Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers Research Articles

Are We Getting Good Decisions by Top - Level Domain Name Dispute Resolution Providers?

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has offered unique solution to deal with disputes regarding the registration of internet domain names (so called trademark dilemma) in 1999. Uniform domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) delimits procedural rules to solve such disputes and to create non – binding decision (binding between involved parties) which approves / rejects the transfer of the domain name to new (trademark) owner.This paper has to focus on the question whether we are getting good decisions or the decisions in similar cases are decided more or less randomly. It is necessary to focus on such question also because of the fact that ICANN is planned to be transferred to the global multi - stakeholder community this year. Is the decision making process ready for such a big change or is it easily suggestible? To try to answer this question it will be necessary to go through the history and activities of ICANN and to focus mainly on UDRP process. Comparison of the convenient trademark dilemma cases or statistics will try to show defects of the rules, which are pointing at problems not only recently but already for quite a long time.The conclusion then is to articulate possible future development and to offer some recommendations of what is necessary to pay attention to.

A call for a moratorium on the .health generic top-level domain: preventing the commercialization and exclusive control of online health information.

In just a few weeks, the Internet could be expanded to include a new .health generic top-level domain name run by a for-profit company with virtually no public health credentials - unless the international community intervenes immediately. This matters to the future of global public health as the “Health Internet” has begun to emerge as the predominant source of health information for consumers and patients. Despite this increasing use and reliance on online health information that may have inadequate quality or reliability, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) recently announced it intends to move forward with an auction to award the exclusive, 10 year rights to the .health generic top-level domain name. This decision is being made over the protests of the World Medical Association, World Health Organization, and other stakeholders, who have called for a suspension or delay until key questions can be resolved. However, rather than engage in constructive dialogue with the public health community over its concerns, ICANN chose the International Chamber of Commerce—a business lobbying group for industries to adjudicate the .health concerns. This has resulted in a rejection of challenges filed by ICANN’s own independent watchdog and others, such that ICANN’s Board decided in June 2014 that there are “no noted objections to move forward” in auctioning the .health generic top-level domain name to the highest bidder before the end of the year. This follows ICANN’s award of several other health-related generic top-level domain names that have been unsuccessfully contested. In response, we call for an immediate moratorium/suspension of the ICANN award/auction process in order to provide the international public health community time to ensure the proper management and governance of health information online.

The New .Africa Top Level Domain: An African Initiative in Ensuring Africa's Rightful Place on the Global Network

The new gTLD programme of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the single most important development since the privatisation of the DNS in 1998. The management of the Domain Name System (DNS) has developed from a modest undertaking to its current explosive expansion through the new gTLD programme. Africa has boldly entered the arena through the delegation of the .Africa gTLD. This new development heralds an innovative era in the management of the DNS, especially for Africa. The dotAfrica gTLD launch strategy offers several advantages to African governments and traders alike. One of the innovative features of the management of dotAfrica is the fact that a broader set of rights including commercial, cultural, linguistic, religious and personal rights will be protected. Furthermore, African trade mark proprietors and other rights holders are protected, initially at least, by various innovative rights-protection mechanisms. This development is important for African governments and it should form an integral part of right holders' intellectual property management strategy. Keywords: dotAfrica; new gTLD programme; trade mark rights; sunrise period; priority rights; dispute resolution; ICANN; ZACR; mark validation system; rights protection mechanisms; land rush phase; reserve names list; trademark clearing house; African Union Commission.

Linguistic diversity on the internet: Arabic, Chinese and Cyrillic script top-level domain names

The deployment of Arabic, Chinese, and Cyrillic top-level domain names is explored in this research by analyzing technical and policy documents of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as well as newspaper articles in the respective language regions. The tension between English uniformity at the root level of the Internet׳s domain names system, and language diversity in the global Internet community, has resulted in various technological solutions surrounding Arabic, Chinese, and Cyrillic language domain names. These standards and technological solutions ensure the security and stability of the Internet; however, they do not comprehensively address the linguistic diversity needs of the Internet. ICANN has been transforming into an international policy organization, yet its linguistic diversity policies appear disconnected from the diversity policies of the United Nations, and remain technically oriented. Linguistic diversity in relation to IDNs at this stage mostly focus on the language representation of major languages that are spoken in powerful nation-states, who use the rhetoric of national pride, local business branding, and inclusion of non-English speakers. This situation surfaces the tension between nation-states and the new international governing institution ICANN.

The Internet of Everyone

The US government has announced that it will end its unique oversight role over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), assuming that a multistakeholder model of accountability and transparency can be developed by the Internet community by September 2015. The National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA) that held this responsibility for many years recognizes that this stewardship role should become the responsibility of the global providers and users of the Internet.

The New Health-Related Top-Level Domains Are Coming: Will Cureforcancer.health Go to the Highest Bidder?

In 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) opened a new round of applications for generic top-level domain (gTLD) names, receiving 1930 applications, of which at least 18 were related to health (eg, “.doctor”, “.health”, “.med”). The entry of new, commercial players applying to create health-related names reopens the debate on the role of international organizations, governments, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders regarding the safeguards and policies needed to protect consumers.

From Cyber-Libertarianism to Neoliberalism: Internet Exceptionalism, Multi-stakeholderism, and the Institutionalisation of Internet Governance in the 1990s

Although it is often taken for granted that Internet governance should employ the principle of multi-stakeholderism and that existing governance structures are not suitable for the regulation of the Internet, this article places the emergence of such principles in the context of the 1990s. Drawing on international political sociology and neo-Gramscian scholarship, it explores how different elites were able to coalesce around basic principles of Internet governance to create the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). These principles were the common elements of distinct discourses and were instrumental in the unification of a power elite. They also helped to create a hegemonic discourse that was acceptable to a broader public. Based on the study of policy documents produced during the debates that led to the creation of the ICANN, this article outlines five different discourses on Internet governance and focuses on the principles of multi-stakeholderism and Internet exceptionalism as basic elements of a hegemonic discourse. The study of the origins of these principles in the 1990s can shed light on their status in current debates.

Give it away now? Renewal of the IANA functions contract and its role in internet governance

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has acquired many of the tools it uses to govern the Domain Name System (DNS) by contract or other agreements with the United States Government (USG). One of the most important agreements ICANN has for managing the DNS is the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract. This agreement puts ICANN in charge of technical functions and management of major aspects of the DNS, including the DNS Root Zone coordination and allocation of global IP and AS number spaces. The following article considers the recent renewal of the IANA functions contract and evaluates the implications that renewal rounds may have for ICANN in the future. The article further analyses a possible transfer of the IANA functions from the USG to ICANN. Additionally, the article considers the legal path for a transition of the

Hybrid net: the regulatory framework of ICANN and the DNS

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is responsible for the management and coordination of the internet domain name and address space, which are critical resources necessary for internet connectivity. Though international in reach since it cooperates with persons, organizations and governments in many countries, ICANN was set up as a private non-profit organization under California law. This article examines the role, legal nature and basis of ICANN and the domain name system (DNS). It first maps and analyses the various regulatory instruments underlying ICANN and the DNS. What emerges is that, very often several and different modes of regulation, both formal and informal, are required to address a particular issue satisfactorily. The article examines whether and to what extent these different types of instruments co-exist and interrelate as one coherent regulatory framework. To do so, this article draws upon Teubner’s notion of hybrid networks and makes an analogy with modern theories on how various sources of law apply within a legal system. In particular, it follows and builds upon Ost and van de Kerchove’s notion of network or ‘mesh’ regulation. To explain the contractual web at the heart

The Internet: An Avenue of Virtual Communication

The Internet is a "network of networks" that connects different ranks of several thousand information networks from dozens of countries around the world. It is a virtual network consisting of an ever-growing number of LAN (Local Area Network-LAN), public and private networks over large areas (Wide Area Network-WAN), regional and national networks that are interconnected (Vasiu, I., 1998). The digital revolution, based mostly on the internet hasn't gotten any halfway, "you haven't seen anything yet." (Ulieru, M. 2008). The Internet represents the biggest "neighborhood" of Cyberspace that makes available to users a few major categories: World Wide Web, Electronic Mail, Usenet, and Internet Relay Chat. The World Wide Web represents an "electronic marketplace" for goods, services and a wide range of applications. Different users constitute their sites, which are presented in Cyberspace as "showcases”. The Internet is administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which endorses the sites names and addresses; It depends directly on the US Department of Commerce and the US Government. DOI: 10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n8p660

What do the .XXX disputes tell us about Internet governance? ICANN’s legitimacy deficit in context

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a private, not-for-profit corporation incorporated under Californian law, which is responsible for managing and developing policies for the Domain Name System (DNS), a valuable global resource. As a non-state actor, with no clear source of authority under international law, ICANN has weak claims to formal legitimacy. To bolster its normative claims to legitimacy, ICANN has introduced internal structural and procedural safeguards to ensure transparency and accountability. Its structural safeguards, based on the multi-stakeholder model, entrench roles for governments, the private sector and civil society in the policy-making process. The privileged position given to government representatives in the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) enhances ICANN?s weak claims to legitimacy, but risks undermining procedural safeguards through undue government influence. ICANN?s procedural safeguards include requirements to act openly, transparently and fairly, and incorporate an independent review mechanism. This article evaluates ICANN?s claims to legitimacy by means of a case study of the process for approving the controversial .XXX gTLD. An analysis of the disputes involving .XXX reveals flaws with ICANN?s structural and procedural safeguards. As this article argues, however, ICANN?s weak claims to legitimacy do not necessarily mean that DNS management and policy-making should be transferred to an international treaty-based organisation. In a time when concepts of legitimacy are in transition, with traditional concepts being challenged and new concepts yet to fully emerge, all international organisations must continually negotiate their legitimacy with networks of stakeholders. While ICANN?s weak legitimacy will result in ongoing challenges to its key management and policy-making roles, attention should focus on improving its mechanisms for accountability and transparency, as well as the organisation?s competence and effectiveness.

Rights protection in new gTLDs: The multi-stakeholder Internet governance model at work

In June 2008, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) embarked upon an ambitious program of expansion at the top-level of the DNS. The policy underpinning expansion is notable for its adoption of new mechanisms that target the unauthorised use in new gTLDs of names the subject of legal – in particular trademark – rights. These mechanisms are the product of several years of policy development and implementation; they are proof of the functioning of ICANN’s unique multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. Yet even as new top-level domains near the launch phase, questions remain as to the scope and mechanics of rights protection offered by agreed-upon mechanisms. A ‘strawman solution’ emerged at the end of 2012 to address these questions. This article examines the ‘strawman solution’, the rights protection mechanisms it seeks to clarify, and the ICANN organisational structure and operational processes into which it does not perfectly fit.

PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BLOGGER BERITIKAD BAIK TERHADAP DOMINE NAME MEREK TERKENAL DARI DUGAAN PEMBONCENGAN REPUTASI (PASSING OFF)

This Research entitled "Legal Protection Against Blogger Good Faith Domine Name Of Alleged Deception Famous Brand Reputation (Passing Off)". The problem of this study was, first: How does the domain name in a legal setting in Indonesia. Second: What is the legal protection of domain name for blogger’s good faith if there are similarities with the domain name famous brand. This research method using normative methods, the legal research done by examining library materials. Which refers to the legal norms contained in the legislation, international conventions, international agreements and court decisions. The results showed, first: The domain name has been linked closely with the brand and copyright but the domain name is not synonymous with the brand and copyright, as it has a system and registration requirements as well as the recognition of the existence differently. So far there are kekososngan norms that specifically regulate the domain name issue in Indonesia. Until now, the settings used by the international ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the competent authority dealing with internet IP Addres, and domain name system management. Second: Legal protection for bloggers acting in good faith if there are similarities regarding the domain name can be a famous brand is preventive legal protection and the protection of repressive laws which refers to the settlement of a litigation matter (referring to the legal protection of IPR, Civil, Criminal and Law ITE) and non-litigation (both ADR and UDRP).

The Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG) and Its Role in Internet Governance

Multi-stakeholder (MSH) organizations have played a critical role in the success of the Internet. These organizations, formed largely without official government action, have helped guide the Internet in its growth to date and set the guidelines and protocols for its operation. Today, though, there are some that would like to see governance of the Internet put under more structured sovereign control and the calls for such have become louder in anticipation of the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12). As the Internet becomes more central to nearly every civic and sovereign activity, there are fears that the network of networks that is the Internet is just “too important” to leave alone or to let largely govern itself. Arguably though, greater governmental involvement in Internet governance would be a step in the wrong direction and threatens to change the “recipe” that has brought the Internet so far and so fast. As a counterpoint to calls for more sovereign control, the Obama Administration has put forth proposals that would increase and make more explicit the reliance on MSH groups in the important areas of Internet privacy and cybersecurity. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has stated that: ….the United States supports the public-private collaboration that now exists to manage the technical evolution of the internet in real time. We support the principles of multi-stakeholder internet governance developed by more than 30 nations in the OECD earlier this year. A multi-stakeholder system brings together the best of governments, the private sector, and civil society. And most importantly, it works. It has kept the internet up and running for years all over the world. Given the intensifying focus on MSH organizations, the motivation behind this paper is to provide the telecommunications policy research community with more information on a relatively new MSH group, the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG). It was formed in response to proposals for Internet regulation in the U.S. that arose around the issue of “Net Neutrality.” Its formation and ensuing evolution was also influenced by a related court case (Comcast Corp. v. FCC) that brought into question the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) authority in the area and by the FCC’s subsequent Open Internet Report and Order. The hope is that the information provided on BITAG herein will be useful to other researchers in studying and assessing the continued role of MSH organizations in the future governance of the Internet. Accordingly, this paper proceeds in three parts. Part I provides a brief overview of three principal multi-stakeholder (MSH) organizations that are currently involved in Internet governance. The three organizations, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), are described in terms of their history and mission, structure, operations/processes and relationship to governmental entities. Part II then describes in somewhat greater detail the same aspects of the BITAG while focusing attention on some of the more important governance issues that arose during its formation and in its initial operations. Finally, Part III describes in brief the first three technical issues relating to network management that BITAG has addressed through its Technical Working Group (TWG). It closes with a preliminary assessment of the group’s progress to date.

India’s Domain Name Dispute Resolution Process: An Empirical Investigation

India’s Domain Name Dispute Resolution Process: An Empirical Investigation

Reflections on the uniform domain name dispute resolution policy as it enters its second decade

On 24 October 1999, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) implemented the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) as a dispute resolution procedure for resolving domain name disputes. The UDRP has been a very popular method for resolving disputes, and since its inception the principal UDRP global dispute resolution provider – the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, has administered over 20,000 proceedings under the UDRP (or UDRP-related policies). This article examines the core principles which have emerged in UDRP jurisprudence and practice, and outlines some of the major criticisms and suggestions for reform as the UDRP enters its second decade.

Facilitating Expansion of Cross-Border E-Commerce-Developing a Global Online Dispute Resolution System (Lessons Derived from Existing ODR Systems - Work of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law)

This article examines the growing need for online dispute resolution (ODR). It traces the birth of the internet, expansion of e-commerce, and the resulting evolution of ODR systems in the past two decades. To facilitate development of a global ODR system, it looks at the structure and operation of existing and proposed ODR systems such as eBay, Concilianet, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the proposed Organization of American States (OAS) – ODR initiative, and the E-Commerce Redress Interchange (ECRI) and NGO proposals for Fast Track Substantive Principles and Common ODR Data Standards. The anatomy of a global ODR system and the work of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in development of such a global system are also addressed. It calls for creation of a fast track low-value/high-volume ODR system which balances the concerns of stakeholders, including public agencies (as policy makers, legislators and regulators), consumers, online businesses, payment channels, and ODR providers in a global ODR system. The article concludes with a restatement of the challenge to create a global ODR system which gives stakeholders the option to choose a fast track, simplified, inexpensive process for low value/high volume claims or a slower, sophisticated, costly but more detailed process for high-value/low-volume claims.

Recent Developments in the Domain Name System

Domain Name System (DNS) makes it possible to access information from host computers and to send and receive messages anywhere on the Internet. It is a distributed set of databases residing in computers around the world that contain IP address mapped to corresponding domain names. Currently, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) manages DNS and designs policies for its operations. Recently, DNS has witnessed phenomenal developments in terms of technical, operational, and managerial decisions which have made significant impact on Internet-related policy issues such as intellectual property, privacy, e-commerce, and cyber- security. This paper surveys remarkable developments that Domain Name System has undergone in recent times. The advancements particularly advancements in the areas of international domain names, managerial decision of expanding generic top-level domain space, deployment of DNSSEC protocol at the root servers, approval of Triple X top-level domain, domain resolution policy, present status of contractual compliance programs and privacy of domain name holders have been presented in detail.

Theorizing Fact-Based Policy Development at ICANN

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is critical for Internet governance because of its authority as the overall technical manager and coordinator for the global domain name system (DNS). I CANN policy drive the institutional relationships and technical operations that form the Internet as we know it. But at the hear of ICANN's policy making power is a theoretical gap. ICANN has a fundamental commitment to fact-based policy that is poorly understood.

Improving ICANN’s governance and accountability: A policy proposal

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has control over extremely important aspects of the Internet. Yet, its non-profit corporation status, combined with the way that it is funded and governed, make accountability a serious problem. This paper draws on the accountability framework that has been developed by Mueller (2009) to evaluate the structure and governance of ICANN and then compares it to the structure and governance of a number of other organizations that perform a roughly comparable range of coordination and standard-setting functions, to explore what might be applicable to ICANN. Virtually all of these other organizations are governed by their direct users, thereby building accountability into their structures. We suggest that this would be a good model for ICANN as well.