Eric: I concur that this was welcome news from a cost saving standpoint as anti-trust litigation, particularly discovery, is VERY VERY costly. However, to be realistic we are not out of the woods just yet. The dismisal with prejudice was only in connection with the anti-trust claims which was VeriSign's sole reason for being in Federal Court in the first place as Declane. The remain contract and tort claims were NOT dismissed with prejudice as noted in the article you cited. However, based on this most recent article it appears that VeriSign does intend to continue the remaining claims in state court, see http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=4C63B3A1-EDB0-4DA9-9625-8B6A6 2999A3F Best regards, Michael D. Palage -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 6:46 AM To: registrars@dnso.org Cc: paul@vix.com Subject: [registrars] VeriSign's SiteFinder (antitrust) suit against ICANN dismissed Oki all, Moderately good news, which I hope will be followed by some staff comment on the size of the ICANN budget earmarked for VGRS's litigation, which is necessary for this to become Really good news. Here's the URL for the story written up by Declan McCullagh and massaged by Robert Lemos over at CNET. http://news.com.com/VeriSign%27s+antitrust+suit+against+ICANN+dismissed/2100 -1030_3-5326136.html?tag=nefd.top I suppose this will mean that VGRS will no longer be threatening Paul Vixie and other "John Does" who fielded fixes for BIND and other implementations of DNS that provided work-arounds for VGRS's unannounced, and technically daft registry-level hack. Eric