27,652
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: − + − + − ICANN immediately took steps to develop the nascent [[Whois]] system, which allowed trademark holders and the general public to search out contact information for any domain name registrant. It also required the pre-payment for any domain name registration in an attempt to discourage excessive [[Cybersquatting|cybersquatters]].
→Initial Issues
Once again, these responsibilities would be undertaken and guided by the principles of stability, competition, private bottom-up coordination, and representation.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU]</ref> The agreement established ICANN as an entity which would encourage transparency in its dealings and would create ample room for appeals for any binding decision it makes. The original agreement was set with an expiration of September 30th, 2000.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU]</ref>
Once again, these responsibilities would be undertaken and guided by the principles of stability, competition, private bottom-up coordination, and representation.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU]</ref> The agreement established ICANN as an entity which would encourage transparency in its dealings and would create ample room for appeals for any binding decision it makes. The original agreement was set with an expiration of September 30th, 2000.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU]</ref>
==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 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 two pressing, and competing issues; that is, the task of reigning in [[cybersquatting]] by creating policies necessary to protect recognized trademarks, and conversely the need to expand the number of entities accredited to function as [[registrars]]. Following the release of the [[White Paper]], [[WIPO]] began 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.
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. ICANN immediately took steps to develop the nascent [[Whois]] system.
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>
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>
===Registrar Accreditation===
===Registrar Accreditation===
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}