All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Frontier Compliance: A Communication System Emerging in Cyberspace
Unformatted Document Text:  11 almost in its entirety, and the Names Council adopted this working group report with minor revisions and sent it to the ICANN Board as a consensus recommendation. The ICANN staff also presented Staff Reports, and followed the public comment procedures, but the UDRP finally adopted is vastly based upon the WIPO report in terms of the scope of disputes handled by the UDRP, procedures of the resolution, etc. Therefore, the UDRP was established upon the requests of intellectual property owners, based on the framework and recommendations made by the organization for the protection of intellectual property, the WIPO. In addition, this WIPO also functions as a dispute resolution service provider that deals with the most UDRP proceedings. This procedural background of the establishment of the UDRP suggests that the UDRP would operate more as a policy for the most effective protection of intellectual property interests than as a policy for balanced resolution of domain name disputes between different stakeholders. Next I present the analysis of the UDRP in detail -- its framework, substantive rules, and procedural rules, -- which would help us understand whether and how the policy and rules of the UDRP actually reflect this speculation. The Framework. The UDRP is expedited administrative proceedings that the holder of trademark rights initiates by filing a complaint with an approved dispute- resolution service provider when the holder alleges abusive registration and use of the domain name. The UDRP is different from court proceedings that are based on national legal systems and national laws, and also is different from international arbitrations or other alternative dispute resolution policies in many ways. The UDRP does not exclude the possibility of court proceedings before or after the UDRP decisions are made. If a party initiates any legal proceedings prior to or during the UDRP proceeding, the panel of the UDRP proceeding may suspend or terminate the proceeding or proceed to a decision. If a party initiates a legal proceeding within 10 days after the UDRP decision has made, the registrar will not proceed with the implementation of the UDRP decision until the legal decision is made. In that sense, the finality of the UDRP decision is somewhat different from that of other ADR decisions. Also, the application of the UDRP is not optional. The UDRP applies to all .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .net, and .org top-level domains. 4 All registrars of .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .net, and .org top-level domains follow the UDRP decisions according to the contract between ICANN and the registrars that is made when the registrars are approved by the ICANN. All registrants of .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .net, and .org domains follow UDRP proceedings and decisions according to the agreement made between the registrants and

Authors: Woo, Jisuk.
first   previous   Page 11 of 27   next   last



background image
11
almost in its entirety, and the Names Council adopted this working group report with
minor revisions and sent it to the ICANN Board as a consensus recommendation. The
ICANN staff also presented Staff Reports, and followed the public comment procedures,
but the UDRP finally adopted is vastly based upon the WIPO report in terms of the
scope of disputes handled by the UDRP, procedures of the resolution, etc. Therefore, the
UDRP was established upon the requests of intellectual property owners, based on the
framework and recommendations made by the organization for the protection of
intellectual property, the WIPO. In addition, this WIPO also functions as a dispute
resolution service provider that deals with the most UDRP proceedings. This procedural
background of the establishment of the UDRP suggests that the UDRP would operate
more as a policy for the most effective protection of intellectual property interests than
as a policy for balanced resolution of domain name disputes between different
stakeholders. Next I present the analysis of the UDRP in detail -- its framework,
substantive rules, and procedural rules, -- which would help us understand whether and
how the policy and rules of the UDRP actually reflect this speculation.
The Framework. The UDRP is expedited administrative proceedings that the
holder of trademark rights initiates by filing a complaint with an approved dispute-
resolution service provider when the holder alleges abusive registration and use of the
domain name. The UDRP is different from court proceedings that are based on national
legal systems and national laws, and also is different from international arbitrations or
other alternative dispute resolution policies in many ways. The UDRP does not exclude
the possibility of court proceedings before or after the UDRP decisions are made. If a
party initiates any legal proceedings prior to or during the UDRP proceeding, the panel
of the UDRP proceeding may suspend or terminate the proceeding or proceed to a
decision. If a party initiates a legal proceeding within 10 days after the UDRP decision
has made, the registrar will not proceed with the implementation of the UDRP decision
until the legal decision is made. In that sense, the finality of the UDRP decision is
somewhat different from that of other ADR decisions.
Also, the application of the UDRP is not optional. The UDRP applies to
all .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .net, and .org top-level domains.
4
All
registrars of .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .net, and .org top-level
domains follow the UDRP decisions according to the contract between ICANN and the
registrars that is made when the registrars are approved by the ICANN. All registrants
of .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .net, and .org domains follow UDRP
proceedings and decisions according to the agreement made between the registrants and


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 11 of 27   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.