----------
From: Len Lindon <info&#167;humanrights.com.au>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:35:41 +1100
To: <admin&#167;tlda.org>
Cc: "domain-policy&#167;open-rsc.org" <domain-policy§open-rsc.org>
Subject: .court in court

Federal Court of Australia considers .court

TITLE: Lindon v Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

CITATION: [2001] FCA 265

URL: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/feddec/0/20011/0/FD002270.htm

Justice Alan Goldberg on 9 March 2001 at Melbourne:

> 8� � � �In general terms, the complaint which lies behind the proceeding is
> that the applicant seeks to enable there to be access over the Internet to
> what he calls two non-colliding name spaces, ".human rights" and ".court",
> which he has sought to set up and operate. He alleges in the statement of
> claim that ICANN and the other respondents, other than the Commission and the
> Commission's officer, will be holding a series of meetings, including in
> particular a meeting starting this day and ending on 13�March 2001 in
> Melbourne, and that they are engaging in conduct, or will engage in conduct,
> that constitutes a contravention of ss�45, 45B, 45D, 45DA, 45E and 46 of the
> Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("the Act"). It is further alleged that their
> conduct constitutes attempting to contravene such provisions, aiding,
> abetting, counselling or procuring a person to contravene such provisions,
> inducing or attempting to induce a person to contravene such provisions, being
> directly or indirectly knowingly concerned in, or party to those
> contraventions and conspiring with others to contravene such provisions.
> 
> 9� � � �It will be immediately appreciated that these are serious allegations.
> The particulars of the conduct which are then set out are that the proposed
> first to tenth�respondents will do three things:
> 
> *� � � �fail to allow the immediate recognition and resolution of all existing
> non-colliding name spaces as currently recognised and resolved by the many
> existing root service providers;
> 
> *� � � �support the US government legacy root service as the sole and
> exclusive root service provider for the whole Internet;
> 
> *� � � �actively promote the extinguishment of all other, that is non-ICANN,
> name spaces and all other non-US government legacy root service providers.
> 
> 10� � � �There is then an allegation that the Commission has failed to
> investigate the allegations which the applicant has made in respect of the
> proposed first to tenth�respondents and has failed, accordingly, to prepare
> any enforcement measures.
> 
> 11� � � �The relief which is sought in the application is a mandatory
> injunction, interlocutory and final, ordering the proposed first to
> tenth�respondents forthwith to recognise and resolve all existing
> non-colliding name spaces as currently recognised and resolved by the many
> existing root service providers, and an injunction restraining them from any
> conduct supporting the US government legacy root service as the sole and
> exclusive root service provider for the whole Internet and actively promoting
> the extinguishment of all other non-colliding name spaces and all other root
> service providers.
> 
> 12� � � �A mandatory injunction, interlocutory and final, is also sought
> against the Commission and one of its officers requiring them forthwith to
> conduct an expeditious investigation into competition in the markets for
> Internet root service providers and non-colliding name space service
> providers. 

 

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

    V 176 of 2001

BETWEEN:

    LEN LINDON

Applicant 


AND:

    INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS

First Respondent

LOUIS TOUTON

Second Respondent

VINT CERF

Third Respondent

ESTHER DYSON

Fourth Respondent

ICANN MELBOURNE MEETINGS HOST COMMITTEE

Fifth Respondent

au DOMAIN ADMINISTRATION LTD

Sixth Respondent

TONY STALEY

Seventh Respondent

GREG CREW

Eighth Respondent

CHRIS DISSPAIN

Ninth Respondent

PROFESSOR PETER GERRAND

Tenth Respondent

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

Eleventh Respondent

MICHAEL COSGRAVE

Twelfth Respondent 


JUDGE: 

    GOLDBERG J 

DATE OF ORDER: 

    9 MARCH 2001 

WHERE MADE: 

    MELBOURNE