• Review of Korean Society for Internet Information
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.68-77
• /
• 2013

This article consists of 3 parts. Part I is multi stakeholder approach on Internet governance system. Part II is analysis of the Korean Internet governance system. In this part, I explain relevant laws in Korea, including Korean Internet Address Resources Act. Part III is my suggestion on Korean Internet governance system using a multi stakeholder approach. First of all, the keyword of the Internet governance system is decision making process: that is, consensus based versus top-down approach. Then who are major players in Internet governance in national level? Government, or Private sectors such as business and civil society. Korean legal system for Internet governance shows a top-down decision making process. Major players are the government (that is, Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning) and KISA affiliated with the government. Other players include Internet Address Policy Committee, Korea Internet Governance Alliance, and NGOs. The key statute for Internet governance in Korea is Internet Address Resources Act of 2004. Articles 3 and 5 require the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning to take a proactive role in Internet governance. The government shall consult with the Internet Address Policy Deliberation Committee for Internet governance. Yet this Committee is established under the control of the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning. All members of this Committee are also commissioned or nominated by the Chairman of the Ministry. Meanwhile, there are also non-official organizations, including Sub-committee on Address & Infrastructure of Korea Internet Governance Alliance. I suggest to reform decision making process of Korean Internet governance system based on BOTTOM-UP process for CONSENSUS BASED DECISION. My suggested system includes the following: (1) The government hands over a major role in Internet governance to INDEPENDENT Internet policy organization. And the government participates in such organization as ONE of the players. (2) Nomination of this committee member must be bottom-up process for a genuine multi-stakeholder model including civil society, commercial organization, end-users and experts. (3) The government should establish plan for supporting the private sector's international activity on the long-term basis.

• Journal of Information Technology Services
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.129-148
• /
• 2014

Generally, the Internet Address Resources Act is intended to protect the public from acts of Internet "cybersquatting", a term used to describe the bad faith, abusive registration of Internet domain names. In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent, a court may consider factors such as, (1) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name, (2) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person, (3) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services, (4) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name, (5) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site, (6) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.167-187
• /
• 2007

As Korea has reached a free trade agreement with the United States of America, it is required to provide an appropriate procedure to ".kr" domain name disputes based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP). Currently, Internet address Dispute Resolution Committee(IDRC) established under Article 16 of the Act on Internet Address Resources provides the dispute resolution proceedings to resolve ".kr" domain name disputes. While the IDRC's proceeding is similar to the UDRP administrative proceeding in procedural aspects, the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy that is established by the IDRC and that applies to disputes involving ".kr" domain names is very different from the UDRP for generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) in substantial aspects. Under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement(KORUS FTA), it is expected that either the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy to be amended to adopt the UDRP or the IDRC to examine the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy in order to harmonize it with the principles established in the UDRP. It is a common practice of cybersquatters to warehouse a number of domain names without any active use of these domain names after their registration. The Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides that the complainant may request to transfer or delete the registration of the disputed domain name if the registrant registered, holds or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. This provision lifts the complainant's burden of proof to show the respondent's bad faith because the complainant is only required to prove one of the three bad faiths which are registration in bad faith, holding in bad faith, or use in bad faith. The aforementioned resolution procedure is different from the UDRP regime which requires the complainant, in compliance with paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP, to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the complainant carries heavy burden of proof under the UDRP. The IDRC should deny the complaint if the respondent has legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The UDRP sets out three illustrative circumstances, any one of which if proved by the respondent, shall be evidence of the respondent's rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides only a general provision regarding the respondent's legitimate rights or interests, the respondent can be placed in a very week foundation to be protected under the Policy. It is therefore recommended for the IDRC to adopt the three UDRP circumstances to guide how the respondent can demonstrate his/her legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. In accordance with the KORUS FTA, the Korean Government is required to provide online publication to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain name registrants. Cybersquatters often provide inaccurate contact information or willfully conceal their identity to avoid objection by trademark owners. It may cause unnecessary and unwarranted delay of the administrative proceedings. The respondent may loss the opportunity to assert his/her rights or legitimate interests in the domain name due to inability to submit the response effectively and timely. The respondent could breach a registration agreement with a registrar which requires the registrant to submit and update accurate contact information. The respondent who is reluctant to disclose his/her contact information on the Internet citing for privacy rights and protection. This is however debatable as the respondent may use the proxy registration service provided by the registrar to protect the respondent's privacy.