I picked a couple more juicy ones from this story:
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,"
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