Welcome:
Login
|
Sign Up
|
About CircleID
Follow:
|
|
|
The 15th Registration Operations Workshop convenes domain name and DNS professionals September 29 for technical sessions on mTLS, RPKI, DNS resilience, delegations, DNSSEC, registrar concentration, dispute proceedings and alternative naming systems.
Russia is imposing state identity verification on .su, the Soviet Union's surviving domain, as researchers uncover criminal infrastructure across the namespace and ICANN pursues a retirement process that could eventually remove it from the global root.
Inactive cybersquatted domains may conceal active email infrastructure. MX records can corroborate bad faith in UDRP disputes when weighed with other evidence, helping panels address fraud risks before harm occurs without conflating capability with misconduct.
As ICANN confronts a harsher geopolitical era, its long-delayed review of the UDRP has become a defining test of whether the multistakeholder model can still deliver legitimate, effective Internet governance and sustain confidence in its future.
In the Converse.co dispute, a three-member UDRP panel unanimously ordered the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainants, All Star C.V. and Converse, Inc., owners of the well-known brand CONVERSE for shoes and apparel. The panel drew the inference that the Respondent, by setting of an asking price of around $300,000 after having acquired the domain name for $306, was primarily motivated by a bad faith intent to target the Complaint.
Ali's invitation to post reflections on the past 25 years of ICANN is very welcome. No doubt, some will write about major shifts in how ICANN is governed, for example, the end of United States government oversight. While others will write about changes to the industry that ICANN has catalyzed, for example, the 2012 round of new gTLDs and the upcoming next application process.
How to properly balance the commercial rights of a complainant with the free speech rights of a respondent has challenged a generation of Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) panelists. Panelists have adopted a variety of approaches and consensus has been elusive. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy provides that a respondent may have a right or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name...
The UDRP has the form of a substantive Policy, but it operates as a "smell test".1 If the evidence smells bad, the panel will likely order a transfer. If it doesn't, the panel won't. An aim of this article is to help improve UDRP panels' sense of smell when it comes to differentiating between domain name investors and cybersquatters. I will provide some insight into the business of domain name investing that I hope will be helpful to UDRP panelists in making more accurate inferences in disputes involving investors.
Today, for the 500th time, an expert panel under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy or "UDRP", issued a decision finding a Complainant guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or "RDNH". RDNH is an attempt to egregiously misuse the UDRP to unjustly seize a domain name from its lawful owner... To-date, the UDRP has adjudicated over 80,000 domain name disputes. The vast majority of them result in the transfer of a cybersquatted domain name to the rightful trademark owner.
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.
A World-Renowned Source for Internet Developments. Serving Since 2002.