• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.519-546
• /
• 2004

On June 27, 2002 Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) launched dot-ca domain name dispute resolution service through BCICAC and Resolution Canada, Inc. The Domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) of CIRA is basically modelled after Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP), while the substance of CDRP is slightly modified to meet the need of Canadian domain name regime and its legal system. Firstly, this article examined CIRA's domain name dispute resolution policy in general. It is obvious that the domain name dispute resolution proceeding is non-binding arbitration to which arbitration law does not apply. However it still belongs to the arbitration and far from the usual mediation process. Domain name arbitrators render decision rather than assist disputing parties themselves reach to agreement. In this respect the domain name arbitration is similar to arbitration or litigation rather than mediation. Secondly it explored how the panels applied the substantive standards in domain name arbitration. There is some criticism that panelists interprets the test of "confusingly similar" in conflicting manner. As a result critics assert that courts' judicial review is necessary to reduce the conflicting interpretation on the test of substantive standards stipulated in paragraph 3 of CDRP. Finally, it analysed the court's position on domain name arbitral award. Canadian courts do not seem to establish a explicit standard for judicial review over it yet. However, in Black v. Molson case Ontario Superior Court applied the UDRP rules in examining the WIPO panel's decision, while US courts often apply domestic patent law and ACPA(Anticyber -squatting Consumer's Protection Act) to review domain name arbitration decision rather than UDRP rules. In conclusion this article suggests that courts should restrict their judicial review on domain name administrative panel's decision at best. This will lead to facilitating the use of ADR in domain name dispute resolution and reducing the burden of courts' dockets.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.15
• /
• pp.169-209
• /
• 2001

As a domain name can be registered simply by filing an application for registration, disputes over the domain name between the holder of domain name and the holder of trademark increased. Since the holder of trademark who was late for registering domain name is willing to pay for the return of domain name, cybersquatters increased. Cybersqatters are not genuine users of the Internet. This article is to compare the construction of law by American Courts and by Korean Courts and to assert the creation of the law similar to the law of US as to anti-cybersqatting. American Courts applied the Trademark Act and the Anti-Dilution Act to resolve the disputes over domain name. To apply the Trademark Act, the Court required the plaintiffs to prove that the goods or the services expressed by the domain name should be identical or similar to the goods or the services represented by the trademark. However, there were many cases where the holder of domain name used it for the goods or the services irrelevant to those of the holder of trademark. Also, the Anti-Dilution Act could not successfully protect the holder of trademark from cybersquatters because it required that the trademark should be famous or distinctive. As a result, the US promulgated a new law which is designed to prohibit cybersquatters from being free of sanction by the existing laws. Korea Courts applied the Trademark Act and the Unfair Competition Prohibition Act to the cases disputing domain name. Likewise in the US, Korean Courts must cope with the issue of identity of the goods or the services, and the famousness or distinctiveness of trademark. The Courts hesitate to give a winning judgement to the holder of trademark simply because the domain name of alleged violator confused the trademark. Some scholars advocate the broadening of construction of the Unfair Competition Prohibition Act to illegalize cybersquatting but it is beyond the meaning of the law. Accordingly, it is a time to make a law similar to the Anti-Cybersquatting Act of the US. The law must be a fair and reasonable compromise to resolve the collision between system of registration of domain name and the system of registration of trademark. Some commentators advocate that the registration of domain name should be examined just as the one of trademark and to facilitate it, the Patent and Trademark Office should have jurisdiction of registration of domain name. But it abandons the distinction of domain name and trademark and results in obstructing e-commerce. By adopting the Anti-Cybersqatting Act, we can prohibit it. In other cases, we get a reasonable adjustment between the holder of domain name and the holder of trademark through the Trademark Act and the Unfair Competition Prohibition Act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.167-187
• /
• 2007

As Korea has reached a free trade agreement with the United States of America, it is required to provide an appropriate procedure to ".kr" domain name disputes based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP). Currently, Internet address Dispute Resolution Committee(IDRC) established under Article 16 of the Act on Internet Address Resources provides the dispute resolution proceedings to resolve ".kr" domain name disputes. While the IDRC's proceeding is similar to the UDRP administrative proceeding in procedural aspects, the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy that is established by the IDRC and that applies to disputes involving ".kr" domain names is very different from the UDRP for generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) in substantial aspects. Under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement(KORUS FTA), it is expected that either the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy to be amended to adopt the UDRP or the IDRC to examine the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy in order to harmonize it with the principles established in the UDRP. It is a common practice of cybersquatters to warehouse a number of domain names without any active use of these domain names after their registration. The Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides that the complainant may request to transfer or delete the registration of the disputed domain name if the registrant registered, holds or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. This provision lifts the complainant's burden of proof to show the respondent's bad faith because the complainant is only required to prove one of the three bad faiths which are registration in bad faith, holding in bad faith, or use in bad faith. The aforementioned resolution procedure is different from the UDRP regime which requires the complainant, in compliance with paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP, to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the complainant carries heavy burden of proof under the UDRP. The IDRC should deny the complaint if the respondent has legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The UDRP sets out three illustrative circumstances, any one of which if proved by the respondent, shall be evidence of the respondent's rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides only a general provision regarding the respondent's legitimate rights or interests, the respondent can be placed in a very week foundation to be protected under the Policy. It is therefore recommended for the IDRC to adopt the three UDRP circumstances to guide how the respondent can demonstrate his/her legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. In accordance with the KORUS FTA, the Korean Government is required to provide online publication to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain name registrants. Cybersquatters often provide inaccurate contact information or willfully conceal their identity to avoid objection by trademark owners. It may cause unnecessary and unwarranted delay of the administrative proceedings. The respondent may loss the opportunity to assert his/her rights or legitimate interests in the domain name due to inability to submit the response effectively and timely. The respondent could breach a registration agreement with a registrar which requires the registrant to submit and update accurate contact information. The respondent who is reluctant to disclose his/her contact information on the Internet citing for privacy rights and protection. This is however debatable as the respondent may use the proxy registration service provided by the registrar to protect the respondent's privacy.

• Journal of Information Technology Services
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.129-148
• /
• 2014

Generally, the Internet Address Resources Act is intended to protect the public from acts of Internet "cybersquatting", a term used to describe the bad faith, abusive registration of Internet domain names. In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent, a court may consider factors such as, (1) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name, (2) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person, (3) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services, (4) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name, (5) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site, (6) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.41-50
• /
• 2011

DNS(Domain Name System) is the Name Resolution Mechanism that makes conversion from a Domain Name of a computer on the Internet to an IP Address or the reverse conversion. In this paper we researched on the Foundation techniques of Fault-tolerant DNS Servers that the secondary DNS can take over and provide continuous services even though primary DNS stops due to some critical errors.

• Proceedings of the IEEK Conference
• /
• 1998.06a
• /
• pp.301-304
• /
• 1998

Now, the world is faced with radical changing in the new rvolution which is followed by speading and utilization of internet. The domain names which are currently used on the internet are unique throgh out the world. Therefore, U.S government positively intervenes in the management of the internet domain name for the effective implementation. The thesis descrbes research of the korean domain name system which allows us to use korea character into current internet domain name system and implements the architecture of the korean domain name system by analysis the structure and behavior of domain name server.

• The Transactions of the Korea Information Processing Society
• /
• v.5 no.7
• /
• pp.1855-1862
• /
• 1998

An Internet user obtains an IP address from DNS to access the host. But, Korean users must use English word order Domain that is not convenient for them. All existing systems have the reverse of the Korean word order and that is the obstacle to the spreading of Internet. So, the necessity of a Korean name system that well suited for Korean Internet user is increasing. In order to operate the proposed Korean Domain System with existing Domain Name Systems, we build a Korean to English transformation rule and Korean Domain Name composition rule. Also, we designed a STHOP for Korean word order processing. In a STROP, a SLDF transform a Korean SLD into English SLD, and a NFDNG makes this as an English word order. By using Korean Domain Name System proposed here, users could understand the embedded meaning of Domain Name with ease, and reluctance of Domain registration caused by similarity of organization names would be solved, Consequently. it could devote to the popularization of the Internet.

• 전자공학회논문지 IE
• /
• v.44 no.1
• /
• pp.20-26
• /
• 2007

Most researches on the mobile ad hoc network (MANET) have been focused on routing protocols, but for the real service provision DNS(Domain Name System) has to be supported first. Due to the inherent characteristics of the mobile ad hoc network, the DNS of the wired network is assumed to be not good for the MANET environment. The approach of distributed DNSs can easily adapt to the node mobility, but incurs the name conflict resolution overhead. On the other hand, the centralized approach performs the name resolution based on the unicast communication without causing the name conflict resolution overhead. The most important issue of the centralized approach is to provide the seamless name resolution service under server mobility. Therefore, in this paper, we propose a new centralized DNS, Manet DNS, which works efficiently on name allocation and management and solves the network merging and partitioning problem as well as providing the seamless name resolution service.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.1013-1032
• /
• 2000

At present, the scale of Electronic Commerce through internet has been rapidly increasing due to the development of information & communication technology, and aggregated to 2.4 billion dollar in America last year (1998). The market scale of worldwide electronic commerce is also presumed to be about 130 billion dollar in 2000, and to occupy more than 20% of the whole world trade in world 2020. Since the right of trademark, despite of being effective only in registered nations on the principle of territorialism, is unified on the cyber space of internet without domestic barrier or local limitation which make it easier to conduct the distribution of information rapidly through the address-internet domain name, those are very important that the systematic dispute-solving plan on problems such as decision of its Act and international jurisdiction to be established, in an effort to prevent the newly emerging dispute instances such as trademark infringement and improper competitiveness. In addition, it is natural that on the threshold of the electronic commerce age which formed with an unified area without the worldwide specific regulation, each country including us makes haste with the enactment of "electronic commerce Act" aiming at coming into force in 1999, in keeping with getting through "non-tariff law on electronic commerce" by U. S. parliament on May, 1998. In view of the properties of electronic commerce transactions through internet, there are the large curtailment of distributive channel, surmounting of restrictions on transaction area, space and time and the easy feedback with consumer and the cheap-required capital, from which the problems may arise - registration of trademark, the trademark infringement of domain name and the protection of prestigious trademark. Therefore, it is necessary to take the counter-measure, with a view of reviewing the infringement of trademark and domain name and the instances of each national precedent and to preventing the disputes. The improvement of the persistent system should be needed to propel the harmonious protection of those holding trademark right's credit and demanders' expectant profit by way of the righteous use of trademark.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.20 no.5
• /
• pp.36-46
• /
• 2019

The number of hosts connected to the Internet has increased dramatically, introducing the Domain Name System(DNS) in 1984. DNS is now an important key point for all users of the Internet by allowing them to use a convenient character address without memorizing a series of numbers of complex IP address. However, relative to the importance of DNS, there still exist many problems such as the authorization allocation issue, the disputes over public registration, security vulnerability such as DNS cache poisoning, DNS spoofing, man-in-the-middle attack, DNS amplification attack, and the need for many domain names in the age of hyper-connected networks. In this paper, to effectively improve these problems of existing DNS, we proposed a method of implementing DNS using distributed ledger technology, blockchain, and implemented using a Ethereum-based platform. In addition, the qualitative analysis performance comparative evaluation of the existing domain name registration and domain name server was conducted, and conducted security assessments on the proposed system to improve security problem of existing DNS. In conclusion, it was shown that DNS services could be provided high security and high efficiently using blockchain.