27,652
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 47:
Line 47: + + + +
→Initial Issues
==Initial Issues==
==Initial Issues==
ICANN was immediately faced with the task of reigning in [[cybersquatting]] by creating policies necessary to protect recognized trademarks; and conversely needed to expand the number of entities accredited to function as [[registrars]]. Following the release of the [[White Paper]], [[WIPO]] began its own its own research into how to protect trademarks and intellectual property within the changing [[DNS]]. A congressional hearing some 7 months after the empowerment of ICANN recognized the steps that the new entity had already taken to protect intellectual property, recognized the headway WIPO had made in creating further proposals, and called on intellectual property owners to become involved in ICANN. <ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing, July 1999]</ref>
ICANN was immediately faced with the task of reigning in [[cybersquatting]] by creating policies necessary to protect recognized trademarks; and conversely needed to expand the number of entities accredited to function as [[registrars]]. Following the release of the [[White Paper]], [[WIPO]] began its own its own research into how to protect trademarks and intellectual property within the changing [[DNS]]. A congressional hearing some 7 months after the empowerment of ICANN recognized the steps that the new entity had already taken to protect intellectual property, recognized the headway WIPO had made in creating further proposals, and called on intellectual property owners to become involved in ICANN. <ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing, July 1999]</ref>
WIPO's report, submitted to ICANN at their 1999 meeting in Berlin, supported the [[Whois]] system, but also recommended that, should the [[Whois]] system fail to provide adequate contact information for the trademark holder to contact the domain name holder, the [[registrar]] should be obliged to rectify the situation by canceling the domain name holder's rights to the name.
The report also made recommendations regarding the process of accrediting new registrars, called for the creation of a concrete dispute resolution process for intellectual property issues within the [[DNS]], and also recommended that the creation of any new [[gTLD]]s should proceed slowly and with caution. These recommendations precipitated ICANN's [[Accreditation Guidelines]], the creation of the [[UDRP]], and the continued debate over how and when to increase the number of [[gTLD]]s.<ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing, July 1999]</ref>
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}