The ICANN (Internet Corporation for

Assigned Names and Numbers) uniform

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

Overview of ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute

Resolution Policy and Rules

The main elements of the Dispute Policy and the Rules are
as follows:

 A domain name registrant is required to submit to the administrative

procedure in its registration agreement, which incorporates the Dispute Policy
by reference.
 The administrative procedure is only available for abusive domain name
registrations.
 Disputes involving the registration and use of a domain name registration
that do not satisfy the abusive domain name criteria specified in the Policy
may nevertheless be brought before a court or arbitral tribunal.
 An administrative procedure can only be commenced with an ICANN-
accredited Provider. The choice of Provider is made by the complainant, and
it is that Provider which will administer the proceedings, except possibly in
the case of a consolidation of complaints.
 In order to invoke the administrative procedure, a complainant is required
to agree to jurisdiction either
(i) in the judicial district where the principal offices of the registrar
are located, or
(ii) (ii) in the judicial district which includes the domain name
holder’s address as shown for the registration of the domain
 name in the registrar’s WHOIS (a listing of all registered domains)

database at the time of the complaint.

 Complaints are to be decided by Administrative Panels composed of one
or three members. The Rules provide for limited party participation in the
panellist appointment process in the event of an election for a three-member
Panel by either the complainant or the respondent.
 The Policy restricts a domain name holder’s ability to transfer a domain
name to a third party (other than the complainant) or to change registrars after
an administrative proceeding has been commenced.
 No change may be made to the status of a domain name by a registrar
unless (i) authorized by the domain name holder,
(ii) ordered by a court or arbitral tribunal of competent jurisdiction,
(iii) required by a decision of an Administrative Panel,
(iv) pursuant to the terms of the registration agreement, or
(v) in accordance with other legal requirements.
 Absent exceptional circumstances, the decision of an Administrative
Panel in respect of a complaint must be forwarded to the parties no later than
52-57 days after the commencement of the administrative proceeding. An
Administrative Panel has 14 days following its appointment to confer and to
issue its decision, which must be in writing and provide the reasons on which
it is based. The Rules reflect the expectation that in-person hearings will only
be held in exceptional circumstances.
 The remedies available to an Administrative Panel are limited to
requiring
(i) the cancellation of the disputed domain name registration, or
(ii) its transfer to the complainant. Where an Administrative Panel
finds in favor of the domain name holder, these remedies will
be denied.
 Except where an Administrative Panel decides otherwise, all decisions
are to be published in full over the Internet.
 Even though a domain name registrant is required to submit to the
mandatory administrative proceeding, both the domain name registrant and
the third-party complainant have the option of commencing an action in a
court of competent jurisdiction either before the mandatory administrative
proceeding is commenced or after it is concluded.
 The Policy and the Rules explicitly exclude any participation by a
registrar (or registrars, in the case of multiple domain name registrations) in
the conduct of the administrative proceedings, other than setting out a
registrar’s obligation to implement the decision of an Administrative Panel.
 An unsuccessful respondent may block the implementation of the
Administrative Panel’s decision by submitting official documentation (e.g.,
copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the accepting court) showing that it has
commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a court where the
complainant has agreed to or otherwise must submit to jurisdiction.
 Once the above has happened, the registrar can take no further action to
implement the Administrative Panel’s decision until it has received
(i) evidence satisfactory to the registrar of a resolution of the
matter between the parties, or
(ii) evidence satisfactory to the registrar that the lawsuit has been
dismissed or withdrawn, or
(iii) a copy of an order from the court determining the rights of the
parties as to the disposition of the domain name.
 In addition to the Rules, each Provider is to issue its own Supplementary
Rules addressing such matters as fees, methods of communication and word
limits for decisions.
 Except in respect of deliberate wrongdoing, a panellist or the
Administrative Panel, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the
Centre shall not liable to a party, a registrar or ICANN for any act or omission
in connection with an Administrative Proceeding.

ICANN & its role in controlling domain name

1. HISTORY OF ICANN

Before the establishment of ICANN, the Government of United States

controlled the domain name system of the Internet. In September
1969, academics sent the first message over the ARPANET, a military
network that was the precursor of today's internet. A legacy of those
efforts is that the American government continues to control the internet's
underlying technology—notably the system of allocating addresses. This
is about to change, albeit slightly. For the past decade America has
delegated some of its authority over the internet to a non- profit
organization called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN)—an arrangement other countries have complained
about, both because they have little say in it and because ICANN's
management has occasionally proved erratic. ICANN's latest mandate
was due to expire on September 30th, 2009. But a new accord is planned
to come into effect, whereby America will pass some of its authority over
ICANN to the “internet community” of businesses, individual users and
other governments.

The US government took the initiative for the formation of ICANN and
the privatization of technical management functions of the Internet.
ICANN was founded as a non-profit organization under the
California Non-profit Public Benefit Corporation Law in September
18, 1998. It came into existence through a Memorandum of
Understanding with the U.S. Department of Commerce. One of
ICANN’s core duties is to manage the Internet Assigned Names
Authority (IANA), which allocates IP addresses to various regional
assigning bodies. In some sense, ICANN was and remains a
revolutionary experiment in governance. ICANN represents an innovative
new form of governance involving a mix of power between business,
governments and civil society. As a legal entity, ICANN is a California
non-profit corporation, accountable only loosely to the California
Attorney General, state corporation regulations as well as federal rules
regarding 501(c)(3) charitable organizations.
2. Civil Society Participation in ICANN
The original mandate for ICANN came from the United States
government, spanning the presidential administrations of both Bill
Clinton and George W. Bush. On January 30, 1998, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency
of the US Department of Commerce, issued for comment, "A Proposal to
Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses."
The proposed rulemaking, or Green Paper as it is popularly called, was
published in the Federal Register on February 20, 1998, providing
opportunity for public comment. NTIA received more than 650
comments as of March 23, 1998, when the comment period closed.

3. LEGITIMACY OF ICANN

ICANN continues to operate under contract with the US government,

despite its initial pledge to completely transition IANA functions to the
private sector, although a limited transition has occurred including the
2009 Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) between ICANN and the US
government. The AoC affirms key commitments between the US
Department of Commerce and ICANN to ensure that ICANN make its
decisions in an accountable and transparent manner that promotes the
global public interest. The AoC further affirms the US government’s
commitment to a private sector led, multi-stakeholder driven bottom-up
policy development model for the Domain Name System (DNS)
coordination. ICANN occupies a unique role in that it manages a global
public resource (the internet’s domain name addressing space), but it
shares this responsibility between businesses, governments, and civil
society participants from many nations.

4. BEGINNING OF CONTROVERSY

Previous agreements had maintained close American oversight over

ICANN and imposed detailed reforms, but the latest document, called an
“affirmation of commitments”, is only four pages long. It gives ICANN
the autonomy to manage its own affairs. Whereas prior agreements had to
be renewed every few years, the new one has no fixed term.
The changes at ICANN come at a time when the number of addresses is
set to expand dramatically. In 2010, ICANN planned to allow the creation
of many more domains. There were then 21 generic ones in addition to
the 280 country suffixes (such as .uk for Britain). ICANN also intends to
authorize domain names in other scripts, which will allow entire web
 addresses to be written in languages such as Chinese and Arabic. All
these are still in process.

All this is controversial. Firms that have already spent a fortune to protect
their brands online fear that the expansion will create a huge legal
quagmire. Some American politicians are backing calls from trademark
holders to call it off. Yet the firms that register new addresses support
new domains. There are nearly 200m internet addresses in use (see chart),
which are thought to generate more than $2.5 billion a year in renewal
fees. New domains will add to that.

The new set-up at ICANN will not placate countries such as China,
Russia and Iran that want America to relinquish control entirely.
However, ICANN runs itself, it cannot alter the basic piping of the
internet without America's approval under another agreement that lasts
until 2011. Even then, that is unlikely to change

5. INTERNET HEGEMONY AND THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

A squabble over who controls the internet had threatened to overshadow

the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia. But a
“compromise” deal was reached in Tunisia in 2005 just before the
meeting opened, under which America will retain its hegemony for the
time being. Nothing has done as much to hasten the spread around the
world of fact, fiction or rumour as the internet. The rapid dissemination of
information from a wide variety of sources, from reputable news
organizations to lone bloggers, has fostered an openness unforeseen when
the internet was created as part of an American military-research project
in the 1960s. And the web is widely accepted as a key component of the
technological revolution that has boosted global productivity and wealth.

6. CONTROVERSY OVER ICANN

Many countries had wanted to relieve America of its unilateral role in the
governance of the internet and hand power to a new body under the
auspices of the UN's International Telecommunication Union. Brazil,
China and Saudi Arabia had called for a new intergovernmental forum
with real powers and a policy-making mechanism for the internet.
America had contended that this should be little more than a talking shop,
devoid of formal powers, since existing mechanisms to co-ordinate the
underlying infrastructure of the internet's addressing system are
 sufficient. The American point carried some weight. Although nominally
under the authority of America's Department of Commerce, ICANN's
directors hail from all over the world, and it already has a governmental
advisory committee (though this is largely toothless). Technical issues are
thrashed out in the open and America's government has refrained from
direct intervention. The private- sector solution may not be perfect, but it
is at least workable.

The United States has long argued that handing control of the internet to
the UN or a separate intergovernmental agency would invite slow-witted
bureaucratic meddling, which could hinder the internet's development. In
September, the European Union surprisingly withdrew its support for the
current arrangements and proposed a governmental approach intended as
a compromise between those favouring UN oversight and the Americans.
But those countries hoping to reduce America's role in running the web
will doubtless be disappointed by the compromise that has been adopted.
From next year an international forum will convene to discuss internet
issues, but it will have no binding powers.

This is something of a relief. Many of the countries that have called

loudest for America to give up its role in the running of the internet are
those that are most keen to stop their citizens accessing “undesirable”
material. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and a host of other nations are guilty
of censoring the content available to web users, their aim being less to
protect the population from depraved content than to deter nascent
democratic movements.

7. UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION

POLICY

ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

is one of the most important policies that ICANN has adopted because it
impacts the rights of all domain name registrants in the event of a
dispute over a domain name. Adopted by the ICANN board in
October 1999, the UDRP provides a uniform set of global rules and
procedures for the resolution of disputes involving domain names
and trademarks. After more than ten years in practice, the UDRP has
been widely criticized for policies that favour trademark interests over
registrants with other legitimate interests.

Numerous studies have shown the UDRP to favour trademark interests

because it allows the complainant to select the dispute resolution
 provider. Other procedural rules that favour trademark complainants are
short response time, default rules, selection and composition of panels,
and insufficient time to get a case to a court. The UDRP has faced further
criticism for its inability to adequately protect freedom of expression,
non-commercial use and other legitimate fair uses in the face of
trademark claims.

8. Politics of gTLD’s (generic top-level domain)

Recently, ICANN, the body that is responsible for managing the domain
name system of the internet, approved what it refers to as "one of the
biggest changes ever to the Internet's Domain Name System", under
which, for the first time ever, ICANN is giving companies the
opportunity to create and control new top-level domain names.

Internet domain names consist of multiple components, including a

top-level domain name, then a second level domain name, and, in
some cases, lower-level domain names. Take, for example, an American
law school's website, www.wcl.american.edu. The top-level domain
name is the suffix, ".edu". The second level domain name is "American".
The lower-level domain is "wcl".

Until now when a business wanted to establish a web address, it would do

so only by acquiring a second level domain name because businesses did
not have the opportunity to claim a unique gTLD (generic top-level
domain). The major impact of ICANN's recent action is that businesses
and other organisations will now have the ability to claim a customised
gTLD. Instead of using a second level domain name under a gTLD such
as ".com", a company can use its company name as the gTLD itself, such
as “. google". Or, it could acquire a gTLD in a generic term, such as “.
search".

Everyone seems to agree that this will be a historic expansion of internet

domain extensions. The move is the biggest change to the internet's
domain naming system since ".com" was introduced 26 years ago. This
first development opened up the formerly academic and military internet
system to commercial use.

9. Economics of gTLD

ICANN'S new gTLD programme will likely expand the current name
space from our current 21 gTLDs to around 1,400 gTLDs. On June 13,
2012, it was revealed that ICANN received 1,931 applications for new
 gTLDs. ICANN had estimated that it would receive 250-500 applications.
The number of applications is remarkable when one considers the
application fee of $185,000 and the annual fees of $25,000 per gTLD.

Do the math: ICANN received $357,235,000 in application fees alone.

10.Consequence of gTLD

There will likely be more reliance on search engines, and less direct
navigation - the method of arriving at a website by typing the address
directly into a browser's address bar - by internet users. Another big
change will be the addition of gTLDs in non-Latin script for the first
time. Of the 1,931 applications, 116 were for gTLDs in non-Latin script.
A much more significant issue is whether any generic word should be
owned by a company for use as a closed registry. For example, nine
companies, including Amazon, applied for. book. Amazon indicated in its
application that it would operate. book as a closed registry meaning that it
would not permit a market in. book second- level domains. Thus, no
publisher, author, reviewer, or significantly, other e-book merchant would
have access to the. book domain. Internet users seeking information about
books in the. book domain would be captive to Amazon, a single
company.

11.Donuts Controversy!!!

Ever heard of a company called “Donuts”? It is now a business to watch

as it has the distinction of having filed the most gTLD applications. It
applied for 307 new gTLDS, all of them generic terms, and all for open
registries whereby companies wishing to use one of Donuts' gTLDs will
have to pay Donut for its use. Some of its applications include .app,
.group, .delivery, .photos, .pets, .band, .wedding, .city, .news, .tickets
and .email.
This company was formed only to take advantage of the new gTLD
programme. It sourced over $100m in capital. Again, do the math: Donuts
spent $57m in application fees, and would owe $7.6m in annual fees to
ICANN if all of its applied-for gTLDs are delegated. If successful, it may
become a major internet player.

12. INDIA’S STAND ON ICANN

Following outrage from India’s civil society and media, it appears the
country’s government has backed away from its proposal to create a UN
body to govern the internet. The controversial plan, which was made
without consulting civil society, angered local stakeholders, including
academics, media, and industry associations. Civil society expressed fear
that a 50-member UN body, many of whom would seek to control the
internet for their own political ends, would restrict the very free and
dynamic nature of the internet. The proposal envisaged 50 member States
chosen on the basis of equitable geographic representation” that would
meet annually in Geneva as the UN Committee for Internet-Related
Policies (UN-CIRP).

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Indian parliamentarian and critic of the proposal,

said: “CIRP seems like a solution in search of a problem”.
At the 4-5 October, 2012 Conference on Cyberspace in Budapest, the
then Minister of State for Telecom, Sachin Pilot, indicated that India was
moving away from the “control of the internet by government or inter-
governmental bodies”, and moving instead towards enhanced dialogue.
Pilot has now confirmed the change to Index, saying that the Indian
government has now decided to “nuance” its former position. The sudden
move can be explained by India’s decision to now develop its own stance,
claiming that it was initially just supporting proposals made at the India,
Brazil and South Africa seminar (IBSA) on Global Internet Governance
in Brazil in September 2011.

The government representatives present at the IBSA seminar drafted a set

of recommendations focused on institutional improvement, which pushed
for the UN to establish a body “in order to prevent fragmentation of the
internet, avoid disjointed policymaking, increase participation and ensure
stability and smooth functioning of the internet”. The proposal was to be
tabled until the IBSA Summit on 18 October 2011, but according to a
Daily Mail report, Indian bureaucrats publicly discussed the proposal at
the 2011 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Kenya, saying that the
move “was criticized across the board by all countries and scared away
both Brazil and South Africa.”

The report also alleges that the Indian government only consulted one
NGO — IT for Change — in drafting the proposal presented in Brazil,
despite repeated offers from other participants to pay for members of the
country’s third sector to participate in the seminar. India’s proposed UN-
CIRP was slammed for moving away from multi- stakeholderism and
instead opting for government-led regulation.

Whatever the truth behind the Indian government’s motives in proposing

UN-CIRP, its new and more “nuanced” position is a welcome move. It
remains to be seen if India will maintain its new stance at the upcoming
IGF, which will be held from 6-9 November, 2013 in Baku, Azerbaijan,
or will revert back on its demand of UN-CIRP.

India And Domain Name Dispute Resolution

The ccTLDs category is specific and distinct from the gTLDs and
correlate to the names of specific countries and territories. Various
corporations today not only register their trade name and their core
brands as gTLDs, but also as ccTLDs in select countries where they see
future business potential. Functionally, there is no dissimilarity between
the gTLD and the ccTLD. A domain name registered in a ccTLD
provides exactly the same connectivity as a domain name registered in a
gTLD. There are at present more than 200 ccTLDs. Each of these
domains bears a two-letter country code derived from Standard 3166 of
the International Standardization Organization.

An example would be: Yahoo.com is a gTLD. However, Yahoo.co.in

would be a ccTLD registered in India. Similarly, Yahoo.co.au would be a
ccTLD registered in Australia.

The administration of a ccTLD is left to the specific country concerned

and thus each ccTLD policy is distinct from the other. For example, the
administration of domain names within the .in (Indian) category is
overseen by NIXI (National Internet exchange of India). Similarly,
registrations in the UK are overseen by a body known as Nominet.
Under NIXI, the IN Registry, functions as an autonomous body with
primary responsibility for maintaining the .IN ccTLD and ensuring its
operational stability, reliability, and security, implementing the various
new policies set out by the Government of India and its Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology, Department of
Information Technology.

IN Registry has assumed responsibility for the registry from the previous
registry authority, The National Centre for Software Technology (NCST)
after the Government decided to revamp the administration of the .IN
registry in late 2004.This change was announced via an executive order
through a gazette notification issued by the Department of Information
Technology (DIT), Government of India, according a legal status to the
IN Registry.
 IN Registry does not carry out registrations itself. Instead, it accredits
registrars through a process of selection on the basis certain eligibility
criteria.

Usually, a domain names may be registered for a minimum of one (1)

year, and a maximum of five (5) years. Domains automatically renew at
the end of their term. .IN domain names may be between 3 and 63
characters in length. Only letters, digits, and hyphens are accepted in a
domain name. It is proscribed to begin or end domain names with
hyphens. For names in the unrestricted zones registrants are allowed to
transfer their domains to the registrar of their choice. The registry holds
the authority to deny or suspend a registration if it conflicts with the
sovereign national interest or public order.
Owners of registered Indian trademarks or service marks were also
allowed a Sunrise Period to protect their marks online. The sunrise period
gave preference to Indian citizens and companies over entities from
abroad.

Reading Reference links

https://www.icann.org/

https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/icann

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en