Check out http://www.auda.org.au/domain-news/dn-news for
the latest domain news. Within 24 hours of this news being
posted, a more recent edition of the news will normally be
posted to the auDA web site. The domain name news is
supported by auDA.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
************************
ACADEMIC ARTICLES
************************
Lessons from ICANN: Is self-regulation of the Internet
fundamentally flawed? by Jose MA.Emmanuel A.Caral1
Internet regulation is not an 'all or nothing' debate.
Government regulation dominates the physical layer, but it
is fragmented over many legal jurisdictions.
Self-regulation dominates the code layer it is powerful and
unique because the code is global, cross-border and
pervasive. Government regulation dominates the content
layer, but is fragmented over many legal jurisdictions.
Policymakers in the dominant legal systems (the EU and the
US) have long considered Government regulation and
self-regulation to be complementary, instead of mutually
exclusive approaches. Internet governance, as it has
evolved to date, can best be described as a complex
tapestry of Government regulation and selfregulation. The
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web
Consortium (W3C), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) are the principal mechanisms for
selfregulation in the code layer. These mechanisms fit
awkwardly with traditional political and legal concepts
that are used to test regulatory bodies, such as
accountability and democratic legitimacy. In 2002, ICANN
embarked on a reform process. This is a work in progress
and it is too early to gauge its success. Sceptics of
self-regulation in the code-layer will have to draw comfort
from the rapid growth of Government regulation, and that
these can be effectively marshalled to counteract the most
serious abuses (such as anti-competitive conduct).

http://www3.oup.co.uk/inttec/hdb/Volume_12/Issue_01/120001.sgm.abs.html

http://www3.oup.co.uk/inttec/hdb/Volume_12/Issue_01/pdf/120001.pdf

Protection of Celebrities Names and Trade Marks under the
ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy by Igor
Motsnyi
The object of this article is to look at the main
characteristics of the domain name disputes under the UDRP
that involved celebrities and see what kind of problems may
be faced by famous persons who wish to get back their
names. For the sake of clarity our discussion will be
limited to the cases resolved by the WIPO Arbitration
Center. We will also not analyse any national remedies that
may be available to celebrities like the Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act of the United States.

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v10n4/motsnyi104.html

The Domain Names System and Trademark Law:  "Will the
Current Legal Landscape suffice in the Face of New
Development?"
The purpose of this paper is two fold: (1) to discuss the
new developments and the proposals for change to the Domain
Names System (DNS) and (2) to test whether legal protection
of trademarks should be expanded, especially in terms of
additional protection of famous or well-known marks or
whether the current available remedies and mechanisms for
relief are sufficient for trademark holders. I believe that
they are. In laying the foundation for such an argument I
will discuss in PART I: (1) the background of the problems
in the DNS, (2) a brief historical development of the DNS,
and (3) the current proposals for change to the system.
Then in PART II, I will examine: (1) the current legal
landscape of protection for famous or well-known marks
which will include United States Federal case law and
International Treaties, and (2) the on-line dispute
resolution mechanism and the ground-breaking resolution of
domain name disputes called the Uniform Dispute Resolution
Process (UDRP).

http://www.hofstra.edu/Academics/Law/law_cyberlaw_cheney.cfm
 http://www.hofstra.edu/PDF/law_cyberlaw_cheney.PDF

Domain Names: Has Trade Mark Law Strayed From Its Path? by
Hasan A. Deveci
Trademarks and domain names are infringed by an
unauthorised 'use in the course of trade.' Trademark
infringement predates the Internet, of course, but by
eroding the geographic boundaries that traditionally
allowed multiple users to apply the same or similar mark in
different countries or in relation to different products,
the Internet has aggravated the illegitimate use of
trademarks. Part I of this article will outline the nature
and justify the protection of intellectual property but
argue that unlike passing off registered trademark law has
strayed from its path. Part II will examine judicial
attitudes towards trademarks and domain names and contend
that emphasis on the reputation of the trademark rather
than reputation in the product underlines current problems.
Part III will review the nature of domain name disputes,
comment on dispute resolution policies and suggest indexed
linking or classified registration of domain names as one
possible solution.

http://www3.oup.co.uk/inttec/hdb/Volume_11/Issue_03/110203.sgm.abs.html

http://www3.oup.co.uk/inttec/hdb/Volume_11/Issue_03/pdf/110203.pdf

For Sale Signs in Cyberspace: Whether Federal Rule of
Evidence 408 should be adapted to the Uniform Dispute
Resolution Policy for Internet domain names to bar evidence
of offers to settle from arbitration proceedings. by R.
Jonas Geissler (2002)

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/index.html


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sources include Quicklinks (www.qlinks.net) and BNA
Internet Law News (www.bna.com/ilaw)".

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(c) David Goldstein 2004



=====
David Goldstein
 address: 2/4 Dundas Street
             COOGEE NSW 2034
             AUSTRALIA
 email: Goldstein_David§yahoo.com.au
 phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 0015 - home

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com