RK
----------
> From: Carl Oppedahl <carl@OPPEDAHL.COM>
> Subject: Latest development in the case where NSI almost cut off
500,000
> email addresses
>
> Juno Online just dismissed its claims against NSI. Here's what happened.
>
> Readers will recall that a few weeks ago, NSI mailed out another of its
> 30-day letters pursuant to its flawed domain name trademark policy, this
one
> to Juno Online, an email service provider with some half a million
customers
> who would have lost their email addresses. The letter stated that NSI
would
> be cutting off the "juno.com" domain name.
>
> Juno did what most email service providers with half a million customers
who
> were about to lose their email addresses would do, namely it went to
court
> for a court order directing NSI not to do what it said in its letter.
>
> At the hearing NSI was desperate to avoid the embarassment of being
ordered
> not to do what it said in its letter, and agreed not to cut off the
domain
> name so as to avoid being so ordered. (In the clue.com case, NSI was
> ordered not to cut off clue.com, which must have been very embarassing
to
> NSI. Read about that at <http://www.patents.com/clue/clue.sht>.)
>
> The next thing NSI would presumably have done, if its actions in the
> Roadrunner case are any indication, is that it would have asked the
Court to
> dismiss the case against NSI as moot, on the grounds that now that NSI
has
> buckled and agreed not to do what it said in its 30-day letter, there is
> nothing further for the court to do with respect to NSI. NSI would do
this
> because it wants very much to avoid court scrutiny of its domain name
> trademark policy.
>
> Juno Online, in a brilliant move, just now voluntarily dismissed its
claims
> against NSI without prejudice. This leaves Juno Online free to sue NSI
> again later, if it so chooses, perhaps to pursue its damages claim
against
> NSI or to seek court review of the domain name trademark policy. And it
> cuts NSI out of the case now, thereby avoiding Juno Online's having to
deal
> with NSI's time-wasting motion to dismiss.
>
> Meanwhile Juno Online can now pursue its claims against Juno Electric,
for
> example for a declaratory judgment that it isn't infringing any of Juno
> Electric's trademarks.
>
> The text of the voluntary dismissal may be seen at
> <http://www.patents.com/juno/oct25.sht>.
>
> NSI should scrap its terribly flawed domain name policy -- in this case
the
> policy, doggedly enforced by stubborn NSI, came within a week of cutting
off
> the email access of over half a million people. Only the availability
of
> the court system permitted forcing NSI to agree not to carry out the
threat
> communicated in its 30-day letter to Juno Online.
>
> Amazingly, NSI has suggested that a law ought to be passed that would
make
> it impossible for domain name owners to use the court system to protect
> themselves from loss of their domain names. See
> <http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/Bill1034.html>. If the bill which NSI
has
> proposed had already been enacted into law, Juno Online would have been
> helpless to stop the loss of service to its half a million customers.
NSI's
> apparent contempt for its customers, the domain name owners, is
striking.
>
> NSI has a five-year contract to administer the COM domain, and the
contract
> expires in 1998. Let's hope that the next administrator after NSI will
> treat domain name owners more fairly.