The Berkman Center is a research program founded to explore cyberspace, share in its study, and help pioneer its development. We represent a network of faculty, students, fellows, entrepreneurs, lawyers, and virtual architects working to identify and engage with the challenges and opportunities of cyberspace.

We investigate the real and possible boundaries in cyberspace between open and closed systems of code, of commerce, of governance, and of education, and the relationship of law to each. We do this through active rather than passive research, believing that the best way to understand cyberspace is to actually build out into it.

The commercialization of the Internet has dramatically increased the importance and economic value of domain names. The sets of alphanumeric characters denoting Internet addresses have become a major source of cash, controversy, and case law. Catchy dot-com phrases are splashed across billboards, buses, and Superbowl advertisements. Companies and individuals struggle over the more attractive and memorable of the names, resorting to the courts, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and the private market to settle their disputes. In late 1999, for example, the peak of the dot-com hype, eCompanies reportedly paid $7.5 million for the rights to the "business.com" tag -- the highest price ever to be paid for a domain name. Trademark law has proven to be an awkward device for resolving conflicts over domain names. For example, traditional trademark law allows two non-competing entities to utilize the same mark, as long as there is no likelihood of consumer confusion. However, in cyberspace only one .com domain utilizing the mark can exist. Accordingly, during the past four years, various jurisdictions have been experimenting with new legal systems for addressing such conflicts. The most important such regime is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which provides a quick and relatively inexpensive procedure to settle matters through mandatory arbitration, which registrants agree to when they register domain names. The UDRP allows a party to file a complaint with a pre-approved dispute resolution service provider to assert rights to another party's registered domain name if the name corresponds to the complainant's existing trademark or service mark. Another tool now available to U.S. trademark holders is the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows trademark holders to file suit against parties who allegedly "register, traffic in, or use" domain names identical or confusingly similar to their marks. A recent development that, together with the previous two, may alleviate the need to either pay enormous sums for domain names or to litigate or arbitrate their ownership is the process administered by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, of adding seven new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), such as .biz, .info and .name to the traditional ones, such as .com, .org and .net. This module describes and evaluates both the old and the new regimes -- and considers the various proposals currently on the table for further reform. We begin with two case studies, intended to whet your appetite. We then review the relevant technology and legal doctrines. Summaries of recent domain-names disputes follow. Finally, we propose some topics for the online discussion forum.

At its core, jurisdiction is about the boundaries of a sovereign's exercise of its power. What are reasonable constraints on its reach, such that faraway or otherwise unconnected people and institutions can be called to account by the sovereign? Closely related are concepts of choice of law - exactly which sovereign's law to apply to a situation that spans multiple jurisdictions - and venue, which determines the physical location in which the parties are best served to settle their dispute. The global nature of the internet - both its global reach and its perceived "boundaryless" architecture - presents a host of jurisdictional complexities for any sovereign seeking to define and / or enforce laws regulating its use. What are the proper boundaries of a sovereign's reach on the internet and how can these boundaries be implemented in practice? In exploring this issue, this module first reviews the basics of jurisdiction. Next, it describes the unique "boundarylessness" of the internet and recent technical efforts to circumvent this architectural characteristic. Finally, we discuss various perspectives on the optimal extent of "local" jurisdiction over the internet.