IMHO it is completely without merit as an anti-trust case.

There is no sensible definition of the market that is monopolized, and the opening up of new TLD opportunities means that doZens of alternatives (.porn, .sex, use your imagination…) could be available.

The complaint says, “The ICM/ICANN contract contains no price caps or other restrictions 

of any kind on what ICM can charge for .XXX registry services.” If this is illegal then nearly all other TLD registries, established and new, are going to be illegal.

AFAICT this is an attempt by the incumbent porn websites to harass .xxx, now that the battle over its creation has been lost.

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nicolas Adam
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 2:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] Full Text of Manwin Lawsuit Against ICANN / ICM re .XXX

I have some choice quote below. Any comment on the merit of Manwin's case?

Nicolas

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	[ NNSquad ] Full Text of Manwin Lawsuit Against ICANN / ICM re .XXX
Date:	Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:42:20 -0800
From:	Lauren Weinstein <[log in to unmask]>
To:	[log in to unmask]

Full Text of Manwin Lawsuit Against ICANN / ICM re .XXX
 
http://j.mp/vl0InX  (Xbiz [PDF])
 
Interesting Reading!
 
--Lauren--
 
######################
 
 51.  Not only did the selection of ICM lack any market restraints, the 
ICM/ICANN contract contains no substitute for such restraints (e.g., price caps) 
such as those imposed by ICANN in other TLD registry contracts. In fact, the 
terms of the ICM/ICANN contract bolster ICM's ability to engage in anti-
competitive and monopolistic practices in the sale of .XXX TLD registry services. 
 
"In particular and without limitation: 
 
(a)  The ICM/ICANN contract contains no price caps or other restrictions 
of any kind on what ICM can charge for .XXX registry services. ICM has 
complete price discretion and no fetters on its ability to charge monopolistic prices 
considerably higher than those which would exist in a competitive market. Such 
higher prices raise costs for registrants and harm consumers through higher prices 
and/or fewer choices. 
 
(b) The ICM/ICANN contract leaves ICM with broad discretion to 
fashion and limit in a non-competitive, unreasonable manner the nature, quality 
and scope of .XXX registry services it offers registrars and registrants. Such 
restrictions raise costs and limit innovation, thus harming registrants and 
consumers. 
 
(c)  Under the terms of the ICM/ICANN contract, ICM may cancel the 
contract at any time, and for any reason, on 120 days notice. By contrast, ICANN 
may not terminate the contract unless ICM fails to cure adjudicated, material 
breaches of its limited contractual obligations. Moreover, the ICM/ICANN 
contract lasts for a minimum 10-year term, but "shall" be renewed perpetually 
subject only to an ambiguous obligation to negotiate in good faith certain new 
terms, none of which appear necessarily to provide registrant or consumer 
protections. The unlimited term of the ICM/ICANN agreement permits ICM to 
continue insulating itself from market restraints and from any threat of competition 
in .XXX registry services. 
 
(d) The ICM/ICANN contract contains a provision which ICM contends 
will preclude ICANN from approving any arguably competing TLD designated for 
adult content, such as ".sex" or ".porn." This restriction limits future competition, 
enabling ICM to bar the threatened entry of new market competitors. 
 
52. ICANN failed to take any reasonable contractual or other steps to 
restrain ICM from engaging in monopolistic and anti-competitive conduct, not 
only because ICANN was intimidated by ICM's previous pressure tactics and strategies but also because ICM agreed to pay ICANN very significant 
compensation for the right to act as the .XXX registry, as more particularly averred 
above.