Cybertelecom
Cybertelecom
Federal Internet Law & Policy
An Educational Project

DNS: ICANN

Navigation Links:
Internet Addresses
- DNS
- History
- NTIA & Fed Activity
- ICANN
- Root Servers
- ccTLDs
- - .us
- - -.kids.us
- gTLDs
- - .gov
- - .edu
- - .mil
- - .xxx
- WHOIS
- WGIG
- ENUM
- IP Numbers
- - IPv6
- BGP
- NATs
- Ports
- Security
- Trademark
- AntiCybersquatter Protection Act
- Gripe Sites
- Truth in Domain Names

:: Home ::
:: Feedback ::
:: Disclaimer ::
:: Sitemap ::

The success of the domain name system created two problems: who controls the domain name system and who has the right to a domain name. While trademark law attempts to answer in part who has the right to a domain name, the establishment of ICANN was US Government's attempt to answer in part who controls the DNS.

A complete history of the domain name wars, how DNS and IP numbers work, and the formation of ICANN is beyond the scope of this project. In short, the domain name system was developed in the early 1980s. In 1991-92, the US National Science Foundation assumed administrative responsibilities for the non-military portions of the Internet. In 1992, NSF entered into an arrangement with Network Solutions, Inc. for the administration of domain name registration in the generic top level domains: .com, .org, .edu, and .net. As a result, NSI acquired sole control over the crucial .com domain name database.

In time, NSF sought to withdraw its support of the DNS, but the US Government considered it too important to fully let go. An attempt by the Internet Society, acting as the International Ad Hoc Committee, to establish private Internet governance was highly criticized. There was also concern that the International Telecommunications Union might attempt to exert authority over DNS. This led the White House and the Department of Commerce to step in. The US Government released The Green PaperA Proposal To Improve Technical Management Of Internet Names And Addresses Discussion Draft (Green Paper), Department of Commerce (1/30/98), a proposal for how to privatize the DNS, and then The White Paper, Management of Internet Names and Addresses (White Paper), Department of Commerce (June 5, 1998), final guidelines for the privatization of the DNS. Following the guidance set forth in The White Paper, the Internet community, or factions thereof, organized the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit organization incorporated in California. The Department of Commerce office the National Information and Telecommunications Administration (NTIA) surveyed the field of potentially organized Internet groups at that time, recognized ICANN as comporting with its directives, and proceeded to enter into an MOU with ICANN for the technical administration of the DNS. NTIA is currently the USG office tasked with DNS oversight and NTIA regularly renews the MOU with ICANN.

The authority of ICANN is derived from its contract with the US Government and from the participation of the representative Internet stakeholders (ie., generally no one can force the Regional Internet Registries or the country code top level domain holders to work with ICANN except through mutual agreement). See NTIA Website: Management of Internet Names and Addresses. See also Government Accounting Office, Department of Commerce: Relationship with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers(July 7, 2000).

Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy 

One of the outcomes of the DNS wars was the formation by ICANN of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). All registrants of domain names under the generic top level domains (ie., .com, .biz, .org) and under the .us top level domain must agree to this binding arbitration. This means that the trademark holder who is seeking to gain control of a domain name (but who may not have signed onto the UDRP if the trademark holder is not a domain name holder) may bring suit in a forum of choice with the arbitrators of choice. The domain name holder has signed the agreement and must submit to the jurisdiction of the arbitration if brought. A full discussion of the UDRP, which is neither federal law nor regulation, is outside of the scope of this project. More can be learned about the policy at <www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm>.

Note that the UDRP has undergone significant criticism. See ICANNWatch <www.icannwatch.org>; Milton Mueller, Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, The Information Society (2001).

See also ACPA :: Cybersquatters Personal Names . See also Sullen (UDRP non binding); Parisi (court review is de novo).


Vint Cerf discusses ICANN

Papers

Links

News & Blogs

 

Web services provided by
Wyoming.com
: Home : About Us : Contact Us : Sitemap : Discussion : Search : Newsletter : RSS :
: ADA : Broadband : Crime : Copyright : DNS : ECommerce : EGovt : First Amendment : Digital Divide :
: Network Neutrality : Intl : Privacy : Security : SPAM : Statistics : VoIP : Vote : And Much More! :
:: Feedback : Disclaimer ::
© Cybertelecom ::