Law

We Must Keep Track of How Countries Will Confront Cybercrime in a New UN Convention

As a designated committee of experts prepares to draft a new treaty to combat the use of information and communications technologies in cybercrime at the UN in January 2022, it is paramount that other stakeholders oversee these discussions to avoid violating human rights on the Internet. This initiative was kickstarted by a 2019 resolution led by Russia and endorsed by other countries considered by many to behavior controversially on cybersecurity matters, such as China, Venezuela, Cambodia, North Korea, and others.

Initiative for the Future of the Global Internet

When reading some of the nonsense constituting this initiative occurring in Washington, one wonders what planet the proponents live on. It is like peering through some perverse wormhole back to a 1990s Washington view of the world that saw “the internet” as some salvation for all the problems of humankind. For a world now focused on rolling out 5G virtualization infrastructure and content-based services and meshed devices, the challenges of cybersecurity and network-based harm to society, the initiative makes the U.S. Administration seem utterly out of touch with reality. Simply goofy.

Content Blocking at the DNS Level in Germany

For those who follow the issue of blocking illegal content from the Internet, there is an interesting development in relation to this issue here in Germany, and I will tell you a little about it. One way to make it difficult to access illegal content is to block it directly in the DNS. But what is DNS for? Basically, it serves to translate the domain name into the IP of the server that is hosting the content. By blocking directly at the DNS level, a query to a domain will no longer bring the server's IP number, and with that, the user no longer accesses that content.

Searching for the Meaning of “Registers” in the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)

Where outcomes depend on a word’s meaning, the first task is to define it. “Registers” which is one of the keywords in the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), is still in the process of definition. Its statutory context provides that a domain name registrant is liable to the owner of a mark if “it has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark … and (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name [corresponding to a mark] that … is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name [and] is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

Regulating Magic: Why We Need to Establish a Regulatory Framework for Quantum Computing and Artificial Intelligence

The promises of quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and other advancing technologies sound like magic. However, even magic is subject to the laws of economics. And even quantum computers are “legal things…technological tools that are bound to affect our lives in a tangible manner,” as Valentin Jeutner explains in The Quantum Imperative: Addressing the Legal Dimension of Quantum Computers. Analogous to Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, Professor Jeutner proposes a three-part “quantum imperative,” which “provides that regulators and developers must ensure that the development of quantum computers.

What Due Diligence Satisfies Domain Name Registrant’s Representations (UDRP)?

Not infrequently mark owners in disputes under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) claim that respondents should have been aware that the domain names they registered corresponded to their marks; and from this, urge panelists to draw the inference that the registrations were designed to take advantage of their goodwill and reputation. To test this premise, we need to take a step back for a quick look at UDRP provisions. All it takes to acquire a domain name is to sign a registrar’s registration agreement.

Offering Price as Evidence of Bad Faith Domain Name Registration: A False (UDRP) Factor

I have pointed out in earlier posts that some panelists disapprove of the business of speculating in domain names. There have been a succession of decisions expressing this view beginning with <crew.com> discussed below. Forfeiture has been justified with a mixture of theories. If the offering price is allegedly "excessive" or the domain name is passively held, or the respondent has renewed its registration after the mark is first used in commerce, the panelists find respondents have engaged in unlawful conduct and must forfeit their domain names.

ICANN Is Violating Its Legal Agreements with the U.S. Government – Who’s Next?

In April, I published an article, The Multistakeholder Moment of Truth: Will Stakeholders Hold ICANN Accountable?, alerting stakeholders that ICANN is violating its legal agreements with the U.S. Government -- namely the InterNIC licensing agreement and merged Memorandum of Understanding. At that time, I warned that it is essential for stakeholders not to remain silent in the face of this transgression, "hoping that such behavior left unchecked will end of its own accord."

Anticompetitive and Predatory Misconduct by ICANN and Contracted Parties Must End

On May 26, 2021, I submitted a complaint to ICANN's Complaints Officer, Krista Papac. In a nutshell, my complaint centers on ICANN's blatant violation of its Bylaws, specifically Section 2.2, named Restrictions, which expressly prohibits ICANN from acting as a registrar. However, despite the absence of any exceptions to this unambiguous prohibition, ICANN is acting improperly as a registrar for the purposes of warehousing and cybersquatting on certain domain names in the .com and .net registries.

Mistrust of ICANN Is Fully Vindicated

Recently, I have been reporting on a highly questionable auction scheme for a single domain name, o.com, which is currently being improperly warehoused by ICANN along with a number of other .com and .net domain names. This violates ICANN's Bylaws -- but, so what?