The Best Laid Plans: How Unrestrained Arbitration Decisions Have Corrupted the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

I. INTRODUCTION In any expanding environment, limitations are sometimes needed to provide order and stability. The Internet revolution has penetrated every corner of the globe. National boundaries have failed to contain the amazing growth of this phenomenon. "From 1990 to 1997, the estimated number of Internet users grew from around one million to around 70 million,"(1) and these numbers have only grown since then. The number of Web sites and their corresponding domain names have reached staggering levels as well. As of March 2001, more than thirty-three million domain names had been registered, and more than twenty million of these domain names were for .com sites alone.(2) While the possibilities of the Internet seem limitless, the number of desirable domain names remains finite. As the Internet continues to grow, the number of available and desirable domain names continues to decrease. Given the limited supply of desirable domain names, disputes over these domain names were inevitable. Because of the breakneck speed of Internet growth, the jurisdictional problems inherent in an international network, and the sheer volume of domain names, courts of law do not always provide the best forum to decide these disputes. On October 24, 1999, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") approved the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("Policy") as a quick and inexpensive alternative to court proceedings for domain name disputes.(3) ICANN designed the Policy to apply commonly accepted international standards to disputes in order to achieve quick and economical domain name dispute resolutions. These dispute resolutions were intended to supplement court proceedings, not replace them entirely. The designers of the Policy limited the scope of its authority in order to keep the Policy in check while at the same time strengthening its foundation. Unfortunately, unrestrained arbitration decisions have threatened the Policy by shattering the internal safeguards that reinforced its foundation. This Note examines how unfettered arbitration decisions made with even the best of intentions can corrupt a good dispute resolution policy. Part II provides background information on ICANN, domain disputes involving cybersquatting and reverse domain hijacking, and the Policy. Part III explains how ICANN's dispute resolution providers' expansive decisions have weakened the Policy by removing the internal limitations that made it strong and effective. Finally, Part IV offers a discussion of how the Policy can still be saved through the exercise of restraint by ICANN's dispute resolution providers. II. CREATION OF THE UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY The Internet is structured on the domain name system, which functions as a user-friendly guide to navigate the Internet. Each host computer attached to the Internet has a "unique 32-bit Internet protocol ("IP") address that is separated into a series of four 8-bit groups."(4) Each unique IP address enables users to link with that particular host Web site. Because the average Internet user would find memorizing and identifying numerous strings of numbers a daunting task, however, a more user-friendly system emerged.(5) Domain names are the easy-to-remember words, numbers, or phrases that correspond to IP addresses.(6) The domain name system is composed of "two domain levels: a top-level and a second-level domain."(7) Top-level domains ("TLDs") include the generic TLDs: .com, .net, and .org.(8) Second-level domains ("SLDs") are the words or phrases that appear before the TLDs in addresses.(9) SLDs normally include descriptive words that reflect the ownership or purpose of the Web site, often including the name or trademark of an individual or company.(10) Because each address is unique, two Web sites cannot have the same SLD if they also have the same TLD. In the real world, more than one company or person can share a name, but on the Internet only one entity can use that name for a . …