This paper examines the dispute between the Seattle company Virtual Countries Inc. and the Republic of South Africa over the ownership of the domain name address southafrica.com. The first part of the paper deals with the pre-emptive litigation taken by Virtual Countries Inc. in a District Court of the United States. The second part considers the possible arbitration of the dispute under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Process of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and examines the wider implications of this dispute for the jurisdiction and the governance of ICANN. The final section of the paper evaluates the Final Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barcelona.com, Inc. v Excelentisimo Ayntamiento de Barcelona (2002) ED Va 00-CV-1412
2.
Brisbane City Council v Joyce Russ Advertising Limited (2001) WIPO Case No. D2001-0069
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property1883
20.
BayersChris2000, ‘Mission Impossible: Esther Dyson and Governance of ICANN’, Wired, vol. 8, no. 12
21.
BenklerYochai2000, ‘From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Commons and User Access’, Federal Communications Law Journal, vol. 52, p. 561
22.
BoyleJames2000, ‘A Nondelegation Doctrine for the Digital Age’, Duke Law Journal, vol. 50, p. 5
EvansGail2001, ‘Comment on the Terms of Reference and Procedure for the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process’, European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 23, no. 2, p. 61
25.
FarberDavidNeumannPeterWeinsteinLauren2002, ‘Overcoming ICANN: Forging Betters Paths for the Internet’, People for Internet Responsibility, www.pfir.org/statements/icann
26.
FroomkinA. Michael2000, ‘Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA and The Constitution’, Duke Law Journal, vol. 50, p. 17
27.
FroomkinA. Michael2001a, 'Comments on WIPO 2’, 4 June, www.icannwatch.org
Republic of South Africa2000, 'Press Release: South Africa Seeks to Securewww.southafrica.com', 30 October
34.
Republic of South Africa2001, ‘Submission by Republic of South Africa in Response to the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process’, 1 March 2001, www.polity.org.za/govdocs/pr/2001/pr0301a.html
35.
SharrockLisa2001, ‘The Future of Domain Name Dispute Resolution: Crafting Practical International Legal Solutions from Within the UDRP Framework’, Duke Law Journal, vol. 51, p. 817
36.
ThornburgElizabeth2000, ‘Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution’, University of California at Davis Law Review, vol. 34, p. 151
37.
WeinbergJonathan2000, ‘ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy’, Duke Law Journal, vol. 50, p. 187
38.
WIPO2001a, 'The Recognition of Rights and the Use of Names in the Internet Domain Name System’, Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, 12 April 2001, http://wtpo2.wipo.int
39.
WIPO2001b, 'The Recognition of Rights and the Use of Names in the Internet Domain Name System’, Final Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process', 3 September 2001, http://wipo2.wipo.int
40.
WIPO2002, 'The Protection of Country Names in the Domain Name System’, Special Session on the Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, Standing Committee on the Law of Trade Marks, Designs, and Geographical Indications, 21–24 May
41.
ZittrainJonathan1999, ‘ICANN: Between the Public and the Private — Comments Before Congress’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 14, p. 1071
42.
Internet Corporation for Assigning Names and Numbers: www.icann.org
