I picked a couple more juicy ones from this story<http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece.php?id=141106> : The two adult studio plaintiffs also contend that ICANN, which oversees the > Internet, provided "no competitive process for the award of the .XXX > registry contract." > > "[ICM Registry CEO] Stuart Lawley has announced that he expects to be > able (and intends) to prevent the establishment of any other (potentially > competing) adult-content TLDs, including through a contractual promise by > ICANN not to approve such TLDs," Researching I did notice that there was a somewhat similar antitrust case filed against ICANN and Verisign in 2005. http://wadnd.com/Complaint(ver4).pdf I don't think that one got too far. j On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Nuno Garcia <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I can find a couple of points where I think their argument doesn't hold. > If I was an ICANN attorney, I would enjoy preparing this case :) > > > On 18 November 2011 19:55, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I have some choice quote below. Any comment on the merit of Manwin's >> case? >> >> Nicolas >> >> -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -