ICANN Selects New Members as Controversy Over Domain Name Disputes Continues

2000 B.C. Intell. Prop. & Tech. F. 102503
ICANN Selects New Members as Controversy Over Domain Name Disputes Continues

by Robert O'Keefe, Staff Writer

There was an electoral debate in Massachusetts in early October with nothing less than the future of the Internet at stake. Notwithstanding earlier claims by the Vice President concerning the origins of the ‘Net, Al Gore was not there, nor was George W. Bush or even Ralph Nader. This was a debate, held at Harvard Law School, among six of the seven candidates for the North American “grass-roots” seat on the board of directors for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the controversial organization in charge of overseeing the technical operations of the Internet.

Karl Auerbach of Cisco Systems was ultimately selected from the North American candidates to serve along with four other regional directors as part of the 19-member board. This was the first election of members to the ICANN board. Half of the board is chosen by supporting organizations that represent various internet constituencies. The “grass-roots” members were selected through electronic votes cast by any internet user who had registered as a member of ICANN.

Although the debate was sparsely attended, the candidates could not avoid some of the most controversial issues regarding ICANN, particularly the conflict over the domain name dispute resolution system. ICANN created an arbitration process for trademark holders to contest abusive registrations of domain names (see “Alternative Resolution for Domain Name Disputes, 2000 B.C. Intell. Prop. & Tech. F. 032501). While this process has gained popularity as a cheap and efficient means of kicking out cybersquatters, the system has been criticized as biased towards trademark holders. Indeed, the vast majority of cases decided under the domain name dispute system have gone in favor of the trademark holders. There is also concern that this bias in favor of trademarks may infringe some free speech rights, as arbitrators have ruled against parody sites and sites adjudged to be too easily confused with registered trademarks.

In response to this criticism, ICANN has noted that the system was established to provide a fast-track solution to clear-cut cases of cybersquatting. Therefore it is not surprising that trademark holders typically come out ahead. ICANN plans a review of the system later this year.

Regardless of any potential bias in the domain name dispute system, the criticisms may expose an even deeper problem for ICANN - the lack of any public accountability. For an organization that is supposed to represent the interests of “netizens” everywhere, the lack of publicity surrounding the election may cast doubt as to whether ICANN truly represents the interests of the internet public. Indeed, several candidates made comments to this effect. ICANN may be hoping that the presence of the grass-roots members on the board will bolster its image as a publicly accountable organization. How this plays out remains to be seen.