story is:
    http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/12/092951