ICANN: ICG Announces Fourteenth and Fifteenth Conference Calls
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group ( ICG ) has scheduled its fourteenth and fifteenth conference calls:
- ICG Call # 14 – Wednesday, 8 April at 04:00-05:00 UTC (time converter here)
- ICG Call # 15 – Wednesday, 22 April at 13:00-14:00 UTC (time converter here)
The community is welcome to attend by way of a listen-only mode Virtual Meeting Room through which audio of the call will be streamed. Translations will be available through relevant Adigo Bridge dial-in numbers and Conference ID codes.
A list of country dial-in numbers can be found here. Should there be no appropriate dial-in number for an interested participant, the ICG Secretariat in conjunction with ICANN will provide a
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
to that individual. Correspondingly, language service Conference ID numbers are listed below:
- Français – Conference ID: 75929475
- Español – Conference ID: 68385764
- 中文 – Conference ID: 825702
- Pусский – Conference ID: 345720
- العربية – Conference ID: 82855066
- Português – Conference ID: 759752
Participants who are interested in an English line but are unable to join by way of the Virtual Meeting Room may
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
a dial-out service.
For more information about the ICG and the IANA Stewardship Transition, please visit the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group ( ICG ) Website.
This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-06-en
posted by David Goldstein
Bad Faith in Cyberspace: Grounding Domain Name Theory in Trademark, Property, and Restitution by Jacqueline D. Lipton, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Abstract: The year 2009 marks the tenth anniversary of domain name regulation under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Adopted to combat cybersquatting, these rules left a confused picture of domain name theory in their wake. Early cybersquatters registered Internet domain names corresponding with other’s trademarks to sell them for a profit. However, this practice was quickly and easily contained. New practices arose in domain name markets, not initially contemplated by the drafters of the ACPA and the UDRP. One example is clickfarming – using domain names to generate revenues from click-on advertisements.
To avoid trademark liability, most clickfarmers and cybersquatters utilize personal names, geographic and cultural indicators, and generic terms as domain names. The application of current regulations to these practices is unclear, largely because of the lack of a coherent policy basis for domain name regulation.
This article develops a new model for domain name regulation. It incorporates trademark policy within a broader theoretical framework incorporating aspects of restitution and property theory. The author suggests that a broader theoretical approach to domain name regulation would facilitate the development of more coherent domain name rules in the future. This discussion is particularly timely in light of the forthcoming implementation of a new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) application process.
This article by Jacqueline D. Lipton is available for download in full from:
ideaexchange.uakron.edu/ua_law_publications/139/
Celebrity in Cyberspace: A Personality Rights Paradigm for Personal Domain Name Disputes by Jacqueline D. Lipton
Abstract: When the Oscar-winning actress Julia Roberts fought for control of the domain name, what was her aim? Did she want to reap economic benefits from the name? Probably not, as she has not used the name since it was transferred to her. Or did she want to prevent others from using it on either an unjust enrichment or a privacy basis? Was she, in fact, protecting a trademark interest in her name? Personal domain name disputes, particularly those in the space, implicate unique aspects of an individual’s persona in cyberspace. Nevertheless, most of the legal rules developed for these disputes are based on trademark law.
Although a number of individuals have successfully used these rules in practice, the focus on trademark law has led to inconsistent and often arbitrary results. Additionally, commentators have questioned recent expansions of trademark law in the Internet context.
This Article suggests that if personal names merit legal protection in cyberspace, it should be under an appropriate set of legal rules, rather than through further expansion of trademarks. This Article develops a new framework for personal domain name disputes based on the theories underlying the right of publicity tort. Unlike trademark law, this tort is aimed at the protection of individual names and likenesses. It has not been utilized much in cyberspace largely because of time, cost, and jurisdictional disadvantages of litigation as opposed to the quicker and cheaper, but trademark-based, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”). This article suggests the creation of a new personal domain name dispute resolution policy (“PDRP”) that combines the procedural advantages of the UDRP with the theory underlying the right of publicity tort.
This article by Jacqueline D. Lipton is available for download in full from:
ideaexchange.uakron.edu/ua_law_publications/140/
posted by David Goldstein
Daily Domain Sales 04-05-2015 lead by 51513.com at $9,120 on NameJet
51513.com sold for $9,120 on NameJet. BlowDryer.com sold for $8,400 on Flippa.
Top Domain Sales on April 5, 2015 are :
51513.com – $9,120
BlowDryer.com – $8,400
CineX.com – $8,300
Zeku.com – $7,300
HazPrints.com – $4,360
Daleng.com – $4,100
SlangIt.com – $4,050
VirtualBackup.com – $2,501
OneTrack.com – $2,387
InterLingo.com – $2,083
CutAway.com – $1,885
PacificIt.com – $1,800
MasCorp.com – $1,525
Lupinacci.com – $1,370
Minkin.com – $1,136
PinkMobile.com – $1,125
GlassDorr.com – $1,020
Reinventure.com – $960
ZYYO.com – $905
InternetVoicesRadio.com – $873
FrickinBrand.com – $850
GotCoverage.com – $810
EmiratesGolf.com – $807
StarterFund.com – $740
GreaterSuccess.com – $731
Emaijiu.com – $704
StudentProgress.com – $695
ComFacebook.com – $572
MotorCycler.com – $561
BurrillandCo.com – $538
DDVN.com – $510
Productivity.io – $500
KillingsWorth.com – $496
ClutterControl.com – $495
Yonyo.com – $455
SmartAsh.com – $454
Marketplace-wise Sales
NameJet
51513.com – $9,120
Daleng.com – $4,100
VirtualBackup.com – $2,501
OneTrack.com – $2,387
PacificIt.com – $1,800
GotCoverage.com – $810
EmiratesGolf.com – $807
StarterFund.com – $740
MotorCycler.com – $561
BurrillandCo.com – $538
DDVN.com – $510
KillingsWorth.com – $496
ClutterControl.com – $495
SmartAsh.com – $454
Flippa
BlowDryer.com – $8,400
ZYYO.com – $905
FrickinBrand.com – $850
StudentProgress.com – $695
Productivity.io – $500
Yonyo.com – $455
DropCatch
CineX.com – $8,300
InterLingo.com – $2,083
GlassDorr.com – $1,020
Emaijiu.com – $704
ComFacebook.com – $572
Zeku.com – $7,300
HazPrints.com – $4,360
SlangIt.com – $4,050
CutAway.com – $1,885
MasCorp.com – $1,525
Lupinacci.com – $1,370
Minkin.com – $1,136
PinkMobile.com – $1,125
Reinventure.com – $960
InternetVoicesRadio.com – $873
GreaterSuccess.com – $731
The New gTLD Program or the More Things Change the More Things Stay the Same by Jack Vidovich
Abstract: The New gTLD Program purports to increase the amount of domain names available on the Internet. This Article suggests that The Program will not meet its stated goals. The Article demonstrates this shortcoming by analyzing the jurisprudence from the Legal Rights Objection and forecasting how other courts and panels will absorb these principles, and adjudicate gTLD disputes in the near future.
Ultimately, the standard of review protects not only a mark as it exists, but also proximate variations of the mark that radiate from the original mark and satisfy the standard of customer confusion. Thus, major marks that already dominate the field do not lose their grip, but rather swallow up and absorb these proximate marks under this standard of confusion. This absorption of proximate marks into existing marks saps the language’s ontology of its semantic wealth, and thus will not expand the availability of marks in URL space.
To download this article by Jack Vidovich from the American University Washington College of Law in full [pdf], go to:
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=ipbrief&sei-redir=1
posted by David Goldstein
