DOCSLIB.ORG

ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"– Causes and (Partial) Cures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ICANN's ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"– Causes and (Partial) Cures A. Michael Froomkin Professor, University of Miami School of Law http://www.law.tm DRAFT Sept. 11, 2001 Subject to change Please check with author before quoting or citing This document at http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf Contents Pre-History of the UDRP ............................................................ 5 The White Paper ............................................................. 12 The WIPO Process ........................................................... 14 WIPO’s Final Report ......................................................... 19 Leveraging the DNS ................................................... 20 Scope ............................................................... 21 ‘Administrative’ Process ................................................ 22 Substantive rules ...................................................... 23 Similarity ............................................................ 23 'Rights or Legitimate Interests' ........................................... 24 Bad Faith ............................................................ 27 Offers to Sell. ......................................................... 27 Commercial Confusion ................................................. 28 Repeat Players ........................................................ 28 Unfair Competition .................................................... 28 Meta questions ........................................................ 29 The RDNH Problem ................................................... 30 Deeply Flawed Procedures .............................................. 30 ICANN's UDRP ................................................................... 31 Criteria for Transfer .......................................................... 33 Procedural Problems .......................................................... 44 Selection and Composition of Tribunal ..................................... 45 Issues of Notice and Computation of Time .................................. 46 Asymmetric Access to Courts to 'Review' UDRP ............................. 49 Fixing the UDRP’s Procedural Shortcomings .......................................... 56 Basic Fairness ............................................................... 57 Removing Potentially Biased Arbitrators ................................... 57 Removing Cases from Potentially Biased Providers ........................... 57 Leveling the Playing Field. .............................................. 58 Finding a RDNH Prohibition with Teeth .................................... 59 Proof and Decisions .......................................................... 61 Allocating the Burden of Proof ........................................... 61 The Problem of Settlement Negotiations and Solicited Offers of Sale ............. 62 Special Rules Needed for Allegations of Common Law Marks .................. 63 UDRP Decisions Should Be Final Within the System ......................... 63 Time and Computation of Time ................................................. 63 Notice and Attachments ................................................. 63 Removal of NAF ‘Sandbag’ Rule ......................................... 65 Helping Respondents Find an Arbitrator .................................... 65 Special Rules for Default Judgments? ...................................... 65 Court review ................................................................ 66 Ensuring Even Unequal Access to Court .................................... 66 Technical Amendments ................................................. 67 The Language of the Agreement ................................................. 68 Auditing for Quality and Fairness ......................................... 68 Summary and Conclusion ........................................................... 70 Credits, Disclosures ................................................................. 76 Trademark law is organized around a set of objectives and assumptions that map badly onto the Internet. Trademark law is predominantly organized around sectoral, geographic, and national principles. In contrast, the Internet is defiantly ignorant of national borders.1 This tension has spawned a number of legislative and quasi-public responses designed in some cases to attempt to harmonize the two regimes, but more often to bring the Internet into conformity with trademark law. Of these, probably the most ambitious--and surely one of the most flawed and unfair--is the "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy" (UDRP2) adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers3 (ICANN) to provide a mandatory arbitration-like process to regulate disputes over domain name registrations by alleged "cybersquatters,"4 that is people who register domain names in order to resell them at a profit to the owner of a corresponding trademark. The UDRP is worth examining in detail because it is being touted as a model for e-commerce dispute settlement by industry spokespersons and policy entrepreneurs5 and soon may be required 1See, e.g., A. Michael Froomkin, The Internet as a Source of Regulatory Arbitrage (book chapter) in BORDERS IN CYBERSPACE 129 (Brian Kahin and Charles Nesson, eds.) (1997), available online http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/arbitr.htm. 2Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (October 24, 1999), http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm [Hereinafter cited as UDRP]. 3Arguably, ICANN itself could be said to be a by-product of this collision. For discussions of ICANN see A. Michael Froomkin, Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route around the APA and the Constitution, 50 DUKE L.J. 17 (2000), available online http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann.pdf (critiquing formation and use of ICANN as a means to avoid public rulemaking); Jonathan Weinberg, ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy, 50 DUKE L.J. 187 (2000), available online http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+187 . 4Articles discussing related issues include Froomkin, supra note 3; A. Michael Froomkin, Semi-Private International Rulemaking: Lessons Learned from the WIPO Domain Name Process, in CHRISTOPHER T. MARSDEN (ED), REGULATING THE GLOBAL INFORMATION SOCIETY 211 (2000), available online http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/tprc99.pdf (critiquing procedures used by World Intellectual Property Organization to contribute to private lawmaking). 5E.g. Juliana Greunwald, Intellectual Property Orrganization Stumped, Interactive Week, Feb. 1, 2001, http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2681274,00.html (noting speech by WIPO Assistant Director General Francis Gurry praising UDRP as model); [reference to Hague convention discussion; EU B2C arbitration proposals]; Brian Krebs, Regulators Would Do Well to Mimic ICANN—White House, at http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/00/148011.html (Apr. 25, 2000) (summarizing a speech by 1 by treaty. The U.S. Department of Commerce recently lauded the UDRP as "an efficient, inexpensive procedure for the resolution of disputes."6 Other governments also have endorsed the UDRP in principle,7 and at least twenty-one apply the UDRP to registrations in their domestic country-code top-level domains.8 Many academic commentators also have praised the UDRP,9 although some have been more critical.10 Most worryingly, the latest draft of the intellectual property DoC General Counsel Andrew Pincus arguing that “[t]he federal government could put an end to its numerous Internet regulatory headaches if it approached industry with the same type of cooperation shown . under the aegis of ICANN”); Masanobu Katoh, ICANN—A Model for International Organizations in the 21st Century, at http://www.mkatoh.net/speech/icann_katoh072000-e.ppt (July 2000) (archiving PowerPoint slides from a speech made by ICANN board member-elect arguing that ICANN could be a model for global rulemaking in the twenty-first century). 6U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration Annual Report 2000, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/annualrpt/2001/2000annrpt.htm. 7See WIPO, ccTLD Best Practices for the Prevention and Resolution of Intellectual Property Disputes (Version 1: June 20, 2001), http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/cctlds/bestpractices/bestpractices.html (endorsing UDRP as an "excellent reference model and a valuable starting basis" for design of online dispute resolution). 8See UDRPlaw.net, ccTLDs and International Domain Name Dispute Resolution, http://www.udrplaw.net/cctldDisputes.htm . 9Most of this work is either frankly results-oriented, focuses on an idealized version of the UDRP, or limits itself to the substance of the rules rather than confronting the UDRP’s serious procedural failures. Examples include Shamnad Basheer, Establishing Rights/Legitimate Interests in a Domain Name: Cyber Squatters Get Creative, [2001] C.T.L.R. 1; Leah Phillips Falzone, Playing the Hollywood Name Game in Cybercourt: The Battle over Domain Names in the Age of Celebrity-Squatting, 21 LOYOLA OF LA ENT. L. REV. 289 (2001) (praising UDRP as tool for celebrities to wrest "their" names from cybersquatters); Patrick L. Jones, Protecting Your “SportsEvent.com:” Athletic Organizations and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 5 W.VA. J. L. & TECH. 2.1 (April 16, 2001) http://www.wvu.edu/~wvjolt/Arch/Jones/Jones.htm; Jason M. Osborn, Effective and Complementary Solutions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft 7-17-11 an EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS of FAIR USE
    Draft 7-17-11 AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF FAIR USE DECISIONS UNDER THE UNIFORM DOMAIN-NAME DISPUTE-RESOLUTION POLICY David A. Simon INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1 I. THE UDRP AND ITS PROBLEMS ............................................................................................................... 7 II. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 12 A. Sample Selection: Method of Selection .......................................................................................... 13 B. Types of Cases Selected for Sample............................................................................................... 14 III. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 17 A. U.S. Respondents Win Twice as Many Fair Use Cases as Other Respondents ............................. 17 B. U.S. Law Dominates UDRP Decisions .......................................................................................... 21 C. U.S. Panels Decide Mostly Cases Involving U.S. Respondents ..................................................... 23 IV. IMPLICATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 25 A. Explaining U.S. Favoritism
    [Show full text]
  • Outcomes Report of the GNSO Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting
    GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/02/04 4 October, 2007 OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON DOMAIN NAME TASTING 4 October 2007 Group Chair: Mike Rodenbaugh ICANN Staff: Olof Nordling, Patrick Jones STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT This is the final version of the Outcomes Report from the GNSO ad hoc group on Domain Name Tasting, submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 October, 2007. GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting v1.6 Authors: Mike Rodenbaugh, [email protected] , Olof Nordling, [email protected] , Patrick Jones, [email protected], Page 1 of 144 GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/02/04 4 October, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 2 OBJECTIVE 5 3 BACKGROUND 7 4 OUTCOMES 10 5 NEXT STEPS 32 ANNEX 1 - SUBSCRIBERS TO THE DT LIST 33 ANNEX 2 - RFI RESPONSES 34 ANNEX 3 - EXPERIENCES FROM CCTLDS 97 ANNEX 4 - COMMENTS FROM UDRP PROVIDERS 104 ANNEX 5 – IPC CONSTITUENCY SUPPLEMENTAL RFI116 ANNEX 6 – REQUEST TO VERISIGN 144 GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting v1.6 Authors: Mike Rodenbaugh, [email protected] , Olof Nordling, [email protected] , Patrick Jones, [email protected], Page 2 of 144 GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/02/04 4 October, 2007 1 Executive summary 1.1 Background Following a request from the At-Large Advisory Committee in spring 2007, the GNSO Council called for an Issues Report on Domain Tasting from ICANN Staff in May 2007. This Issues Report, available at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain- tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf was discussed at the ICANN San Juan meeting, where the GNSO Council on 27 June 2007 (minutes at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27jun07.shtml) resolved to establish an ad hoc group for further fact-finding on the practice of domain tasting.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace
    Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace Second Edition CHAPTER 7 UNIQUE ONLINE TRADEMARK ISSUES Howard S. Hogan Stephen W. Feingold Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton Washington, D.C. New York, NY CHAPTER 8 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION Howard S. Hogan Stephen W. Feingold Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton Washington, D.C. New York, NY Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace Second Edition G. Peter Albert, Jr. and American Intellectual Property Law Association CHAPTER 7 UNIQUE ONLINE TRADEMARK ISSUES CHAPTER 8 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION American Intellectual Property Law Association A Arlington, VA Reprinted with permission For more information contact: bna.com/bnabooks or call 1-800-960-1220 Copyright © 2011 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Albert, G. Peter, 1964– Intellectual property law in cyberspace / G. Peter Albert, Jr. -- 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57018-753-7 (alk. paper) 1. Industrial property--United States. 2. Computer networks--Law and legislation--United States. 3. Internet 4. Copyright and electronic data processing--United States. I. Title. KF3095.A77 2011 346.7304’8--dc23 2011040494 All rights reserved. Photocopying any portion of this publication is strictly prohibited unless express written authorization is first obtained from BNA Books, 1231 25th St., NW, Washington, DC 20037, bna.com/bnabooks. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by BNA Books for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that $1.00 per page is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923, copyright.com, Telephone: 978-750-8400, Fax: 978-646-8600.
    [Show full text]
  • The Secondary Market for Domain Names”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No
    Please cite this paper as: OECD (2006-04-12), “The Secondary Market for Domain Names”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 111, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/231550251200 OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 111 The Secondary Market for Domain Names OECD Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 12-Apr-2006 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR INFORMATION, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policies THE SECONDARY MARKET FOR DOMAIN NAMES English - Or. English JT03207431 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL FOREWORD This report was presented to the Working Party on Telecommunications and Information Services Policies (TISP) in December 2005 and was declassified by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policies (ICCP) in March 2006. This report was prepared by Ms. Karine Perset, with the participation of Mr. Dimitri Ypsilanti, both of the OECD's Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. This report is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. 2 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL © OECD/OCDE 2006 3 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL
    [Show full text]
  • INDIA NON JUDICIAL Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi E
    INDIA NON JUDICIAL Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi e-Stamp Certificate No. IN-DL60960205740197L Certificate Issued Date 11-Sep-2013 04:14 PM Account Reference IMPACC (IV)/ dl839203/ DELHI/ DL-DLH Unique Doc. Reference SUBIN-DLDL83920320383381180966L Purchased by SANJAY KUMAR SINGH ARBITRATOR Description of Document Article 12 Award Property Description NA Consideration Price (Rs.) 0 (Zero) First Party SANJAY KUMAR SINGH ARBITRATOR Second Party Not Applicable Stamp Duty Paid By SANJAY KUMAR SINGH ARBITRATOR Stamp Duty Amount(Rs.) 100 (One Hundred only) BEFORE SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINGH ARBITRATOR IN DOMAIN NAME DISUPTE RESOLUTION POLICY (INDRP) IN RE: MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND WA 98052-6399. USA COMPLAINANT Versus PIYUSH SOMANI, ESDS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED B-24 & B-25, NICE INDUSTRIAL AREA. SATPUR MIDC. NASHIK-422 007 INDIA RESPONDENT Disputed Domain Name: <micorsoft.co.in> The complainant has filed the present Complaint for decision in accordance with the IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution policy (the police), and the INDRP Rules of procedure (the Rules) of the IN Registry 1. The parties are: The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY, REDMOND, WA 98052-6399. USA The Complainant's contact details are: Address ONE MICROSOFT WAY, REDMOND, WA 98052-6399. USA The Complainant's authorized representative in this administrative proceeding is: A) Name: Pravin Anand Address: Anand and Anand. First Channel, plot No 17A, Sector 16A, Film City, Noida Telephone: 91-120- 4059300. Fax: 91-120-4243056. E-mail: [email protected] B) Name: Nischal Anand Address: Anand and Anand. First Channel, plot No 17A Sector 16A, Film City, Noida, India Telephone 91-120-4059300 Fax: 91-120-4243056 E-mail nischal@anandandanana com.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Efficiently Protect a Domain Name?
    Comparative Law Review 22 2016 Nicolaus Copernicus University http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/CLR.2016.010 Monika Gaczkowska HOW TO EFFICIENTLY PROTECT A DOMAIN NAME? Abstract Cybercrime rates are increasing in Poland and throughout the world. There are many types of offences concerning internet domains, among others, cybersquatting, typosquatting, cyber smearing, and cyberwildcatting. The following article is a comparative study of the settlement of disputes concerning internet domain names taking as an example the Domain Name Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications (PIIT) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center. Between the two processes of recovery of the domains there are many similarities. During the study legislation was sought in the Polish legal system, which is related to internet domains. In Poland, there is no particular legal regulation regarding internet domain names. One may search for protective measures in the Act on Combating Unfair Competition [o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji], Industrial Property Law [Prawo własności przemysłowej], and the Civil Code [Kodeks cywilny]. This article commends the settlement of disputes through arbitration and describes them in detail. Keywords cybersquatting – typosquatting – cyber smearing – cyberwildcatting – disputes – internet domains * Monika Gaczkowska graduated from the Warsaw University’s Faculty of Law and Administration. She was an Erasmus student at the Faculty of Law and the International Business Programme of the University of Alicante. She is currently, a PhD student in the field of IP law at Koźmiński University in Warsaw. She participated in postgraduate studies in IT law. She works in one of the leading law firms in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe (CEE/SEE).
    [Show full text]
  • New Gtld Application Submitted to ICANN By: Little Birch, LLC
    Little Birch, LLC Contact Information Redacted Mr. Jon Nevett Ms. Crystal Ondo Contact Information Redacted Minds + Machines Group Limited Contact Information Redacted Ms. Reg Levy Contact Information Redacted THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT AND REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. If you are in any doubt about the contents of this Document, or the action you should take, you should consult a person authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 who specialises in advising on the acquisition of shares and other securities in the United Kingdom before taking any action. Defined terms in this Document have the meanings given on page s8to13 , unless the context requires otherwise. Application will be made for the Shares to be readmitted to trading on AIM. AIM is a market designed primarily for emerging or smaller companies to which a higher investment risk tends to be attached than to larger or more established companies. AIM securities are not admitted to the Official List of the United Kingdom Listing Authority. A prospective investor should be aware of the risks of investing in such companies and should make the decision to invest only after careful consideration and, if appropriate, consultation with an independent financial advisor. The London Stock Exchange Plc has not itself examined or approved the contents of this Document. Each AIM company is required pursuant to the AIM Rules for Companies to have a nominated adviser. The nominated adviser is required to make a declaration to the London Stock Exchange on admission to the market in the form set out in Schedule Two to the AIM Rules for Companies.
    [Show full text]
  • PREDATOR: Proactive Recognition and Elimination of Domain Abuse at Time-Of-Registration
    PREDATOR: Proactive Recognition and Elimination of Domain Abuse at Time-Of-Registration Shuang Hao∗ Alex Kantcheliany Brad Millerx Vern Paxson† Nick Feamsterz ∗ y University of California, Santa Barbara University of California, Berkeley x z Google, Inc. International Computer Science Institute Princeton University [email protected] {akant,vern}@cs.berkeley.edu [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT content [18, 53]. To mitigate these threats, operators routinely build Miscreants register thousands of new domains every day to launch reputation systems for domain names to indicate whether they are Internet-scale attacks, such as spam, phishing, and drive-by down- associated with malicious activity. A common mode for developing loads. Quickly and accurately determining a domain’s reputation reputation for DNS domain names is to develop a blacklist that curates (association with malicious activity) provides a powerful tool for mit- “bad domains”. A network operator who wishes to defend against an igating threats and protecting users. Yet, existing domain reputation attack may use a domain blacklist to help determine whether certain systems work by observing domain use (e.g., lookup patterns, content traffic or infrastructure is associated with malicious activity. hosted)—often too late to prevent miscreants from reaping benefits of Unfortunately, curating a DNS blacklist is difficult because of the attacks that they launch. the high rate of domain registrations and the variety of attacks. For As a complement to these systems, we explore the extent to which example, every day around 80,000 new domains are registered in features evident at domain registration indicate a domain’s subsequent the .com zone, with a peak rate of over 1,800 registrations in a sin- use for malicious activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL
    Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 12-Apr-2006 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR INFORMATION, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policies THE SECONDARY MARKET FOR DOMAIN NAMES English - Or. English JT03207431 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL FOREWORD This report was presented to the Working Party on Telecommunications and Information Services Policies (TISP) in December 2005 and was declassified by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policies (ICCP) in March 2006. This report was prepared by Ms. Karine Perset, with the participation of Mr. Dimitri Ypsilanti, both of the OECD's Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. This report is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. 2 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL © OECD/OCDE 2006 3 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS MAIN POINTS ...............................................................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Top Level Domain Names: Market Development and Allocation Issues
    Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)2/FINAL Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 13-Jul-2004 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR INFORMATION, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)2/FINAL Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policies GENERIC TOP LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES: MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND ALLOCATION ISSUES English - Or. English JT00167437 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)2/FINAL FOREWORD In June 2004 this report was presented to the Working Party on Telecommunications and Information Services Policy (TISP). It was recommended to be made public by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy (ICCP) in July 2004. The report was prepared by Dr. Sam Paltridge and Mr. Masayuki Matsui of the OECD's Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. It is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. Copyright OECD, 2004 Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. 2 DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)2/FINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS MAIN POINTS...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of Direct Registration
    auDA Policy Review Panel Final Report: Recommendations to the auDA Board: Reform of Existing Policies & Implementation of Direct Registration 25 March 2019 Page 1 of 45 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 4 1.1 Background 4 1.2 Interaction between Panel’s tasks 4 2. Structure of policies 6 3. Reform of Existing Policies 7 3.1 Eligibility and allocation – the Australian presence requirement 7 3.2 Trade mark applications and registrations 7 3.3 Resale and warehousing 8 3.4 Eligibility and allocation – “Close and substantial connection” rule 10 3.5 Domain Monetisation 11 3.6 Eligibility and allocation – Grandfathering considerations 12 3.7 Licence conditions – Licence transfer 13 3.8 Licence conditions – Licence suspension and cancellation 14 3.9 Prohibition on misspellings 15 3.10 Unblocking domain names on the Prohibited Misspellings List 17 3.11 Reserved names 17 4. Implementation of Direct Registration 22 4.1 Overview 22 4.2 Panels views on direct registration 22 4.3 Key principles of proposed implementation model 23 4.4 Discussion of implementation issues 25 4.5 Possible models for resolving conflict as to allocation 26 4.6 Panels preferred model for resolving conflict as to allocation 27 4.7 Eligibility and Allocation Rules 28 4.8 Cut-off date for eligibility to participate in the priority allocation and conflict resolution process 29 4.9 Contestable Levels 29 4.10 Other comments regarding direct registration 30 5. High-level Summary of Recommendations 32 This section sets out a high-level summary of recommendations. This section should be read in conjunction with, and subject to, the detailed report set out above.
    [Show full text]
  • Domain Name Disputes and Evaluation of the ICANN's
    Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 9, September 2004, pp 424-439 Domain Name Disputes and Evaluation of The ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Sourabh Ghosh* W B National University of Juridical Sciences, LB-12, Sector- III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata- 700 098 Received 1 December 2003, revised 22 July 2004 The proliferation of the Internet has led to an explosion in the number of registered domain names. With the ‘.com’ burst, there has been an increase in the number of domain name dis- putes leading to an anarchy in this special branch of intellectual property. ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is an international dispute resolution proce- dure that enables trademark holders to challenge the registrant of an Internet domain name, bring the name to binding arbitration and, if the challenge is successful, gain control of the name. The policy was defined in October 1999 and the first case was decided in December 1999. Since then, UDRP has gone a long way in resolving domain name disputes. However, an analysis of the decided cases under the UDRP regime tells a different story. The present paper critically analyses some of those decided cases and also highlights the lacunae in the UDRP and also provides some suggestions for the improvement of UDRP. Keywords: Domain names, UDRP, ICANN, cyber squatters, cyber twins, cyber parasites The phenomenal growth of the Internet as accessible computers actually read a a commercial medium has brought about series of Internet Protocol (IP) numbers a new set of concerns in the realm of rather than domain names3.
    [Show full text]