• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • Multi-AI Governance Blog
    • Responsible AI Blog
    • Digital Factics Blog
    • Legacy Local SEO
  • HAIA
    • SMART
  • Factics
  • Checkpoint-Based Governance
    • What Is an Agent?
  • RECCLIN
  • CAIPR
  • HEQ/AIS
    • AIS pilot data test
  • AI Policy
    • ISO AI Governance Comment

Basil C. Puglisi

Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Digital Marketing Since 2009

  • About Me
    • My Story
      • Appearances for Speaking
  • The Minds That Bend The Machine
  • Governing AI
  • Digital Factics X
  • Digital Factics Instagram
  • AI – Artificial Intelligence
    • Ethical AI – Disclosure
    • AI Literacy & Education
    • AI Learning
      • AI Course Descriptions

ICANN: Domain Dispute?

May 21, 2011 by Basil C. Puglisi Leave a Comment

The Following Article was published in response to a issue raised in with two Real Estate brands in the Hamptons. It is issues like these that are at the heart of this publication and its mission. “It is my hope that when someone isn’t sure about digital media or the information that has been presented to them, they can turn to this blog as a source to verify or self educate so that they can make better more informed decisions”.

Saunders to Give Back Two Domain Names to Non-Saunders Agents published in 27East.com

ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

To reach another person or a company on the internet you have to type a name or a number as an address into your computer. This address has to be unique so computers can find each other. Who regulates it and decides on a uniform system? Who decides who owns what?

From the start there were a few known addresses called top level domain (TLD); .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU and endings which denote countries: .UK, .FR, .LI (Libya) or .IL (Israel).  These are called country code top level domains.

Up until September 1998, the United States Government completely controlled the system. The entity which supervised the internet was called IANA – Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.

As the internet grew and became more commercial and wide spread, the US control became increasingly untenable. The Clinton Administration was looking for a way to make the governance of the domain system global and free.  One option was to hand over control to the UN, and indeed the UN pushed to have that authority under its International Telecommunication’s Union, but the Clinton Administration decided to privatize the domain name governance. It did so to keep the web’s critical system away from political influence and stifling bureaucrats.

The ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a non-profit corporation was established. It was commissioned to oversee a number of internet related issues; managing the internet protocol address, assigning regional internet registries for countries, maintaining registries of internet protocol identifiers, management of top level domain names space and introduction of new generic top-level domains. Their principles call for helping preserve the operational stability of the internet, promote competition, and have a broad representation of the global internet community.

ICANN is located in Marina Del Ray, California, and remains in the same building where it started at the University of Southern California. Jon Postel who thought about an entity like that and was set to be the first CTO, died unexpectedly at the age of 55 before he saw it come to life.

At present ICANN is managed by a board of directors, composed of six representatives of sub groups that deal with specific section of the ICANN charter. They are supported by 3 organizations: the Generic Names Supporting Organization who deals with policy regarding generic top level domain, the County Code Names Support Organization and the Address Supporting Organization who deals with policy on IP addresses. There are advisory committees on different subjects like risk, finance, global relationships, IANA and structural improvements.

ICANN doesn’t control content and it can’t stop spam. It does not deal with access to the internet.

ICANN holds public meetings rotated between continents to encourage global participation in its processes. The resolutions, reports, and minutes of meetings are published on the ICANN website. In September 2006, ICANN signed a new agreement with the US Department of Justice for another 5 years.

Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy

One task the ICANN was asked to do is ownership dispute resolution for generic top level domains. Together with the World Intellectual Property Organization it drafted a policy that is known as Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. This policy attempts to provide a mechanism for a fast, cheap and reasonable resolution of domain name conflicts, avoiding the traditional court system and relying on arbitration. According to their policy a domain registrant agrees, when he signs the domain contract, to be bound by the resolution of the arbitration.

The UDRP currently applies to .BIZ, .COM, .INFO, .NAME, .NET and .ORG and some country code top-level domains.

A complaint has to establish 3 elements:

  1. The domain name is confusingly similar or identical to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has the right to.
  2. The registrant has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
  3. The registration was done in “bad faith”.

A single arbitrator or a panel of three arbitrators  will consider factors such as whether the domain was registered in order to be resold, rented or transferred to the owner of the trademark; whether the domain name was registered to prevent the owner from  registering corresponding domain name, whether it was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting a competitor or whether, by using the domain name, the registrant attempted to attract internet users for commercial gain, creating a likelihood or confusion.

Those services come at a price; from $1,500 for a single arbitrator to $5,000 for a panel. A very long list of the disputes brought to them is published on their wesite.

Much of the published arbitration has to do with famous cases: Madonna v. Dan Parisi who registered the domains MadonnaCiccone.com and Madonna.com. He was ordered to turn over the domain names to Madonna.

Robert de Niro claimed ownership for all domain names that include the word Tribeca plus any content related to the film festival. His dispute was with a domain called Tribeca.net. Rihanna.com came up for sale and the legal team of the singer filed a UDRP. Other famous arbitrations were conducted regarding ElitrModels.com, WWF.com and AirDeccan.com. All the information about procedures and timelines can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm

There are other entities approved by ICANN which provide UDRP services: World Intellectual Property Organization, National Arbitration Forum, Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre and the Czech Arbitration Court Arbitration Center for Internet Disputes.

All their sites detail the procedures, timelines and prices.

Sources:

  • 27East
  • ICANN
  • ICANN: UDRP
  • Time: Techland: ICANN vs the World
  • Wikipedia:ICANN
  • Wikipedia: Jon Postel
  • Wikipedia: Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy
  • Wipo: Domains Guide

Share this:

  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

Filed Under: Branding & Marketing, Conferences & Education, Digital & Internet Marketing, Digital Factics Blog Tagged With: brand, business, Business Coach, domain dispute, domains, Hamptons, ICANN, internet marketing, small business, Visibility

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe

Join 9,585 other subscribers

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Tommy Hill says

    May 22, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Basil,

    I am Britta’s man so we have met before. I’d like to discuss some business with you when you get a chance, please call me. Thanks!

    -Tommy Hill
    (917) 620.3897

    Loading...
    Reply
  2. The Marketing Bytes Maven says

    May 23, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Good info, Basil, and I agree very important that people have resources to easily turn to for accurate, up-to-date information.

    Loading...
    Reply

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe via Email

Join 9,585 other subscribers
iDBasil C. Puglisi on ORCID

Buy the eBook on Amazon

This is an banner ad for the book Governing AI When Capability Exceeds Control
Buy the book Digital Factics on Amazon

Advanced Site Search

Responsible AI (#AIgenerated by Agents)

NIST’s Agent Identity Tenets Warn That Human Review Can Turn Into Habit #AIg

NIST’s ten design tenets for agent identity management put most controls in infrastructure and send risky actions to human review. Tenet 05 warns that frequent escalation can turn approval into habit, and leaves who rules, and what record that ruling leaves, to each organization.

India’s Telecom Regulator Would Require a Designated Officer’s Approval Before Any AI System Is Used #AIg

TRAI’s draft guidelines on responsible AI in telecom would require a designated officer to approve every AI system before use and make operators accountable for vendor-built AI. They say less about who rules on outputs once a system is running. Comments are due November 27.

Only a Quarter of UK Workers Always Verify AI Answers. Who Decides Which Ones Count? #AIg

O’Reilly found that only 24% of UK employees always verify AI-generated answers, and 39% of those using them have acted on one that proved wrong. Perceptyx and RGP point to the missing piece: deciding which AI outputs need a named person’s ruling.

New AI Certificates for Doctors and Teachers Teach Checking. Do They Certify It? #AIg

Google launched an AI certificate for healthcare professionals that takes under five hours and carries up to 5.0 CME credits, and Scale and UMSL launched a 12-hour microcredential for teachers. Both teach evaluation of AI output. A European teacher framework asks for evidence of it, and employers can too.

OpenAI Built Four Layers to Watch Its Agents. Human Paging Mostly Keeps Business Hours #AIg

OpenAI’s October 29 post describes up to four automated layers that watch its agents, then discloses that human paging runs at any hour only for highest-priority alerts on frontier training runs, during business hours for most other traffic, and is currently off for internal Codex. For enterprise deployments, alerts go to the customer’s own webhook, and on our reading so does the decision.

House Democrats Ask AI Labs for Incident Reports Within 48 Hours of Discovery #AIg

Letters dated October 27 ask five frontier AI companies for a full accounting of misalignment incidents by November 11 and notice within 48 hours of discovery. None of the fourteen requested items asks who inside a company decides a flagged event is an incident, and that decision is what starts the clock.

A New Jersey Bill Takes Reasonable Care Off the Table for Chatbot Injuries #AIg

New Jersey’s A5607, reported out of committee on October 19, would make a chatbot a product and hold its provider liable for any injury to a user from its use, even after all reasonable care. The monthly harm assessment it requires still needs a named person to decide what the numbers mean.

More Posts from this Category

#SMAC #SocialMediaWeek

Basil Social Media Week

Legacy Print:

Digital Factics: Twitter

© 2009–2026 Basil C. Puglisi, Creator of Factics™ and the HAIA Ecosystem

%d