Single-letter .com lawsuit thrown out of court

A domainer trying to lay claim to all remaining unregistered single-character .com and .net domain names has had his lawsuit against ICANN thrown out of court for a third time.

Bryan Tallman of VerandaGlobal.com (dba First Place Internet) reckons he is owed the rights to domains such as 1.com and a.net because he registered the matching second-level domains in the non-Latin versions of both gTLDs.

His original lawsuit, filed two years ago, stated that he paid Verisign, via registrar CSC Global, $25,285 for 1.닷넷 on the understanding that this would give him exclusive rights to 1.com and 1.net, which would be worth many millions of dollars.

.닷넷 is Verisign’s transliteration of .net in the Hangul script. Tallman registered dozens of other single-character Latin domains in internationalized domain name .com/.net transliterated gTLDs, thinking he could later get the .com/.net equivalents.

His argument was pretty flimsy, based primarily not on ICANN policy but on an ambiguously worded letter from Verisign to ICANN.

The first complaint was rejected by the Los Angeles Superior Court in March 2024. Tallman amended his complaint, but this was also thrown out this January. Tallman plodded on, regardless, with a third amended complaint.

This time, the judge has run out of patience. Last month, he threw out the lawsuit entirely, with no leave to amend, saying Tallman did not have standing to sue as he had failed to show that he had any contractual relationship with ICANN at all.

With a few grandfathered exceptions such as x.com, owned by Elon Musk, all single-character .com and .net domain names have been reserved from reservation since the 1990s for stability reasons that are probably no longer particularly applicable.

A move by Verisign to experimentally auction o.com to a motivated buyer fizzled out a few years ago, likely indirectly due to the likely buyer’s relationship to a sexy Russian spy.

Namecheap loses attempt to bring back .org price caps

ICANN seems to have won a big victory in its ongoing tussle with Namecheap over price caps for .org and .info domains.

A California court ruled late last week that it cannot force ICANN into pricing talks with the registries for the two gTLDs, denying a motion that Namecheap filed back in April.

The dispute dates back to 2019, when ICANN removed price caps from Public Interest Registry’s .org registry contract, which had limited PIR to 10% annual increases.

Namecheap used ICANN’s own Independent Review Process accountability mechanism to challenge this decision and won, kinda, in 2022.

The IRP panel found ICANN had breached its bylaws and issued “recommendations” such as commissioning an economic report into price caps, deciding if price caps should return, and if so then talking to the registries about bringing them back.

When there’d been little action by early 2024, Namecheap sued to get the backing of the court for the IRP decision. It was successful, with the court ruling this February that the IRP findings were valid.

In the meantime, ICANN had obtained its economist’s report and passed a resolution stating that it should not bring price caps back to the two registry contracts.

But Namecheap had a final crack at getting the court to force ICANN into price cap. In a motion this April, it asked the court to instruct ICANN to “approach the registry operators for .ORG and .INFO to agree to some form of price control”.

The court didn’t buy its arguments, however, last week denying Namecheap’s requests on the grounds that ICANN had in fact considered the IRP panel’s recommendations:

Namecheap provides evidence that ICANN in fact did consider the Panel’s recommendations, and thus Plaintiff admits that ICANN did not reject any of the Panel’s findings, so as correctly stated by ICANN, “there is nothing for this Court to enforce.”

In the six years since the price caps were lifted, non-profit PIR has not raised .org prices, while for-profit Identity Digital has raised .info prices every year, from $10.84 in 2019 to $19 today.

ICANN settles $77 million sexual harassment suit

ICANN has settled another sexual harassment lawsuit filed against it by a former employee.

An ICANN spokesperson said the case, filed last August by 22-year meetings-team veteran Tanzanica King, “has been resolved”. King did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

King had asked for $77 million in damages, approximately half of ICANN’s annual budget, alleging she was the victim of a widespread “frat boy culture” that contributed to her being sexually harassed by her boss, passed over for promotions, and paid less than male colleagues.

The settlement, any financial component of which will no doubt be for a tiny fraction of what was demanded, seems to have come just a few weeks after ICANN lost its attempt to get the case thrown out and referred instead to arbitration.

A Los Angeles judge in June ruled that King was protected by a post-#MeToo law, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), even though her employment contract dated back to 2002.

ICANN said last year that the allegations were “untrue” and that it “strives to create a positive, safe, and inclusive work and community environment, and is committed to the highest possible standards of ethical, moral, and legal business conduct.”

It’s at least the third time ICANN has had to settle sexual harassment suits in recent years.

Namecheap scores win in .org price-cap lawsuit

Namecheap’s lawsuit over ICANN’s decision to lift price caps in .org and .info will be allowed to proceed, a California judge has ruled.

The Superior Court in Los Angeles recently threw out ICANN’s attempt to get the case dismissed, according to court documents released by ICANN. There will now be a hearing in January.

Namecheap’s lawsuit concerns ICANN’s decision in 2019 to lift price caps in Public Interest Registry’s .org contract and the .info contract then with Afilias (now Identity Digital).

Both registries had previously been limited to a 10% price increase every year.

The registrar filed an Independent Review Process case against ICANN, which is mostly won. In 2022, the IRP panel slammed ICANN for its secrecy and lack of adherence to its bylaws and issued seven recommended actions the Org could take to rectify its transgressions.

In the current lawsuit, filed this January, Namecheap claims that ICANN “largely ignored” most of these recommendations. It wants the court to force the Org to abide by the IRP ruling, which among other things calls for ICANN to look into reinstituting price caps.

But ICANN objected, saying Namecheap “is asking this Court to convert recommendations into requirements”, adding that it “does not have an obligation to act in accordance with the ‘recommendations’ of an IRP Panel”.

It demurred, asking the court to throw out Namecheap’s complaint, but the court declined to do so on legal grounds, meaning the claims will be heard on the merits.

In the five years since the .org and .info price caps were lifted, non-profit PIR has not raised .org prices once.

For-profit Identity Digital has raised .info prices every year, by between 9.38% and 11.03%, raising the cost from $10.84 in 2019 to $17.50 today. The price will go up again by 8.57% to $19.00 in January.

ICANN scores win in single-letter .com lawsuit

A Los Angeles court has handed ICANN a victory in a lawsuit filed against it by a domainer who thinks he has the rights to register all the remaining single-character .com domains.

Bryan Tallman of VerandaGlobal.com sued ICANN back in August, claiming the Org was breaking the law by refusing to allow him to register domains such as 1.com and A.com.

He already owns the matching domains in Verisign’s Chinese, Japanese and Hebrew .com IDNs, such as A.קום (A.xn--9dbq2a) and 1.コム (1.xn--tckwe), and says previous Verisign statements mean this gives him the right to the equivalents in vanilla .com.

These domains would very likely be worth tens of millions of dollars apiece. Verisign has held almost all single-character domain names in registry-reserved status since the 1990s. A few, notably Elon Musk’s x.com, pre-date the reservation.

Tallman claimed unfair competition, breach of contract, negligence and fraud and sought a declaratory judgement stating that ICANN be forced to transfer to him all of the 10 digits and all 23 of the remaining unregistered letters in .com, along with some matching .net names.

Pretty outlandish stuff, based on some pretty flimsy arguments.

ICANN filed a demurrer last year, objecting to the suit and asking the Superior Court of California in LA to throw it out, and the judge mostly agreed. In a February ruling (pdf), published recently by ICANN, he threw out all seven of Tallman’s claims.

Tallman was given permission to re-state and re-file five of the claims within 30 days, but his demand for a declaratory judgement was ruled out completely as being irreparably broken.

Freenom settles $500 million Meta lawsuit and will exit domain business

Facebook has claimed another domain industry scalp. Freenom said this week it has settled the cybersquatting lawsuit filed against it by Meta last year, and that it is getting out of the domain name business.

The registry/registrar said in a brief February 12 statement (pdf) that it will pay Meta an undisclosed sum and has “independently decided to exit the domain name business”.

Just how “independent” that decision was is debatable. The company lost its ICANN registrar accreditation last year and is believed to have lost its government contracts to run the ccTLDs for Equatorial Guinea, Central African Republic, Mali, Gabon, and possibly also Tokelau, its flagship .tk domain.

Meta had claimed in its complaint that Freenom had typosquatted its trademarks thousands of times, including domains such as faceb00k.ga. It sued for 5,000 counts under US anti-cybersquatting law, seeking $100,000 for each infringement, for a cool half-billion bucks in total.

Freenom and its network of co-defendant affiliates said in their defense that Meta had access to an abuse API that allowed it to turn off such domains, but had never used it. It also claimed many of the cited typosquats had already been shut down by the time the suit was filed.

It seems the names in question were likely those registered by abusive third-parties that were reclaimed and monetized by Freenom under its widely criticized free-domains business model, which made its TLDs some of the world’s most-abused.

But the claims on both sides evidently will not be tested at trial. The last court filing, dated late December, showed the two parties were to enter mediation, and Freenom put out the following statement this week:

Freenom today announced it has resolved the lawsuit brought by Meta Platforms, Inc. on confidential monetary and business Terms. Freenom recognizes Meta’s legitimate interest in enforcing its intellectual property rights and protecting its users from fraud and abuse.

Freenom and its related companies have also independently decided to exit the domain name business, including the operation of registries. While Freenom winds down its domain name business, Freenom will treat the Meta family of companies as a trusted notifier and will also implement a block list to address future phishing, DNS abuse, and cybersquatting.

Meta said in its Q4 Adversarial Threat Report this week that the settlement showed its approach to tackling DNS abuse is working.

Freenom’s gTLD domains have been transferred to Gandi. It’s less clear what’s happening to its ccTLD names, though social media chatter this week suggests the company has been giving registrants in affected ccTLDs nine-year renewals at no cost.

Namecheap sues ICANN over .org price caps

Namecheap has sued ICANN in California, asking a court to force the Org to revisit its decision to lift price caps on .org and .info domain names five years ago.

Registrar CEO Richard Kirkendall announced the suit on Twitter this afternoon:

Today we filed suit against @ICANN. After a previous ruling via a mediation process they have taken little action towards the recommendations of that ruling and so our hand has been forced to take this action. We feel that ICANN is in direct violation of their mandate and…

— Richard Kirkendall (@NamecheapCEO) February 5, 2024

The lawsuit follows an Independent Review Process case that Namecheap partially won in December 2022, where the panel said ICANN should hire an economist to look at whether price caps are a good idea before revisiting its decision to scrap them.

The panel found that the ICANN board of directors had shirked its duties to make the decision itself and had failed to act as transparently as its bylaws mandate.

Namecheap says that over a year after that decision was delivered, ICANN has not implemented the IRP panel’s recommendations, so now it wants the Superior Court in Los Angeles to hand down an injunction forcing ICANN to do so.

Before 2019, .org was limited to 10% price increases every year, but the cap was lifted, along with caps in .info and .biz, when ICANN renewed, standardized and updated the respective registries’ Registry Agreements.

After the decision was made to scrap .org price caps, despite huge public outrage, Namecheap rounded up its lawyers almost immediately.

The caps decision led to the ulimtately unsuccessful attempt by Ethos Capital to acquire Public Interest Registry, which runs .org.

Namecheap’s new lawsuit wants the judge to issue “an order directing ICANN to comply with the recommendations of the IRP Panel”.

That means ICANN’s board would be told to consider approaching PIR and .info registry Identity Digital to talk about reintroducing price caps, to hire the economist, and to modify its procedures to avoid any future transparency missteps.

Domainer asks court to block Epik sell-off

The customer suing Epik and its management over a fumbled $327,000 domain deal has asked a US court to prevent the company from selling off its assets and “absconding”.

Matthew Adkisson has amended his fraud complaint, first filed in March, to demand an injunction:

enjoining Defendants from transferring, liquidating, converting, encumbering, pledging, loaning, selling, concealing, dissipating, disbursing, assigning, withdrawing, granting a lien or security interest or other interest in, or otherwise disposing of Adkisson’s Escrow Funds and any other amounts owed to Adkisson, including but not limited to by transferring, liquidating, converting, encumbering, pledging, loaning, selling, concealing, dissipating, disbursing, assigning, withdrawing, granting a lien or security interest or other interest in, or otherwise disposing of any of Defendants’ assets or companies that Adkisson’s Escrow Funds were used in connection with

The amendment follows tweets from current Epik CEO Brian Royce which strongly suggested the company is in the process of selling off its assets. The complaint quotes former CEO and majority shareholder Rob Monster as confirming a sale was being “finalized”.

“If Royce, Monster, and Epik are allowed to sell Epik or its assets, consumers like Adkisson are highly unlikely to be repaid for the funds that Royce, Monster, and Epik and misappropriated,” the complaint says.

Adkisson attempted to buy the domain nourish.com via Epik and its “escrow” service last year, but after the sale fell through the company did not return his money. He now claims Epik was illegally mingling its escrow funds with its general operations fund.

The amended complaint now includes several citations from TrustPilot — other customers who says they bought domains only to see Epik take their cash and not hand over the domain.

While Epik has admitted that it owes Adkisson money, it has otherwise denied any wrongdoing. After the amendment, Royce withdrew his motion to dismiss the case.

Epik CEO tries to wriggle out of $327,000 refund lawsuit

Epik CEO Brian Royce has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against him, as the company denies it defrauded a customer out of $327,000 in a botched domain purchase.

Royce was named alongside Epik companies and former CEO Rob Monster in a legal complaint last month by customer Matthew Adkisson, who had tried to buy the domain nourish.com through Epik’s escrow service.

But Royce says he should be removed from the list of defendants because he wasn’t employed by Epik when the deal was inked last May. He became CEO in September 2022, after Monster stepped aside.

The motion to dismiss was filed as the companies — Epik, parent Epik Holdings, and sister company Masterbucks — simultaneous denied the allegations of fraud and racketeering, while admitting they still owe Adkisson money.

Epik admits Adkisson paid $327,000 for the domain, that he never received the domain, and that he is still owed a refund:

Defendants admit that the domain name has not been transferred to Adkisson. Defendants additionally admit that they intended, and still intend, to return Plaintiff’s funds that he had paid for the purchase of the domain name

…

Defendants admit that Epik owes Adkisson a refund of the $327,000 in funds he previously transferred to it

Monster, who is also named as a defendant and remains Epik’s majority shareholder, has not yet filed his answer to the complaint with the court, according to PACER records.

Epik sued over financial meltdown

Domain registrar Epik has been sued by a customer who says he is owed $327,000 over an aborted secondary market purchase.

Matthew Adkisson says he paid the sum to Epik to buy the domain nourish.com from a third-party seller, with Epik paid $27,000 for its escrow service.

However, Adkisson alleges, the sale fell through and when he asked Epik for his money back he was given the runaround for months.

His lawsuit describes a scheme whereby Epik, former CEO Rob Monster and current CEO Brian Royce were using supposedly escrowed funds for general corporate — and possibly even personal — purposes.

There are even alleged Ponzi-like elements, with funds from new customers being used to pay off debts to former customers.

The suit describes it as a “widespread and illegal fraudulent scheme — replete with misrepresentations, embezzlement, and misappropriation”.

Similar complaints of this nature have been made against Epik for months, with many buyers and sellers struggling to get paid.

The suit, which suggests it believes some of Epik’s actions may have been criminal, lists eight counts including breach of contract, fraud and racketeering. Adkisson wants his money back, as well as unspecified damages.

You can read the complaint here (pdf). Hat tip to John Berryhill.