The Wall Street Journal had an article discussing VeriSign today and its contract to run the .com registry

“The domain name business remains the subject of a lawsuit originally filed in 2005, by a group calling itself the Coalition for ICANN Transparency – arguing that VeriSign’s deal with ICANN violates antitrust laws, while artificially inflating prices.”

“”The lawsuit had been dismissed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed course and potentially re-started the case on June 5 of last year. That day, VeriSign’s stock price started a slide from over $23 to roughly $18, a 22% decline.”

“””The appeals court decision noted that VeriSign’s agreement renewal with ICANN in 2006, which enabled the company to increase .com registration fees, was reached “after no competitive bidding” – while its presumptive 2012 renewal will also be spared from rival bids. “Concerted action between co-conspirators to eliminate competitive bidding for a contract is an actionable harm to competition,” Judge Mary M. Schroeder wrote.”””

The Journal article then went to discuss the hearing a House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet last year and the statement of Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.)  “ICANN’s contract with VeriSign for the register of .com domains is characterized by a deplorable lack of transparency.”  “I have grave reservations about extending this contract after it expires in 2012.””

According to the appeals court’s decision, plaintiffs suing VeriSign have suggested that a domain name registry service equal to what the company now

Interestingly VeriSign according to Journal spent “roughly $2.4 million last year lobbying Congress, the White House, a Commerce Department agency and others on issues including “domain name registration and pricing,” and “issues related to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.”

“If it was decided that these [plaintiffs] have a good case, you could see the process being opened up to have multiple parties included in a bidding process,” . “That would imply that the contracts themselves would be less profitable, and that is a concern.”