History Of The Internet Essay - 2,632 words

History of the Internet The history of the Internet traces back more than twenty-five years, when the U.S. government began funding research to develop packet-switching technology and communication networks. Starting in the 1960's, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the Department of Defense established the "ARPANET" network. ARPANET was later linked to other networks established by various government agencies, universities, and research facilities. (Price, 1999). During the 1970s, DARPA also funded the development of a "network of networks," which became known as the "Internet." The protocol that allowed the networks to intercommunicate became known as Internet Protocols (IP). (Rogers, 2001). In the early 1990s, the National Science Foundation (NSF) assumed responsibility for coordinating and funding the management of the non-military portion of the Internet infrastructure.


With the rapid growth of the Internet over the next two years, the public's demand for Internet service overwhelmed the NSF. (Price, 1999). Consequently, on December 31, 1992, NSF entered into a cooperative agreement with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) for some of these services. One of these services was domain name registration. NSI registered domain names in the top-level domains--.com, .net, and .org--on a first-come, first-served basis. This first-come, first-served policy, though easy to administer, created considerable friction between trademark owners and domain name registrants.


(Wise, 1999). Under U.S. trademark law, as well as the trademark law of most other nations, several companies may use the same mark--for example, ACME--on unrelated goods and services, because such simultaneous use would not result in a likelihood of confusion. Rather, an action for trademark infringement will only be successful if the evidence establishes that the source or sponsorship of the defendant's products or services would confuse the relevant purchasing public. (Jacso, 2001). The problem arises, however, when two or more owners of legitimate rights in the ACME mark want to register the domain name acme.com because only one company can own a particular domain name. Moreover, there is no legal requirement that the domain name registrant have corresponding rights in the ACME mark. Thus, there is no guarantee that the acme.com domain name will even be registered by one of the parties with legitimate trademark rights in the name. (Diaz, 1999).


In the mid 1990s, NSI developed a dispute resolution policy in an effort to address the conflicts arising between trademark owners and domain name registrants. Where the trademark owner could establish ownership of a U.S. trademark registration that predated the activation date of the disputed domain name, and the registered mark was identical to the domain name, NSI would place the domain name "on hold." This meant that neither party could use the domain name. A trademark owner who desired to have the domain name transferred to it for its own use was forced to file a lawsuit. For this and other reasons, NSI's policy proved unsatisfactory. (Diaz, 1999). In response, in 1996, Internet stakeholders formed the International Ad Hoc Committee ("IAHC"), a task force including representatives of the Internet Society, the International Trademark Association, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and other groups.


The IAHC issued a memorandum of understanding proposing a revised system for registering top-level domain names. The memorandum also contemplated the creation of Administrative Domain Name Challenge Panels to resolve domain name disputes through an elaborate administrative procedure. (Jacso, 2001). Meanwhile, the U.S. government assembled an interagency working group to formulate an official policy on privatizing the domain name system. This effort culminated in the U.S. Department of Commerce issuing, on June 10, 1998, a revised policy statement, pursuant to which the government announced that it was prepared to recognize, and to enter into agreements with, a new, not-for-profit corporation formed by private sector Internet stakeholders to administer policy for the Internet name and address system.


Under such agreements, the new corporation would undertake responsibilities performed by, or on behalf of, the U.S. government or by third parties, such as NSI, under arrangements with the U.S. government. This new corporation would later take the name Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"). (Carter, 2000). With respect to trademark issues, the U.S.


government recommended that ICANN adopt policies whereby domain name registrants would agree, at the time of registration or renewal, that, in cases involving cyberpiracy or cybersquatting (as opposed to conflicts between legitimate competing rights holders), the domain name registrant would submit to, and be bound by, alternative dispute resolution systems authorized by ICANN. (Carter, 2000). The government then requested WIPO to convene an international process to develop a set of recommendations for a trademark/domain name dispute resolution system. (ICANN: 2002). Thus, in July 1998, WIPO undertook an extensive process of international negotiations to develop and make recommendations to ICANN on questions arising from the interface between domain names and intellectual property rights. In April 1999, WIPO issued its final report, which it then presented to ICANN.


(ICANN: 2002). The WIPO report further recommended that all domain name holders be required, in their registration agreements, to agree to this administrative procedure. However, the administrative procedure would be non-binding, and either the domain name holder or the trademark owner would retain the right to initiate litigation over the name. (Carter, 2000). The UDRP rules set forth the guidelines necessary to conduct administrative procedure. These rules provide that any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint to a service provider, in both hard copy and electronic format, in accordance with the policy and rules.


The service provider reviews the complaint for administrative compliance with the policy and rules and, if it is in compliance, forwards the complaint to the respondent within three calendar days following receipt of the fees to be paid by the complainant. A respondent has twenty days from commencement of the administrative proceeding (generally the date the complaint is sent to the respondent) within which to file a response. If no response is filed (which happens in a substantial percentage of cases), the Administrative Panel is directed to decide the dispute based solely upon the complaint. (Librarians' Index to the Internet: 2000). The Administrative Panel, which usually consists of one person but can be expanded to three people, upon request of either party, is required, absent exceptional circumstances, to issue a written opinion within fourteen days of its appointment. Within three calendar days after receiving the decision from the panel, the service provider must notify each party, as well as ICANN and the concerned registrar, for example, NSI, of the decision. The concerned registrar must then communicate the date for the implementation of any decision that would transfer or cancel a domain name registration with each party, the service provider and ICANN. However, the respondent has the opportunity, within ten days of receipt of the panel's decision, to commence a lawsuit against the complainant.


If a lawsuit is filed, the panel's decision will not be implemented. (ICANN: 2002). Further, nothing in the policy or rules prevents either party from submitting the dispute to a court during the administrative proceeding, or even after it is concluded and implemented. Additionally, the Federal Arbitration Act's limitations on judicial review do not apply in the context of decisions issued under the UDRP. Therefore, the facts giving rise to invocation of the UDRP may also be the subject of a trademark infringement lawsuit, an action for dilution, and/or a suit filed pursuant to the "Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act." However, where the trademark owner is motivated primarily by a desire to acquire ownership of the domain name, as opposed to an award of damages, the UDRP should be the "weapon of choice." (Librarians' Index to the Internet: 2000). The tension that exists between the international dimension of domain names and the national scope of trademark rights further complicates matters concerning whether rights exist in a mark. Trademark rights are usually territorial in n ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................You are reading a preview................... Visit our Blog and Unlock Full Access to this essay

Continue READING the FULL Essay by clicking HERE

Essay Tags: domain, u.s. government, investment, trademark, service provider

This is an Essay sample / Research paper, you can use it for your research of: History Of The Internet