Radix Responds To Attack Letter on New gTLD Applications By Publishing Threat Letters From Attorneys

We wrote earlier today about the comment filed by the global law firm of Winston & Strawn LLP to ICANN saying that Radix’s applications for new gTLD should be denied by ICANN based on the activity of Directi.

I just received this response from Radix, which applied for 31 new gTLD’s including .Ping, to the comment posted by the law firm, which represents the Ping golf equipment maker, Karsten:

This is in response to the comments submitted to ICANN questioning our eligibility to participate in ICANN’s new gTLD process.

The comments were submitted on behalf of known golf goods manufacturer, Karsten.

On 8th Aug, their law firm Winston & Strawn contacted us with a letter which concluded with the following message:

Karsten is preparing to post this letter and the attached public comments for each of your

applications, not just .ping, prior to the end of the public comment period.

 

Once filed, this letter and the public comments will also be sent to the ICANN Board and Senior Staff.

Further, as youknow, Karsten may seek relief from the courts, through ICANN’s various processes, and through

raising awareness of your activities within the ICANN community generally.

 

Karsten will pursue all appropriate means to ensure that all of your applications are rejected.

We are writing to provide you with a one-time opportunity to withdraw your abusive

application for .ping.

 

If you provide evidence of your irrevocable withdrawal of your .ping

application no later than 12 pm (noon) central time on Friday, August 10, 2012, Karsten will

forebear filing its public comments.

 

However, should you fail to do so, Karsten will take appropriate steps to protect its interests.

Karsten is our only competitor for the .ping bid and their comment is submitted in bad faith and to further their self-interest.

We are in the process of building a comprehensive response which will disprove every claim that has been made. Several of their points are factually incorrect and based on creative assumptions.

We have built a reputation of running the most powerful and aggressive processes to mitigate abusive activity. As a Registrar we have won accolades from the FBI and many other LEA and security agencies.

One of the most fundamental tenets of our .ping application is ‘zero tolerance towards abuse’ and towards that end we have proposed advanced abuse mitigation practices which go above and beyond ICANN’s requirements.

 

Sounds like the law firm tried to strong arm Radix into dropping their bid for .Ping and followed through on their threats to file comments with ICANN objecting to all Radix applications and since the application was not withdrawn, they followed through with their threat.

I don’t know what Radix business model behind .Ping is, but Radix seems to have one they feel is going to be pretty profitable.