欢迎访问法律桥>>
关于法律桥 加入收藏 联系我们 网站地图 English
法律桥:中国最早和最具影响力的法律原创网站

Legal Issues on Domain Name: A world Wide Watch(从全球范围看域名法律问题)(2000)

作者:杨春宝律师 来自:法律桥 时间:2004-12-19 20:31:16 点击:


III. The management of domain name system

The domain name system (DNS) serves the central function of facilitating users?ability to navigate the Internet. It does so with the aid of two components: the domain name and its corresponding Internet Protocol (IP) number. A domain name is the human-friendly address of a computer that is usually in a form that is easy to remember or to identify, such as www.wipo.int. An IP number is the unique underlying numeric address, such as 192.91.247.53. The DNS operates on the basis of a hierarchy of names. At the top are the top-level domains (TLDs), which are generally divided into two categories: the generic top-level domains (gTLDs) and the country code top-level domains (ccTLDs). There are seven gTLDs at present.78 Three of these (.com, .net and .org) are open to all persons or entities. The other four gTLDs (.int, .edu, .gov and .mil) are restricted, only certain entities meeting certain criteria may register names in them. There are at present 243 ccTLDs. Each of these domains bears a two-letter country code, for example .au (Australia), .cn(China) and .fr (France). Some of these domains are open, others are restricted, only persons or entities satisfying certain criteria (for example, domicile within the territory) may register names in them. Functionally, there is no distinction between the gTLDs and the ccTLDs.

The Internet technical development has been guided by protocols established through participatory decision-making processes by bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and its subcommittees, and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). However, there has not been a central rule-making entity that has exercised comprehensive legislative authority over the Internet. And the DNS was used for about 12 years (1982-94) without creating any significant public policy issues. The year 1995 can be used as the date when the Internet became a truly commercial, public medium. In 1995, the USA government allowed Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) to be responsible for registering domain name in the gTLDs .com, .net and .org. NSI adopted the ’first come, first sreved?policy for registration of domain name and a Dispute Resolution Procedure to deal with the conflict between trademarks and domain names. NSI policy was criticized for it strongly favoring the owner of a trademark registration and it was also criticized as operating a monopoly in the reserving of the .com, .net and .org TLDs.

The USA Department of Commerce (DOC) issued for comment A Proposal to Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses (the "Green Paper") on January 30, 1998.79 It proposed for discussion a number of measures relating to the administration of the DNS, including the creation by the private sector of a new corporation located in the USA and managed by a globally and functionally representative Board of Directors. Following the closure of the comment period, DOC issued its Statement of Policy on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses (the "White Paper") on June 5, 1998.80 It confirmed the call contained in the Green Paper for the creation of a new, private, not-for-profit corporation responsible for coordinating specific DNS functions for the benefit of the Internet as a whole. Following the publication of the White Paper, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was established, then DOC and ICANN entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in November 1998, with the intention of coordinating the on-going transition of the management of the DNS.81

In the "White Paper", DOC alleged that the USA Government ”is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management?and international organizations may provide specific expertise or act as advisors to ICANN. While it granted authority to ICANN, it alleged that it still believed that neither national governments acting as sovereigns nor intergovernmental organizations acting as representatives of governments should participate in management of Internet names and addresses. It called on WIPO to ”initiate a balanced and transparent process?to develop recommendations for a uniform approach to resolving trademark/domain name disputes involving cyberpiracy, recommend a process for protecting famous trademarks in the gTLDs, and evaluate the effects of adding new gTLDs and related dispute resolution procedures on trademark and intellectual property holders. ?U>These findings and recommendations could be submitted to the board of the new corporation for its consideration in conjunction with its development of registry and registrar policy and the creation and introduction of new gTLDs.? (emphasis added)

As an organ of the United Nations, responsible to all its member states rather than just the USA, WIPO felt empowered to define its own terms of reference. WIPO stated that it intended to make recommendations concerning dispute prevention, dispute resolution, process for the protection of famous and well-known marks in the gTLDs and effects on intellectual property rights of new gTLDs.82 WIPO thus gave itself a considerably broader and more ambitious charge than the fairly narrow one proposed by the USA. Unfortunately, the Final Report83 largely returns to the original mandate suggested by the USA Government. WIPO's recommendations in the Final Report has been submitted to ICANN, which can adopt them, modify them, or ignore them as it will. However, WIPO's report is likely to be influential. ICANN's registrar accreditation guidelines adopted some of the features of the WIPO interim report. On 24 October 1999, ICANN approved the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy which has been adopted by all domain name registrars,84 and four dispute-resolution service provider were approved so far.85 Thus, ICANN, a so-called ”private?USA corporation became the administrative authority of the DNS and a USA-centric management of DNS thus was established.


[首页]    [上一页]    [下一页]    [末页]    

【本文作者:杨春宝律师,来自:法律桥,引用及转载应注明作者和出处。如需聘请律师,请立即致电杨春宝高级律师:1390 182 6830



关注法律桥微信公众平台 杨春宝高级律师电子名片

本站声明:

首席主持律师上海杨春宝高级律师

上海最早的70后高级律师,国际知名法律出版物Asia Pacific Legal 500和Asia Law Profiles多年推荐律师,入围Finance Monthly"2016年度中国公司法律师大奖",中国贸促会/中国国际商会调解中心调解员,具有上市公司独立董事任职资格、系上海国有企业改制法律顾问团成员,具有丰富的投资、并购法律服务经验。[详细介绍>>>]

聘请律师热线13901826830(咨询勿扰)
业务委托邮箱:LawBridge#163.com
法律桥:专家级律师,专业性服务
© 法律桥 LawBridge.Org Since 2000,上海杨春宝高级律师 版权所有。欢迎链接,未经许可,不得转载、摘编。
中国上海市银城中路501号上海中心大厦15层、16层 电话:1390 182 6830 ICP备案序号:沪ICP备05006663号
法律桥网站群:投资并购律师[导航] 创业与法律 律师博客[导航] 法律论坛[导航] 法律网址大全[导航] 会见律师网 法律百科网 Law Bridge[导航]
本站关键字[法律服务-公司法案例-房地产法案例-知识产权案例-网络法案例-法律论文-律师论坛-律师服务-房地产开发-电子商务-外资并购-商业贸易]