Chapter 7 - notes


Chapter 6


p165


p166

1. See eg 'UK users ignore dot com websites' VNUNet 17 February 2000.

2. See Root-Zone Whois Information.

3. Nominet home page. For a recent doubt as to the precise status of Nominet, see 'Cohen disputes UK registry's legitimacy' Register 27 May 2005.

4. .ie domain registry home page.

5. Generic Top-Level Domains.

6. Wieworka, E, 'Uniting Scottish businesses with their Internet domains' (2002) 13 C&L (1) 21 (SCL).


p167

7. CentralNic home page.

8. IANA home page. On IANA's role see especially Abuse Issues and IP Addresses.

9. 'Cracking down on cyberspace land grabs' Register 11 June 2003.


p168

10. 'IPv6 domains primed for launch' ZDNet UK 26 July 2004.

11. See Root Name Servers.

12. See eg Kitz, V, 'ICANN may be the only game in town, but Marina del Rey isn't the only town on earth' (2004) 8 CLRTJ 281.


p169

13. Bylaws for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.

14. ICANN's Major Agreements and Related Reports.

15. eg 'US To Seek Greater Control Over ICANN' ECT 11 June 2002.


p170

16. Internet RFC/STD/FYI/BCP Archives.

17. Froomkin, M, 'Wrong turn in cyberspace: using ICANN to route around the APA and the constitution' (2000) 17 Duke LJ 17; Blue, L, 'Internet and domain name governance: Antitrust litigation and ICANN' (2004) 19 BTLJ 387 (Lexis).

18. For current membership see Board of Directors.

19. See Bylaws for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers especially arts VI and VII.

20. 'ICANN board adopts reform plan, ditches elections', Register 1 July 2002.

21. See Karl Auerbach home page; 'ICANN Board Member Wins Ruling' Wired 29 July 2002.

22. See the original Memorandum of Understanding (25 November 1998) and the successive amendments (up to no 6, 17 September 2003), all at ICANN's Major Agreements and Related Reports; 'We're stuck with ICANN: Official' Register 17 September 2003.


p171

23. Frankel, T, 'Accountability and Oversight of ICANN' (SSRN, September 2002); Komaitis, K, 'ICANN: Guilty as Charged?' [2003] 1 JILT.

24. See Litigation Documents.

25. See eg 'ICANN grows up at last' Register 24 May 2004.

26. For discussion see King, I, 'Internationalising Internet Governance: Does ICANN have a role to play?' (2004) 13 ICTL 243 (Taylor and Francis); Internet Governance: A Grand Collaboration [BIG DOWNLOAD - 3MB] (UN Conference, March 2004).


p172

27. Wilson, C, 'Internationalised domain names: problems and opportunities' [2004] CTLR 174; Wilson, C, 'Expanding the domain name system (DNS) with Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs)' (BILETA, April 2005).

28. English country names and code elements (ISO-3166).

29. 'Afghans plant flag in cyberspace' BBC News 10 March 2003.

30. 'This is what is happening to Iraq's Internet domain' Register 30 June 2004.


p173

31. See IANA Reports about ccTLDs. For an overview see Yu, P, 'The neverending ccTLD story' (SSRN, 2003).

32. See eg 'Europe threatens to invade ICANN' Register 10 February 2003.

33. See eg 'Net body accused of bullying tactics' BBC News 7 July 2002.

34. See CENTR home page; 'Europe sticks up two fingers at ICANN budget' Register 28 May 2004; 'Global poker game for the internet goes on' Register 3 May 2005.

35. For discussion see von Arx, K and Hagen, G, 'Sovereign Domains: A Declaration of Independence of ccTLDs from Foreign Control' (2002) 9 RJOLT 4.

36. See especially Regulations 2002/733/EC and 2004/874/EC.

37. Kalosieh, D, 'Network Solutions and the Alleged Privitization of the Domain Name System' (2000) 5 WVJOLT 3; 'Dot.com registrar sold for $21bn' BBC News 7 March 2000. See also 'VeriSign sells off NetSol' Register 16 October 2003.


p174

38. 'Spurned bidders slam ICANN .org redelegation' Register 2 September 2002; 'ISOC wins .org contract' Register 15 October 2002.

39. 'VeriSign and ICANN strike monster net deal' Register 25 October 2005.

40. Eg 'VeriSign ordered to stop domain slamming' OUT-LAW 20 June 2002.

41. 'Internet monopoly alert!' Register 18 July 2002; 'ICANN Board Approves Controversial Domain Name Service' E-Week 8 March 2004.

42. 'VeriSign calls ICANN bluff in world's biggest game of poker' Register 29 February 2004.

43. Verisign, Inc v ICANN 2004 US Dist LEXIS 17330 (CD California, 26 August 2004) (Lexis); 'VeriSign antitrust claim against ICANN rebuffed' Register 27 August 2004.

44. 'ICANN, VeriSign, and the Swamp' CircleID 13 November 2004.

45. '3rd Lawsuit Against VeriSign; Seeks Class Action Status' CircleID 29 September 2003.


p175

46. See Ciocchetti, C, 'The Internet opens its doors for .biz-ness' [2001] DLTR 34; Cave-Browne-Cave, J, '.biz means business - Fact or fiction?' (2002) 16 IRLCT 67 (Taylor and Francis).

47. 'New.net Cuts Out ICANN' Wired 8 April 2001.

48. Public Comments for Proposed Sponsored Top-Level Domains (ICANN, 31 March 2004); 'ICANN goes domain crazy' Register 14 December 2004.

49. Manheim, K and Solum, L, 'An Economic Analysis of Domain Name Policy' (2004) 25 HCELJ 317.

50. For some of the difficulties see Eastlake, D, '.sex Considered Dangerous' RFC 3675 (February 2004).

51. Lockheed Martin Corp v Network Solutions, Inc 194 F 3d 980 (9th Ct, 25 October 1999).


p176

52. For the history of the UDRP and its predecessor policies, see Halpero, M and Mehrotra, A, 'From international treaties to Internet norms' (2000) 21 UPJIEL 523 (Lexis); Rains, C, 'A domain by any other name' (2000) 14 Emory ILJ 355 (Lexis).

53. Yee, K, 'location.location.location: A Snapshot of Internet Addresses as Evolving Property' [1997] 1 JILT; Chander, A, 'The New, New Property' (2003) 81 Tx LR 715 (Lexis).

54. Lipton, J, 'What's in a (Domain) Name? Web Addresses as Loan Collateral' [1999] 2 JILT.


p177

55. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

56. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

57. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy para 2.

58. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy para 3, and see para 4i.

59. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy para 7.

60. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy para 5.

61. Approved Providers for Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. On differences between dispute resolution providers see Kesan, J and Gallo, A, 'The Market for Private Dispute Resolution Services' (SSRN, March 2005).


p178

62. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 3.

63. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 4.

64. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 5.

65. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 9.

66. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 15(b).

67. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 16.

68. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy para 6.

69. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy para 4g; Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 19.

70. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 7.

71. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rules 2 and 11.

72. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 14.

73. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 8.

74. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy para 8.


p179

75. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 10.

76. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 12.

77. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 13.

78. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 15.

79. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy para 4j.

80. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy para 4k.

81. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 15(e).

82. Flint, D, 'If at first you don't succeed' [2001] Bus L Rev 293.

83. Statistical Summary of Proceedings Under Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.


p180

84. For discussion see Helfer, L, 'International Dispute Settlement at the Trademark-Domain Name Interface' (2001) 29 Pepp LR 87 (Lexis)]; Christie, A, 'The ICANN Domain Name Dispute Resolution System as a Model for Resolving other Intellectual Property Disputes on the Internet' (2002) 5 JWIL. On online dispute resolution generally see below, p 260.

85. For contrasting approaches see: Thornburg, B, 'Fast, Cheap and Out of Control: Lessons from the ICANN Dispute Resolution Process' (2001) 7 JSEBL; Froomkin, M, 'ICANN'S "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy" - causes and (partial) cures' (2002) 67 Brook LR 605; Chan, P 'The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy as an Alternative to Litigation' (2002) 9 E-Law.

86. McCarthy, K, 'Why ICANN's domain dispute rules are flawed' Register 11 July 2001.

87. See especially Mueller, M, 'Rough Justice: An Analysis of ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy' (November 2000).

88. Geist, M, 'Fair.com?: An Examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in the ICANN UDRP' (2002) 27 Brook LR 903, 935.


p181

89. Statistical Summary of Proceedings Under Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

90. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy para 4a. The case law is now considerable. For one overview see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions.

91. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 15(e).


p182

92. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy rule 15(e).

93. eg Re maggi.com (WIPO case D2001-0916).

94. eg Re dw.com (WIPO case D2000-1202).

95. Quinn, G, 'Domain Names II' (2000) 1 TELJ (3) 2.

96. On federal trade mark law, see below, p 192.

97. Re shoes.biz (WIPO case DBIZ2002-00245).

98. Re les-pages-jaunes.com (WIPO case D2000-0490). But contrast the very similar Re londonyellowpages.com and 3 other domains (WIPO case D2005-0091).


p183

99. eg Re post-office.com (NAF case FA0102000096761).

100. eg Re manchesterairport.com (WIPO case D2000-0638).

101. eg Re harods.com (WIPO case D2003-0504).

102. eg Re microosoft.com (WIPO case D2001-0362).

103. Re abercrombieandfilth.com (WIPO case D2001-0900).

104. Re mcdonaldslovesbabies.com and 5 other domains (NAF case FA0304000155458).

105. Re dixonssucks.com (WIPO case D2000-0584).

106. Re natwestsucks.com (WIPO case D2000-0636).

107. Re natwestsucks.com (previous note), William Cornish (Panelist).


p184

108. Re asdasucks.net (WIPO case D2002-0857). See also Re guinness-beer-really-really-sucks.com and 10 other domains (WIPO case D2000-0996); Re lockheedmartinsucks.com and lockheedsucks.com (WIPO case D2000-1015).

109. See eg Re fullsailsucks.com (WIPO case D2003-0502).

110. See especially p 157.

111. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy para 4a, last sentence.

112. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy para 4c.


p185

113. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy para 4c.

114. eg Re 4you.com (NAF case FA0010000095847).

115. Re oxford-university.com (WIPO case D2000-0308).

116. Re jrrtolkien.com (WIPO case D2003-0837).

117. Re piercebrosnan.com (WIPO case D2003-0519).

118. Re juliaroberts.com (WIPO case D2000-0210).

119. Re madonna.com (WIPO case D2000-0847).

120. Re jeanettewinterson.com and 2 other domains (WIPO case D2000-0235).


p186

121. Re sting.com (WIPO case D2000-0596). On the celebrity cases generally see Verna, A, 'WWW.WHATSINA.NAME' (2004) 14 SHJSL 153 (Lexis).

122. eg Re montyroberts.net (WIPO case D2000-0299).

123. Re britanniabuildingsociety.org (WIPO case D2001-0505).

124. Re barcelona.com (WIPO case D2000-0505). For subsequent litigation over this domain see below, p 197.

125. Re stmoritz.com (WIPO case D2000-0617).

126. Re portofhelsinki.com (WIPO case D2001-0002).

127. Re newzealand.com (WIPO case D2002-0754).

128. Re mexico.com (WIPO case D2004-0242).

129. Re federalrepublicofgermany.biz (WIPO case D2004-0676).

130. eg Re polo-style.com and ralph-lauren-polo.com (WIPO case D2002-0148).


p187

131. Re buyvuarnetsunglasses.com (WIPO case D2000-0265).

132. Re telstra.org (WIPO case D2000-0003); Re crateandbarrel.org (WIPO case D2000-1195).

133. eg Re aerrianta.com (WIPO case D2000-1165).

134. eg Re worldwrestlingfederation.com (WIPO case D1999-0001), which was the first case decided under the UDRP.

135. eg Re cartoys.net (NAF case FA0002000093682); Re tombola.org (eResolution case AF-0422).


p188

136. Geissler, R, '"For Sale" Signs in Cyberspace' [2002] IPTF 111801.

137. eg Re nokiagirls.com (WIPO case D2000-0102).

138. eg Re telstra.org (WIPO case D2000-0003).

139. eg Re robbiewilliams.info (WIPO case D2002-0588).

140. eg Re nationalrentalcar.com (WIPO case D2000-1803).

141. For a general survey see Smith, G (ed), Internet law and Regulation, 3rd edn, 2002, pp107-160, London: Sweet and Maxwell.

142. Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service for country code top level domains (ccTLDs).

143. .IE Dispute Resolution Policy.

144. WIPO Dispute Resolution Rules of Procedure for .IE Domain Name Registrations.

145. World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center Supplemental Rules for .IE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.


p189

146. Dispute Resolution Service Policy; Procedure for the conduct of proceedings under the Dispute Resolution Service.


p191

147. Above, p 178.

148. See especially Dluhos v Strasberg 321 F 3d 365 (3rd Ct, 20 February 2003) (Lexis).


p192

149. US Code Title 15 §1114.

150. US Code Title 15 §1117(c).

151. US Code Title 15 §1125(c) and 1127 (definition of 'dilution'), inserted by Federal Trade Mark Dilution Act 1995.


p193

152. US Code Title 15 §1114(2)(d).

153. Panavision International v Toeppen 141 F 3d 1316 (9th Ct, 17 April 1998) (Lexis).

154. Cf the much more liberal decision in Avery Dennison Corp v Sumpton 189 F 3d 868 (9th Ct, 23 August 1999) (Lexis), on which see Margiano, R [1999] 3 JILT.

155. eg First Jewellery Company of Canada v Internet Shopping Network 2000 US Dist LEXIS 794 (SD NY, 1 February 2000) (Lexis).

156. eg Brookfield Communications v West Coast Entertainment Corp 174 F 3d 1036 (9th Ct, 22 April 1999) (Lexis); Hasbro, Inc v Clue Computing Inc 66 F Supp 2d 117 (D Mass, 2 September 1999) (Lexis).

157. For criticism see Akhtar, S and Cumbow, R, 'Why domain names are not generic: An Analysis of Why Domain Names Incorporating Generic Terms Are Entitled to Trademark Protection' (1999) 1 CKJIP 226; Le, C, 'Genericness doctrine need not apply' (2004) 14 FIPMELJ 1093 (Lexis).

158. Jews for Jesus v Brodsky 993 F Supp 282 (D NJ, 6 March 1998) (Lexis); Planned Parenthood v Bucci 1997 US Dist LEXIS 3338 (SD NY, 24 March 1997) (Lexis).


p194

159. Ford Motor Company v 2600 Enterprises 177 F Supp 2d 661 (ED Mich, 20 December 2001) (Lexis).

160. Bosley Medical Institute, Inc v Kremer 403 F 3d 672 (9th Ct, 4 April 2005) (Lexis). See generally on this issue Prince, D, 'Cyber-Criticism and the Federal Trademark Dilution Act: Redefining the Noncommercial Use Exemption' (2004) 9 VJOLT 12; Travis, P, 'The Battle for Mindshare' (2005) 10 VJOLT 3.

161. Inset Systems, Inc v Instruction Set, Inc 937 F Supp 161 (D Conn, 17 April 1996) (Lexis); Maritz, Inc v CyberGold, Inc 947 F Supp 1328 (E D Mo, 19 August 1996) (Lexis).

162. Zippo Manufacturing Co v Zippo Dot Com, Inc 952 F Supp 1119 (W D Pa, 16 January 1997) (Lexis); see above, p 61.

163. Toys 'R' Us v Step Two SA 318 F 3d 446 (3rd Ct, 27 January 2003) (Lexis).

164. US Code Title 15 §1125(a), inserted by Federal Trade Mark Dilution Act 1995.


p195

165. See eg 'US crime-fighters seize Web sites' ZDNet 26 February 2003.

166. For discussion see McGillivray, R and Lieske, S, 'Webjacking' (2001) 27 WMLR 1661.

167. 'Sex.com conman continues ludicrous legal fight' Register 1 May 2003; 'Sex.com ruling upheld by Court of Appeals' Register 5 April 2005.


p196

168. Kremen v Cohen 99 F Supp 2d 1168 (ND Ca, 8 May 2000) (Lexis).

169. Kremen v Cohen 314 F 3d 1127 (9th Ct, 3 January 2003) (Lexis), on which see Epstein, R, 'The Roman law of cyberconversion' [2005] MSLR 103 (Lexis).

170. 'Sex.com epic battle finally ends' Register 21 April 2004.

171. On which see below, p 199.

172. US Code Title 15 § 1114(2)(D)(v), inserted by the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act 1999.

173. Sallen v Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA 273 F 3d 14 (1st Ct, 5 December 2001) (Lexis).

174. Hawes v Network Solutions, Inc 337 F 3d 377 (4th Ct, 9 July 2003) (Lexis).


p197

175. Clark, G, 'The Truth In Domain Names Act Of 2003 and a preventative measure to combat typosquatting' (2004) 89 Corn LR 1476 (Lexis); Honig, M, 'The truth about the Truth In Domain Names Act: Why this recently enacted law is unconstitutional' (2004) 23 JMJCIL 141 (Lexis).

176. US Code Title 15 § 1125(d), inserted by Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act 1999.

177. See Barcelona.com Inc v Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona 330 F 3d 617 (4th Ct, 2 June 2003) (Lexis).

178. For an argument that the Act is unconstitutionally broad see Snow, N, 'The Constitutional failing of the Anticybersquatting Act' (2005) 41 Will LR 1 (Lexis).

179. See eg Taubman Co v Webfeats 319 F 3d 770 (6th Ct, 7 February 2003) (Lexis).

180. Bosley Medical Institute, Inc v Kremer 403 F 3d 672 (9th Ct, 4 April 2005) (Lexis).


p198

181. Eg Virtual Works, Inc v Volkswagen of America, Inc 238 F 3d 264 (4th Ct, 22 January 2001) (Lexis).

182. Eg Sporty's Farm v Sportsman's Market, Inc 202 F 3d 489 (2nd Ct, 2 February 2000) (Lexis).

183. For a case turning mainly on this point see Harrods Ltd v 60 Internet Domain Names 302 F 3d 214 (4th Ct, 23 August 2002) (Lexis).


p199

184. Lucas Nursery and Landscaping, Inc v Grosse 359 F 3d 806 (6th Ct, 5 March 2004) (Lexis).

185. US Code Title 15 § 1114(2)(d).

186. US Code Title 15 § 1117(d).

187. See Grotto, A, 'Due Process and In Rem Jurisdiction Under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act' (2001) 2 CSTLR 3.


p200

188. See Harrods Ltd v 60 Internet Domain Names 302 F 3d 214 (4th Ct, 23 August 2002) (Lexis).

189. See Nominet Terms and Conditions especially clauses 7 and 16-17.

190. Pitman Training Ltd v Nominet UK (Chancery Division, 22 May 1997).

191. Above, p 72; and see especially p 75 on jurisdiction.


p201

192. eg Musical Fidelity Ltd v Vickers [2002] EWHC 1000 Ch (Rimer J) (Lexis); [2002] EWCA Civ 1989 (CA) (Lexis); International Business Machines Corp v Web-Sphere Ltd [2004] EWHC 529 Ch.

193. Avnet Inc v Isoact Ltd [1998] FSR 16 (Lexis).

194. British Telecommunications plc v One In A Million Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 1272, [1999] 1 WLR 903.

195. eg Marks and Spencer plc v Cottrell (Chancery Division, 26 February 2001) (Lexis).


p202

196. Bonnier Media Ltd v Smith 2002 SCLR 977 (Lexis).

197. eg MBNA America Bank NA v Freeman (Chancery Division, 17 July 2000) (Lexis).

198. British Telecommunications plc v One In A Million Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 1272, [1999] 1 WLR 903.

199. Above, p 75.

200. British Telecommunications plc v One In A Million Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 1272, [1999] 1 WLR 903.

201. Metalrax Group plc v Vanci [2002] EWCA Civ 609.

202. See also Phones 4u Ltd v Phone4u.co.uk Internet Ltd [2005] EWHC 334 Ch (Lexis).

203. French Connection Ltd v Sutton (Chancery Division, 2 December 1999) (Lexis).


p203

204. Radio Taxicabs (London) Ltd v Owner Drivers Radio Taxi Services Ltd (Chancery Division, 12 October 2001), discussed by Calleja, R, (2002) 12 C&L (6) 23 (SCL).

205. Renault UK Ltd v Derivatives Risk Evaluation and Management Ltd (Chancery Division, 22 October 2000) (Lexis).

206. Easyjet Airline Co Ltd v Dainty [2002] FSLR 6.


p204

207. See British Telecommunications plc v One In A Million Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 1272, [1999] 1 WLR 903; Britannia Building Society v Prangley (Chancery Division, 12 June 2000) (Lexis).

208. Local Ireland Ltd v Local Ireland-Online Ltd [2000] IEHC 67, [2000] 4 IR 567.

209. Miss World Ltd v Miss Ireland Beauty Pageant Ltd [2004] IEHC 13.

 

FURTHER READING

Caral, J, 'Lessons from ICANN: Is self-regulation of the Internet fundamentally flawed?' (2004) 12 IJLIT 1 (Lexis).

Crawford, S, 'The ICANN experiment' (2004) 12 CJICL 409 (Lexis).

Epstein, R, 'The Roman law of cyberconversion' [2005] MSLR 103 (Lexis).


p205

Frankel, T, 'Governing by negotiation: The Internet naming system' (2004) 12 CJICL 449 (Lexis).

Froomkin, M, 'ICANN'S "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy" - causes and (partial) cures' (2002) 67 Brook LR 605.

Geist, M, 'Fair.com?: An Examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in the ICANN UDRP' (2002) 27 Brook JIL 903 (Lexis).

Hagen, G, 'Sovereign Domains and Property Claims' (2003) 11 IJLIT 1 (Lexis).

Palfrey, J, 'The end of the experiment: How ICANN's foray into global internet democracy failed' (2004) 17 HJOLT 409.

Sherry, S, 'Haste makes waste: Congress and the common law in cyberspace' (2002) 55 Vand LR 309 (Lexis).

Struve, C, and Wagner, R, 'Realspace Sovereigns in Cyberspace: Problems with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)' (2002) 17 BTLJ.

Thornburg, B, 'Fast, Cheap and Out of Control: Lessons from the ICANN Dispute Resolution Process' (2001) 7 JSEBL.

Weinberg, J, 'ICANN and the problem of legitimacy' (2000) 50 Duke LJ 187.


Chapter 8