1 See Joseph Reagle, Why the Internet is Good: Community Governance That Works Well, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/reagle/ regulation-19990326.html (last visited Mar. 17, 2002) (quoting Internet pioneer David Clark, “We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code.”).
2 See Jonathan Weinberg, ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy, 50 Duke L.J. 187, 250 (2000).
3 See Letter from Esther Dyson, Interim Chairman, ICANN to Ralph Nader and James Love, Consumer Project on Technology (June 15, 1999), at http://www.icann.org/chairman-response.htm [hereinafter Letter] (“But ICANN’s goals and its actions are in fact the result of public debate and consensus—though not of unanimity.”); ICANN Background, at http://www.icann.org/general/background.htm (last modified July 16, 1999) (“Though often contentious the ICANN structure creates an open, transparent, global forum in which competing interests can work towards consensus.”); see also Reagle, supra note 1 (discussing the policy formation techniques of two groups who regulate Internet standards, the Internet Engineering Task Force and the World Wide Web Consortium).
4 See Letter, supra note 3; ICANN Background, supra note 3.
5 ICANN Background, supra note 3.
6 See Letter, supra note 3; ICANN Background, supra note 3.
7 See Graeme B. Dinwoodie & Laurence R. Helfer, Designing Non-National Systems: The Case of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 43 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 141, 144 (2001); ICANN Background, supra note 3.
8 See, e.g., Dinwoodie & Helfer, supra note 7, at 144; A. Michael Froomkin, Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA and the Constitution, 50 Duke L.J. 17, 29 (2000); Henry H. Perritt, Towards a Hybrid Regulatory Scheme for the Internet, 2001 U. Chi. Legal F. 215, 215 (2001); Elizabeth Thornburg, Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution, 34 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 151, 154 (2000); Weinberg, supra note 2, at 191.
9 See Dinwoodie & Helfer, supra note 7, at 144; Perritt, supra note 8, at 215.
10 Perritt, supra note 8, at 221.
11 See Dinwoodie & Helfer, supra note 7, at 146.
12 See id.; Weinberg, supra note 2, at 218.
13 See Froomkin, supra note 8, at 29; Weinberg, supra note 2, at 217. For example, some scholars have criticized ICANN’s dispute resolution policy for failing to conform to U.S. constitutional due process standards. See Froomkin, supra note 8, at 98–100; Thornburg, supra note 8, at 188, 196.
14 See Dinwoodie & Helfer, supra note 7, at 203–09 (exploring the effects of national court review of ICANN’s dispute resolution policy); Donna Howard, Note and Comment, Trademarks and Service Marks and Internet Domain Names: Giving ICANN Deference, 33 Ariz. St. L.J. 637, 638 (2001) (advocating deferential treatment by U.S. courts of decisions made under ICANN’s dispute resolution policy).
15 See Sallen v. Corinthians Licenciamentos, LTDA, 273 F.3d 14, 16–17 (1st Cir. 2001).
16 See, e.g., Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Mkt., Inc., 202 F.3d 489, 493 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied 530 U.S. 1262 (2000); Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1319 (9th Cir. 1998).
17 See Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. � 1125(d)(1) (2000); Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (Oct. 24, 1999), at http://www.icann.org/ udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm [hereinafter UDRP].
18 See Sallen, 273 F.3d at 14.
19 Id. at 20.
20 Id. at 17, 21.
21 Id. at 21.
22 Id. When Sallen registered the domain name with Network Solutions he had agreed to resolve disputes concerning the name under UDRP proceedings. Id. at 20.
23 Sallen, 273 F.3d at 18.
24 Id. at 22.
25 Id. at 18.
26 Id. at 30.
27 See id. at 18.
28 See Sallen, 273 F.3d at 18; Seth Stern, Federal Courts Could Override UDRP Arbitration, Boston Law Trib., Dec. 17, 2001, at 1.
29 See Sallen, 273 F.3d at 18, 26, 27; Stern, supra note 28, at 1.
30 See Sallen, 273 F.3d at 26, 27.
31 See Howard, supra note 14, at 638. In 2001, in Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware and Building Supply, Inc., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois considered the legal effect of the ICANN administrative proceedings on ACPA claims. No. 00-C-1738, 2000 WL 562470, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2000). The court concluded that it was not bound by the outcome of the ICANN proceedings but did not decide what degree of deference, if any, should be given to ICANN decisions. Id. at *2.
32 See Weber-Stephen, 2000 WL 562470, at *1, *2.
33 See Parisi v. Netlearning, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 745, 749 (E.D. Va. 2001). So far, courts have distinguished the UDRP from other forms of private arbitration. In 2001, in Parisi v. Netlearning, Inc., the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that the Federal Arbitration Act, which limits judicial review of private arbitration, does not apply in civil actions seeking review of arbitration conducted under the UDRP. 139 F. Supp. 2d at 749, 753.
34 See infra notes 188–251 and accompanying text.
35 See infra notes 183–269 and accompanying text.
36 See infra notes 41–63 and accompanying text.
37 See infra notes 64–134 and accompanying text.
38 See infra notes 135–182 and accompanying text.
39 See infra notes 188–251 and accompanying text.
40 See infra notes 252–269 and accompanying text.
41 Barry M. Leiner et al., A Brief History of the Internet, Internet Society, at http://www. isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml (last updated Mar. 4, 2002).
42 Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed. Reg. 31,741 (June 10, 1998); Leiner et al., supra note 41.
43 Leiner et al., supra note 41; Paul Mockapetris, Request For Comments: 1034, Domain Names—Concepts and Facilities 1 (1987), at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1034.txt (last visited Nov. 29, 2001).
44 See Leiner et al., supra note 41.
45 The Domain Name System: A Non-technical Explanation—Why Universal Resolvability Is Important, InterNIC, at http://www.internic.org/faqs/authoritative-dns.html (last modified Mar. 25, 2002) [hereinafter Domain Name System].
46 Id.
47 See id.
48 See Howard, supra note 14, at 637.
49 See id.
50 See Domain Name System, supra note 45.
51 See Lanham Act � 32 (1), 15 U.S.C. � 1114 (2000).
52 See id.
53 See id.
54 See Domain Name System, supra note 45.
55 See Thornburg, supra note 8, at 159.
56 See id. at 160.
57 See id. at 159–60.
58 See Sallen v. Corinthians Licenciamentos, LTDA, 273 F.3d 14, 19 (1st Cir. 2001).
59 See Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1319 (9th Cir. 1998). Toeppen offered to return the domain name “panavision.com” to Panavision for $13,000. Id. Some alleged cybersquatters register domain names to annoy, rather than to profit. In 1999, San Francisco mayoral candidate Clint Reilly was accused of registering his opponents’ names as domain names to prevent his opponents from using their own names for their campaign websites. See Larry D. Hatfield, Candidate “Cybersquats” on Mayoral Foes, S.F. Examiner, August 11, 1999, available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1999/08/11/NEWS1616.dtl.
60 See Froomkin, supra note 8, at 101; Thornburg, supra note 8, at 160.
61 See Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed. Reg. 31,741, 31,742 (June 10, 1998); Management of Internet Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property Issues para. 14, WIPO (Apr. 30, 1999), at http://wipo2.wipo.int [hereinafter WIPO Report].
62 See Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Mkt., Inc., 202 F.3d 489, 493 (2d Cir. 2000).
63 See WIPO Report, supra note 61, para. 14, 18, 19.
64 Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed. Reg. at 31,749.
65 See id.; ICANN Background, supra note 3.
66 ICANN Background, supra note 3.
67 Id.
68 See About ICANN, at http://www.icann.org/general/abouticann.htm (last modified Feb. 18, 2002).
69 See id.
70 See Domain Name System, supra note 45.
71 See A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS (July 9, 2001), at http://www.icann.org/ icp/icp-3.htm [hereinafter Authoritative Root].
72 Id.
73 See Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed. Reg. 31,741, 31,749 (June 10, 1998).
74 See Authoritative Root, supra note 71.
75 See id.
76 See id.
77 New TLD Program, at http://www.icann.org/tlds (last accessed Jan. 30, 2002).
78 See Authoritative Root, supra note 71.
79 See Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed. Reg. 31,741, 31,743 (June 10, 1998); Authoritative Root, supra note 71.
80 Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed. Reg. at 31,743.
81 Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Dep’t of Commerce and ICANN, � V (Nov. 25, 1998), at http://www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm [hereinafter Memorandum]; WIPO Report, supra note 61, para. 24; see Froomkin, supra note 8, at 34.
82 See Memorandum, supra note 81, � II(A).
83 Id. � II(B).
84 Id.
85 Id. � II(B)(a).
86 Id. � II(B)(b); see Authoritative Root, supra note 71.
87 Memorandum, supra note 81, � II(B)(c).
88 Id. � II(B)(d).
89 WIPO Report, supra note 61, para. 24.
90 Id. at para. 150.
91 See id.
92 See infra notes 93–134 and accompanying text.
93 Bylaws for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, art. III � 3(b) (Feb. 12, 2002), at http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm [hereinafter ICANN Bylaws].
94 Id. art. III � 3(b)(i).
95 Id.
96 Id. art. III � 3(b)(ii).
97 Id.
98 ICANN Bylaws, supra note 93, art. III � 3(b)(iii).
99 Id. art. III � 3(c).
100 UDRP, supra note 17, �� 2, 4.
101 Id. � 4. A trademark holder is not a party to the contract between the domain name holder and the registrar, they are the third party beneficiaries of that contract. See id.
102 Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, � 5(a) (Oct. 24, 1999), at http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm [hereinafter UDRP Rules].
103 Id. � 15(b). An arbitration panel or single arbitrator, depending on the arbitration service used and the complainaint’s preference, may hear the dispute. Id. � 6.
104 UDRP, supra note 17, � 3.
105 See id. � 4(a).
106 Id. � 4(a)(i).
107 Id. � 4(a)(ii).
108 Id. � 4(a)(iii).
109 UDRP, supra note 17, � 4(b).
110 Id. � 4(b)(i).
111 Id. � 4(b)(ii).
112 Id.
113 Id. � 4(b)(iii).
114 UDRP, supra note 17, � 4(b)(iv).
115 UDRP Rules, supra note 102, � 10.
116 See id.
117 Id. � 10(d).
118 Id. � 13.
119 Id. � 15(a).
120 UDRP Rules, supra note 102, �� 15(a), 18.
121 Id. � 15(a).
122 Id. � 18(a).
123 UDRP, supra note 17, � 4(k).
124 ICANN Bylaws, supra note 93, art. III, � 4; Independent Review Policy (Mar. 10, 2000), at http://www.icann.org/committees/indreview/policy.htm; Reconsideration Policy (Mar. 4, 1999), at http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm.
125 See ICANN Bylaws, supra note 93, art. III, � 4. ICANN’s bylaws state that “any person affected by an action of the Corporation may request review or reconsideration.” See id.
126 Reconsideration Policy, supra note 124.
127 Id.
128 Id.
129 Independent Review Policy, supra note 124, � 2; Reconsideration Policy, supra note 124.
130 Independent Review Policy, supra note 124, � 2.
131 Id. �� 6.1, 6.2.
132 Id. � 6.3.
133 See Independent Review, at http://www.icann.org/committees/indreview/index.html (last modified May 26, 2001).
134 See id.
135 See Jerry L. Mashaw et al., Administrative Law: The American Public Law System 11–12 (4th ed. 1998).
136 See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 551 (2000); Mashaw et al., supra note 135, at 12.
137 See Mashaw et al., supra note 135, at 13. Agencies may be created by any legal document, including a statute, executive order, constitution, charter, etc. See id.
138 See id.
139 See id.
140 See id. at 14–15.
141 See id. at 15.
142 See Mashaw et al., supra note 135, at 15, 16.
143 See id. at 16.
144 See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. �� 551–706 (2000); Mashaw et al., supra note 135, at 16.
145 See Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 37–38 (1950).
146 5 U.S.C. �� 553, 554, 556, 557, 706.
147 See Mashaw et al., supra note 135, at 453. Although the Constitution is technically the first source of procedure for agency rulemaking, the conventional view is that the APA or the agency’s organic statute meet whatever procedural standards the Constitution imposes. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, 435 U.S. 519, 524 (1978).
148 5 U.S.C. �� 553, 556, 557.
149 Id. � 553; see Mashaw et al., supra note 135, at 453–54. Formal rulemaking resembles a judicial trial in many ways and is the least common form of rulemaking. See Mashaw et al., supra note 135, at 453–54.
150 5 U.S.C. � 553.
151 Id. � 553(b)(1)–(3).
152 Id. � 553(c).
153 Id. � 553(d).
154 See Yesler Terrace Cmty. Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442, 448 (9th Cir. 1994).
155 See Mashaw et al., supra note 135, at 288.
156 See Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373, 374, 385–86 (1908).
157 See Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 445 (1915).
158 See Mashaw et al., supra note 135, at 288.
159 See Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm’n v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 178 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
160 See id.
161 See Henry Friendly, Some Kind of Hearing, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1277–95 (1975).
162 See Mashaw et al., supra note 135, at 287.
163 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. �� 553(c), 554(a) (2000).
164 See Mashaw et al., supra note 135, at 287.
165 See id. at 288.
166 5 U.S.C. � 554(b)(1).
167 Id. � 554(b)(2).
168 Id. � 554(b)(3).
169 Id. � 554(c)(1).
170 Id. � 554(d).
171 5 U.S.C. � 702.
172 Id. � 704.
173 Id. � 706.
174 Id. � 706 (2)(A), (E), (F).
175 See Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 414, 415 (1971).
176 Id. at 414.
177 Id. at 415.
178 Id.
179 5 U.S.C. � 706(2)(A); Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 416.
180 See Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 416.
181 See id.
182 See id.
183 See infra notes 188–251 and accompanying text.
184 See supra notes 93–99, 100–123, 147–153, 154–170 and accompanying text.
185 See Independent Review Policy, supra note 124, � 2.
186 See Howard, supra note 14, at 659–60.
187 See supra notes 171–182 and accompanying text; infra notes 252–269 and accompanying text.
188 See infra notes 193–251 and accompanying text.
189 See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 553 (2000); Froomkin, supra note 8, at 96; Weinberg, supra note 2, at 225; ICANN Bylaws, supra note 93, art. III, � 3; Memorandum, supra note 81, � II.
190 See 5 U.S.C. � 706; Weinberg, supra note 2, at 229; Independent Review Policy, supra note 124, � 2.
191 See 5 U.S.C. � 554; Yesler Terrace Cmty. Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442, 448 (9th Cir. 1994).
192 See 5 U.S.C. � 553; Weinberg, supra note 2 at 225; ICANN Bylaws, supra note 93, art. III, �3(b).
193 5 U.S.C. � 553; Weinberg, supra note 2 at 225; ICANN Bylaws, supra note 93, art. III, �3(b).
194 5 U.S.C. � 553.
195 Weinberg, supra note 2, at 225; ICANN Bylaws, supra note 93, art. III, � 3.
196 ICANN Bylaws, supra note 93, art. III, � 3(b)(i).
197 Id. art. III � 3(b)(ii).
198 Id. art. III � 3(b)(iii).
199 Weinberg, supra note 2, at 225.
200 See id. at 226.
201 See id.
202 See Reagle, supra note 1.
203 See Froomkin, supra note 8, at 94–95. Some at ICANN insist that the organization is technical only and has no Internet “governance” role. See Letter, supra note 3.
204 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 551(4) (2000); Yesler Terrace Cmty. Council, 37 F.3d at 448.
205 See Froomkin, supra note 8, at 96–97, 101.
206 See id. at 101–02.
207 Memorandum, supra note 81, � II(B)(c).
208 See Froomkin, supra note 8, at 101. Applicants for top-level domain registries paid a $50,000 non-refundable application fee. See id.
209 See id. at 101–02.
210 See id. at 102.
211 See, e.g., Questions to and Answers from Applicant for .name, .nom, and others, at http:// www.icann.org/tlds/name1/qa.html (last modified Nov. 7, 2000).
212 See id. at ICANN Questions 1, 2. Technical questions included those regarding the applicant’s “capacity (transactions per second) to which you are willing to contractually commit for your SRS service.” Id. at ICANN Questions 10.
213 See Froomkin, supra note 8, at 102.
214 See id. at 96.
215 See Yesler Terrace Cmty. Council, 37 F.3d at 448; Froomkin, supra note 8, at 101.
216 WIPO Report, supra note 61, para. 150.
217 See UDRP, supra note 17, � 4.
218 See Froomkin, supra note 8, at 101.
219 See UDRP Rules, supra note 102, �� 5, 10, 13, 15; WIPO Report, supra note 61, para. 150.
220 See Froomkin, supra note 8, at 101.
221 See id.
222 See Weinberg, supra note 2, at 226.
223 See Froomkin, supra note 8, at 101.
224 See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 706 (2000); Weinberg, supra note 2, at 229; Independent Review Policy, supra note 124, � 2.
225 Weinberg, supra note 2, at 221.
226 See Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971).
227 See Weinberg, supra note 2, at 221, 231, 233.
228 Independent Review Policy, supra note 124, � 2; Reconsideration Policy, supra note 124.
229 Reconsideration Policy, supra note 124.
230 Independent Review Policy, supra note 124, � 2.
231 Id. � 6.
232 Id. �� 3.1, 5.12.3; see Weinberg, supra note 2, at 229.
233 See Weinberg, supra note 2, at 231.
234 See id.
235 See id.
236 See id.
237 See Independent Review, supra note 131.
238 See id.
239 See id.
240 See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 554 (2000); UDRP, supra note 17, �� 1–4; UDRP Rules, supra note 102, �� 3, 4, 5, 15.
241 See Yesler Terrace Cmty. Council, 37 F.3d at 448; UDRP, supra note 17, �� 1–4.
242 See UDRP, supra note 17, �� 1–4; UDRP Rules, supra note 102, �� 3, 4, 5, 15.
243 See 5 U.S.C. � 554(b)–(c); Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm’n v. McGrath 341 U.S. 123, 178 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); UDRP, supra note 17, �� 1–4; UDRP Rules, supra note 102, �� 3, 4, 5, 15.
244 See 5 U.S.C. � 554(b); UDRP Rules, supra note 102, � 4(a).
245 See 5 U.S.C. � 554(b); UDRP Rules, supra note 102, � 3(b)(ix).
246 See 5 U.S.C. � 554(c); UDRP Rules, supra note 102, � 5.
247 See McGrath, 341 U.S. at 178 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
248 See Froomkin, supra note 8, at 98–100; Thornburg, supra note 2, at 188, 196.
249 See Thornburg, supra note 2, at 189.
250 See id.; UDRP, supra note 17, �� 1–4; UDRP Rules, supra note 102, � 15(a).
251 See Thornburg, supra note 2, at 188, 196.
252 See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 551 (2000).
253 See id.
254 See infra notes 255–269 and accompanying text.
255 See 5 U.S.C. � 706; Dinwoodie & Helfer, supra note 7, at 207; Perritt, supra note 8, at 258–59.
256 See Perritt, supra note 8, at 258–59.
257 See 5 U.S.C. � 706; Perritt, supra note 8, at 258–59.
258 See Dinwoodie & Helfer, supra note 7, at 207.
259 See id.
260 See id.
261 See Weinberg, supra note 2, at 219–20, 225.
262 See id. at 221.
263 See id. at 219.
264 See id. at 221–22.
265 See id. at 221.
266 See Independent Review Policy, supra note 124, � 2; Reconsideration Policy, supra note 124.
267 See Dinwoodie & Helfer, supra note 7, at 254–55.
268 See id. at 258.
269 See Perritt, supra note 8, at 262.