Though the Livingston County Board may be comfortable with the policy of ... The policy, drafted at the behest of the Elections, Rules and Legislation ... in addition to "research from the Internet, and consultation with local chambers of ...
Pai considers these rules a mistake that slows investment in internet infrastructure. His goal is to expand internet access, especially in rural areas ...
That came in a letter to Pai this week asking the FCC not only to rethink the broadband privacy rules but to reclassify Internet access as an information ...
Security expert Bruce Schneier says we're creating an Internet that senses, ... We need to make this a political issue, and demand a policy solution.
It manages federal use of spectrum and identifies additional spectrum for commercial use; develops policy on issues related to the “internet economy,” ...
Additionally, the number showed up on caller ID as “Sara” from Norwalk. But, like MRG Policy Polling, an internet search did not turn up who “Sara” ...
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) was designed as a quicker and less-expensive alternative to litigation. Although the UDRP policy and rules provide strict timelines for various stages of a UDRP case, how quickly a dispute is actually resolved can vary based on numerous factors.
A typical UDRP case results in a decision in about two months, but the facts of each case — including actions both within and outside the control of the parties — may shorten or extend that timing.
Here's how a common UDRP case proceeds:
Step 1 (Filing of Complaint):
A trademark owner has discretion to file a UDRP complaint at any time. While some panels have considered a "doctrine of laches," the WIPO Overview notes that "delay (by reference to the time of the relevant registration of the disputed domain name) in bringing a complaint does not of itself prevent a complainant from filing under the UDRP, or from being able to succeed under the UDRP, where a complainant can establish a case on the merits under the requisite three elements."
Step 2 (Compliance check):
The UDRP service provider (WIPO, the Forum, the Czech Arbitration Court and the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre) acknowledges receipt of a complaint within about one day of filing; submits a "verification request" to the registrar to confirm the accuracy of information about the domain name and the registrant; and reviews the complaint for "administrative compliance" with the UDRP policy and rules. Rules, paragraph 4(b). If the provider finds the complaint "administratively deficient," it "shall promptly notify the Complainant and the Respondent of the nature of the deficiencies identified." Rules, paragraph 4(d). The complainant will then have five calendar days to correct any deficiencies. If the disputed domain name was protected by a privacy service and the underlying registrant's identity disclosed after filing, the provider may invite the complainant to amend the complaint within the same five-day time period allowed for curing deficiencies.
Step 3 (Commencement):
Within three calendar days of the provider's receipt of the filing fee from the complainant, the provider "shall forward the complaint, including any annexes, electronically to the Respondent and Registrar and shall send Written Notice of the complaint (together with the explanatory cover sheet prescribed by the Provider's Supplemental Rules) to the Respondent." Rules, paragraph 4(c). This is commonly referred to as "commencement."
Step 4 (Filing of Response):
A respondent is required to submit its response within 20 days of commencement. Rules, paragraph 5(a). (Many respondents choose not to submit a response — but, failure to do so does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the complainant, because there is no default judgment available under the UDRP.) A respondent is automatically entitled to a four-day extension upon request. Rules, paragraph 5(b). And, "in exceptional cases," the service provider may grant additional extensions. Rules, paragraph 5(e).
Step 5 (Panel appointment):
The service provider is required to appoint a panel within five calendar days of receiving a response (if one is filed) or the deadline for a response (if one is not filed), if neither party has requested a three-member panel. Rules, paragraph 6(b). If a three-member panel is required, then the deadline for appointment may take 10 calendar days. Rules, paragraphs 6(c)-(e).
Step 6 (Decision):
The panel is required to ensure that a UDRP proceeding "takes place with due expedition," Rules, paragraph 10(c), and, unless there are "exceptional circumstances," it "shall forward its decision on the complaint to the Provider within fourteen (14) days of its appointment." Rules, paragraph 15(b). However, "exceptional circumstances" (which are not typically explained to the parties) are not uncommon. The provider is then required to notify the parties of the decision within three business days. Rules, paragraph 16(a).
Step 7 (Implementation):
If the panel's decision is an order to transfer the disputed domain name to the complainant, then the registrar is required to implement the decision after 10 business days. Policy, paragraph 4(k). In the rare event that a losing registrant notifies the registrar during the waiting period that it has "commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted" under the Rules, then the registrar will not implement the decision unless it receives evidence of "a resolution between the parties"; evidence that the "lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn"; or a court order dismissing the lawsuit or ordering that the registrant "do[es] not have the right to continue to use" the disputed domain name.
While all of the UDRP service providers must abide by the same deadlines set forth in the UDRP policy and rules described above, their supplemental rules and practices may result in slightly different timing over the course of a proceeding.
Plus, there are many factors that can alter the timing of a UDRP proceeding, such as supplemental filings from the parties, challenges in appointing panels, complicated cases (including, sometimes, disputes with a large number of domain names), panel orders and panel delays. Also, if the parties want to pursue a settlement, a case may be resolved without a decision — sometimes as soon as shortly after the filing of a complaint, sometimes longer than a decision would have taken.
Written by Doug Isenberg, Attorney & Founder of The GigaLaw Firm
Follow CircleID on Twitter
At the outset of the Trump presidency, there is considerable uncertainty around what the new administration might mean for tech policy, a deeply ...
Two of the hottest trends in networking today are network dis-aggregation and SDN. This is great for many reasons. It's also confusing. The marketing hype makes it hard to understand either topic. SDN has become so vague that if you ask 10 experts what it means, you are likely to get 12 different answers. Network dis-aggregation seems straightforward enough until it gets confused with SDN. We need to take a step back. In a recent Packet Pushers blog post; I start with a simple explanation of each of these trends and then map how they interact.
Software Defined Networking (SDN)
I try not so use the term "SDN." As Ethan recently pointed out, its been so badly abused that it has, essentially, lost all meaning. The flip side is that the term isn't going anywhere. Companies are selling SDN and executives are asking for SDN. Just like "cloud," we seem to be stuck with "SDN." The best we can do is work to agree on a common, if general, definition — and be more specific whenever possible.
For now, we're left to define the term every time we use it. At its core, I believe that SDN has two components; network automation, and network analytics. Automation encompasses concepts such as logically centralized management, network programmability, and network abstraction. Analytics provides the information you need to make informed decisions when planing, building, and operating your network. Analytics also provide the feedback needed for advanced automation (i.e. autonomous networks). Whether you use OpenFlow or overlays, whether you write your own Ansible playbooks or leverage complex orchestration systems; the fundamentals of SDN are always the same. Putting information into the network, and getting information out of the network.
Using this definition, I don't see SDN as an option as much as an inevitable progression of network management. Networks are becoming more and more vital to our society while the ratio of devices to engineer continues to climb. We must find ways to simplify network operations and increase network efficiency. Today, those solutions fall under the umbrella of SDN.
Here's another imperfect term. Taken literally, "network dis-aggregation" means to separate the network into its component parts. Wouldn't that just mean looking at individual routers, switches, and firewalls? More specifically, we probably should say 'network device dis-aggregation' or 'hardware and software dis-aggregation in network devices.' Too bad those phrases are so unwieldy.
What we're talking about here is the ability to source switching hardware and network operating systems separately. This is like buying a server from almost any manufacturer and then loading an OS of your choice. This is where I'm supposed to say, "thank the heavens that networking is finally catching up to systems." And it IS great that this is an option now. The proliferation of "whitebox" and "britebox" switching platforms, combined with the explosion of available network operating systems (NOS'), are together putting pricing and innovation pressure on the legacy "aggregated" networking vendors. Don't forget however why so many people love their Apple products; sometimes it still makes sense to engineer hardware and software together.
Combining Network Dis-aggregation and SDN
Deploying dis-aggregated network devices and deploying SDN are not the same thing. There is an obvious relationship between the two though.
To dig into how network dis-aggregation and SDN interact, and how they may guide your journey to the network you want, check out the full post on Packet Pushers!
Written by Chris Grundemann, Internet Technologist, Author, and Speaker; Principal Architect at Myriad Supply
Follow CircleID on Twitter
If the CIA can compromise smartphones as Wikileaks says, is it still possible to protect your privacy?
NordVPN helps anonymise browsing the Internet with its modern security protocols and no logs policy. WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram still remain ...
The global internet user gender gap widened from 11 percent in 2013 to 12 ... to address the barriers women face in access and use of the internet. ... The group plans to compile detailed evidence, integrate policy, address the ...
from Google Alert - Internet Governance http://ift.tt/2m918oN
from Google Alert - Internet Governance http://ift.tt/2mPMLDc
from Google Alert - Internet Governance http://ift.tt/2m9jPc2
from Google Alert - Internet Governance http://ift.tt/2mPP88O
from Google Alert - Internet Governance http://ift.tt/2m9cutf
from Google Alert - Internet Governance http://ift.tt/2mPx1zX
from Google Alert - Internet Governance http://ift.tt/2m9hduW
from Google Alert - Internet Governance http://ift.tt/2mPNcxe
China stands firm on monetary policy after Fed rate hike ... watch on non-performing assets, bond defaults, shadow banking and Internet finance.