ABSTRACT
With the increasing importance of the internet in daily life, it has become subject to various regulations. One area of regulation is the management of domain names, which are acquired for sharing websites across the internet. Domain names are closely related to commercial law and intellectual property law, and various studies have been carried out at national and international level. What is just as important, however, is the allocation and management of domain names. There are two aspects of domain name management: national and international. This paper discusses domain name management in Turkey. The current allocation system of domain names, which is “nic.tr” and the “.tr Network Information System (TRABIS)” that will be implemented in the near future, is examined within the framework of current developments.
I. INTRODUCTION
Various regulations have been implemented through national and international institutions to regulate developments in the field of the internet. Beyond any doubt, one of the most crucial issues is domain names. Not only are people and organisations accessible on the internet through their domain names, the names themselves have become objects of value, particularly those that are easy to remember, some of which have been sold for exorbitant amounts. Turkish law and international institutions have introduced various regulations to resolve domain name problems and to regulate the field. In this paper, the concept of domain name will first be discussed, then the management of domain names in Turkey, followed by an examination of the related current regulations. The paper will also explain in detail the control of domain names, which comes under two different sections: Middle East Technical University (“METU”) domain name management, which is the current system, and TRABIS (.tr network information system), the system that will come into force with the transfer of domain name allocation authority from METU to the Information and Communications Technologies Authority (“ICTA”), following adoption of the Regulation on Internet Domain Names (“Regulation”)1.
A domain name is defined in the Electronic Communications Code numbered 58092 (“Code No. 5809”)2 as a name identifying the internet protocol number used to determine the address of the computer on the internet or of internet sites (art. 3/v). In the early days of internet usage, each website had a specific numeric code (IP number). The domain name system was developed because these codes were difficult to remember3. The internet domain name system refers to the system that maps an internet address, which includes an easy to read and memorable name that will come up in general searches, to the internet protocol number4.
The domain name management system is divided into generic top-level domain name and country code level domain name management5. Generic domain name management refers to allocated numbers and names and is carried out by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”), while country code domain name management is carried out by authorized public domain registrars. In Turkey, management of “.tr.“ coded domain names, their allocation, and resolution of any dispute relating to these domain names is conducted at the national level6. However, accreditation of institutions that allocate national code domain names is subject to ICANN approval in order to ensure coordination of internet domain name management at the international level7. In other words, ICANN has essential functions both within the national and international domain name management systems8.
The difference between generic top-level domain name management and national code domain name management is subject to court decisions. The Court of Cassation stated, for example, that: “It is certain that writings subject to the dispute were published on the website named körfezinsesi.com. Middle East Technical University (METU) has the authority to examine ‘.tr.’ code domain name applications of all domestic/foreign institutions, organizations, and persons and to allocate the appropriate domain names via ‘Nic.tr.’ management, under the Guidelines of ICANN and IANA. There is a possibility to access information about the website because real and legal persons who want to create ‘.tr.’ code domain names shall apply to the institution mentioned above with the required documents. However, it is not so easy to access the credentials of ‘.com.’ domain names. Today, internet service providers have the opportunity to create websites for a specific price, and the information provided for this service is not necessarily accurate information. Any person has the opportunity to develop a website on behalf of a person who does not exist. Although the defendant did not deny the contents of the writings in question and argued that they were right, it is not clear from the contents of the file whether the person who wrote the papers was the defendant or not, whether they were connected with the writings or not.”
We have noted the difference between “.tr.” code domain names and generic top-level domain names allocated by ICANN. The following is a brief explanation of the management of generic domain names and a detailed discussion of the management system of domain names in Turkey.
II. MANAGEMENT OF GENERIC DOMAIN NAMES
ICANN conducts the allocation of domain names and their worldwide control. ICANN 9is an international level non-profit organization and private institution that benefits the public10. ICANN aims to operate with transparency and to enable competition in the internet market under the principles determined within international law and international treaties. It has the following commitments11:
- Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet,
- Maintain the capacity and ability to coordinate the DNS at the overall level and work for the maintenance of a single, interoperable Internet,
- Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, multi stakeholder policy development processes that are led by the private sector, while duly taking into account the public policy advice of governments and public authorities,
Make decisions by applying documented policies consistently, neutrally, objectively, and justly, without singling out any particular party for discriminatory treatment. The ICANN commitments are also applied to allocation transactions of “.tr.” code domain names in Turkey. Principles that apply to the management of domain names come under article 4 of the Regulation on Internet Domain Names12. ICANN’s worldwide management of domain names is seen as essential to ensuring the uniqueness of domain names and to prevent confusion13.
Domain names that remain under ICANN’s jurisdiction are domain names that are not generally allocated to any country. ICANN allocates generic top-level domain names itself or through authorized institutions14. For example, the allocation of common domain names such as ‘.com,’ ‘.org’, ‘.net’ are conducted by the institutions authorized by ICANN. As a rule, the ‘first-come, first-served’ principle applies in the management of generic top-level domain names within the framework of ICANN’s authority15.
Apart from allocating and managing internet domain names worldwide, ICANN has an arbitration mechanism to resolve disputes arising in relation to internet domain names16. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), which was issued by ICANN on October 24, 1999, applies to disputes related to generic top-level domain names17.
III. MANAGEMENT OF DOMAIN NAMES IN TURKEY
Management of domain names in Turkey concerns ‘.tr’ coded domain names, the code designated for Turkey at the international level. Because a second-level sub-domain model is adopted in our country, the ‘.tr.’ code does not appear directly after the domain name18. A further sub-code comes before the ‘.tr’ code, such as ‘.edu,’ ‘.com’, ‘.org’ depending on the domain name’s subject or field of activity. Registration and management of ‘.tr.’ code domain names is conducted by ‘nic.tr’, which has been affiliated to METU in Turkey since 199019. METU has had this authority for some time, but there has recently been concerted effort to transfer the domain name management authority to a public institution or at least to another institution under the management and supervision of a public institution, as in other countries20. For this purpose, in accordance with articles 5 and 35 of Code No. 5809, the Ministry of Transportation was authorized to develop strategies and policies related to electronic communication services based on scarce resources, such as numbering, internet domain names, satellite position, frequency allocation, and to determine which institutions or organizations will allocate ‘.tr’ code internet domain names and relevant procedures and principles related to domain name management. Accordingly, ICTA was authorized to allocate internet domain names under the Ministry’s approval dated February 3, 2009 and numbered 305. Subsequently, a new domain name management system for Turkey was proposed by the Ministry of Transportation with the publication of the Regulation on Internet Domain Names on November 7, 2010. With this system, abbreviated as TRABIS21, it is expected that there will be a more modern internet domain name management that enables easier allocation of domain names and resolution of disputes arising from them.
Many provisions of the Regulation relating to the management of internet domain names enter into force upon the implementation of TRABIS22. However, TRABIS has yet to be established and management of domain names will not transfer from METU until it is. Although it has been nearly ten years since the publication of the Regulation, it was still a significant development in domain name management in Turkey. The main reason TRABIS has not yet begun to operate is that METU DNS Management, which has been allocating ‘.tr.’ domain names since the 1990s, filed a suit with the Council of State to cancel the Regulation23. Together with technical difficulties establishing TRABIS, a lack of the required technical support from METU 24, and the ICANN process for the approval of ICTA, this has slowed down the establishment of TRABIS.
However, METU and ICTA did reach agreement on transfer within the framework of the system and signed the protocol in December 201825. The transaction for the transfer of internet domain name allocation and management of ‘.tr.’ code domain names to ICTA was then submitted to ICANN for approval, which was officially approved on May 3, 2019. However, to prevent possible problems during the transition process, ICTA and METU agreed that internet domain name management and the allocation of ‘.tr’ code domain names would still be carried out by METU DNS Management for a further two years from the date TRABIS begins to operate. It is therefore worth looking at the two systems separately.
A. METU Domain Name Management System
As pointed out, METU DNS Management’s authority to register and manage domain names will continue a further two years after TRABIS begins to operate. Here we examine the ‘.tr.’ code domain name application system through the METU governed ‘nic.tr’ system.
General information regarding the METU DNS Management domain name registration system can be found in the Guidelines under “‘.tr.’ Domain Name Policies, Rules, and Procedures“ (“Rules”)26. According to the Rules, real or legal persons can apply for a domain name through the link www.nic.tr. Following online application, the required documents must be submitted to METU ‘.tr’ Domain Name Administration in a maximum of fifteen days. Once the reports have been completed, the domain name is allocated within at most two days, on behalf of the applicant. ‘.tr’ domain names are classified into two categories: “Document(s) Required” and “No Document Required“ at the allotment stage through ‘nic.tr’ (Rules, art. 12). In contrast to the first-come, first-served principle adopted by ICANN, the METU DNS Management governed allocation system is a combined system, mostly based on the “Document(s) Required” type27. In other words, METU follows quite a strict policy for allocating ‘.tr’ domain names28. Therefore, application for many domain names requires the submission of certain documents. For example, while document submission is not required for web.tr, gen.tr, name.tr, tel.tr, etc. domain names, applicants must provide any documents required to apply for common domain names such as com.tr, info.tr, biz.tr, net. tr, org.tr. In applications for “No Document Required” domain names, the domain name is immediately allocated. “Document(s) Required” type domain name applications, on the other hand, are assessed and finalized by the ‘.tr.’ Domain Name Administration, according to the rules stated in this document. Applicants for “Document(s) Required” type domain names are required to choose a different name or mark and to own that name/ mark29. Although the “Document(s) Required” type domain names decrease unfair allocation of domain names, they can cause diminishment in preferability of ‘.tr.’ domain names as this is a more complicated and exhausting process30. For this reason, there are less domain names based on the “Document(s) Required” type in the new system stipulated by the Regulation.
B. TRABIS Domain Name Management
Internet Domain Name Regulation includes fundamental principles and rules regarding internet domain names that have not previously been regulated in Turkish law. The Regulation aims to manage the allocation of domain names in Turkey more practically and to resolve disputes in a more efficient way. All provisions of the Regulation will be in force after TRABIS comes into effect. Therefore, the Regulation’s requirements regarding domain names are worth examining in more detail.
The Regulation details the duties and authorities of ICTA, which is authorized to manage internet domain names in Turkey by law no. 5809. Accordingly, ICTA is assigned to establish and supervise TRABIS, or to supervise a third person to develop and administer it, to accredit the registrars and dispute resolution service providers, to determine sub-domain names that will be available for allocation or prevented from use, to determine the necessary documents for “Document(s) Required” domain names, and to perform essential works require by international institutions such as ICANN. In addition, ICTA has the authority to introduce regulations to perform its duties and to control registrars and dispute resolution service providers (Regulation, art. 15).
The Regulation states that marks shall be allocated as a domain name. Only letters (a-z), numbers (0-9), and hyphen (-) can be used in domain names. A domain name can include at least two characters and at most sixty-three characters. A domain name must not begin or end with a hyphen or include two sequential hyphens at the third and fourth characters. In addition, the domain name applied for may not be allocated to another person or be on the list of those “closed to allocation” (art. 6). Persons can apply to the Registrars authorized by ICTA online via their websites for marks that fulfil the conditions listed in the Regulation.
As in the METU ‘nic.tr’ system, TRABIS also has two categories of domain name: “Document(s) Required” and “No Document Required”. For “No Document(s) Required” domain names, the first-come, first-served principle applies (Regulation, art. 8). However, contrary to the METU system, TRABIS provides an allocation system similar to free registration systems31. In that sense, it is not required to submit any document for domain name applications except those mentioned below: Registrar institutions regulated in the new system are essential. Registrars are intermediary institutions that offer allocation, renewal, and cancellation of domain name services (Regulation, art. 3). The Regulation states that transactions regarding domain name allocations can be made through ICTA as well as registrars. After TRABIS comes into operation, it will be possible to apply to registrars authorized by ICTA for domain name sales. Additionally, persons making a domain name transaction through a specific registrar will be able to change it and to transfer to another registrar (Regulation, art. 20).
TRABIS also introduces a new alternative resolution mechanism (Dispute Resolution Service Provider) for disputes arising from domain names. Dispute Resolution Service Providers are defined as professional organizations, universities, and international institutions determined by ICTA to manage the resolution process of disputes arising from domain names through an arbitrator or arbitration board (Regulation, art. 3). The provisions of the Regulation regarding alternative dispute resolution mechanisms aim to provide a faster resolution process.
C. Differences of the New Management System
The Regulation is the first set of regulations covering the field of domain names. Although METU Domain Name Management determined some rules, created the DNS Working Group, and worked diversely on the management of domain names, there were no legal regulations. Therefore, the introduction of the Regulation can be seen as a significant step in terms of domain name regulation in Turkish law32.
The METU domain name allocation system was stricter than the new system and mostly based on the “Document(s) Required” type, while TRABIS, under control of ICTA, provides freer domain name management33. For example, no document is required in TRABIS for the allocation of com.tr, info.tr, org.tr domain names.
Under METU domain name allocation rules, the ‘.tr’ country code domain names could not be sold, rented, or transferred (Rules, art. 2). The purpose of this prohibition was to avoid the misuse of domain names34. In contrast, the Regulation enables domain names to be sold, rented, or transferred (art. 3), which will be possible once TRABIS begins to operate35. It should be noted, at this point, that the sale, rent, or transfer of domain names based on the Regulation are not currently possible because not all provisions of the Regulation have entered into force. The Turkish Court of Cassation stated that36:
“After examination of all content of case files, current evidence and alleged appeal reasons, Ankara Regional Court of Justice ordered as follows: Pursuant to article of Electronic Communication Code numbered 5809, determination of institutions to allocate domain names and the establishment of principles and requirements, the Ministry shall make regulations for domain name management of Communications. The Regulation on Internet Domain Names, which was accordingly prepared by the Ministry, stipulates that the ‘.tr network information system’ (TRABIS) should be established to operate ‘.tr’ domain names and its database, to create the Guidelines, to update them, to provide guideline services, and to enable timely domain name applications and other transactions. In the provisional article 1 of the Regulation, it is stated that the current operation shall remain until TRABIS is founded. In this sense, it is evident that the management of domain names is still under the authority of the ‘nic.tr’ system of defendant university’s, yet TRABIS has not, however, been founded. Although there is not a code regulating the matters of domain names in our law, there is no obstacle to applying the guideline ‘.tr’ Domain Names Policies, Rules, and Procedures, which were prepared by METU DNS Working Group to determine ‘.tr’ code domain names. It is stated that all real or legal applicants of ‘.tr’ domain names shall accept the methods and rules indicated in the Guidelines. It is also stated that sale, rent or transfer of ‘.tr’ domain names to third persons are not permitted and these transactions shall be cancelled in the event of determination…”
As stated in the above decision, although the Regulation introduces some new provisions, the date of entry into force of each of the Regulation’s requirements is crucial.
Provisions of the Regulation regarding Registrars and Dispute Resolution Service Providers can also be evaluated as new. Before the Regulation, any disputes that arose regarding the country code domain names were resolved by the ‘.tr’ DNS Working Group. If the dispute was not resolved in this way, the case could be heard by competent courts37. The Regulation, however, offers a new dispute resolution mechanism38. The Regulation aims to provide alternative, fast, and cheap dispute resolution mechanisms by referring conflicts arising from domain names to dispute resolution service providers consisting of professionals in intellectual property and information technology law39. An arbitrator’s decision is finalized and implemented by TRABIS, unless one of the parties files a suit during the arbitration or within ten days following the date of notification of the arbitrator’s decision. The arbitration mechanism stipulated by the Regulation is inspired by the ICANN arbitration mechanism40. In addition to the Regulation’s provisions, Notification on the Dispute Resolution Mechanism for Internet Domain Names 41includes detailed requirements about dispute resolution service providers.
It should be noted that despite many improvements in domain name management, some issues have yet to be resolved. For example, ICTA does not have any legal liability in event of infringement of intellectual property rights by owners of domain names, as was the case in the METU system42. In other words, registrars or designated authorities are not liable for any claims based on infringement of intellectual property rights in either the new or the old system.
IV. CONCLUSION
As a result of widespread internet usage and e-commerce, domain names have a crucial importance and need to be regulated both at the national and international levels. It is not possible to control domain names by national laws alone as the issue has an international dimension. The management of domain names is currently classified into two levels: public management and international (generic top-level) domain name management. While the USA-based ICANN governs generic top-level domain names, management of domain names in Turkey can be separated into two periods: the first being METU Domain Name management, the system that existed before the Regulation on Internet Domain Names entered into force, and the second being TRABIS, which is regulated in the Regulation. This paper examined both METU Domain Name management and the management system controlled in the Regulation and their differences, although TRABIS has not yet begun to operate because of legal hurdles and technical difficulties. A particular focus was given on the differences resulting from the Regulation in domain names management in Turkey. Because TRABIS has yet to come into force, it is not comprehensively evaluated in this paper. Once TRABIS has begun to operate, it will be essential to study any developments in the management of domain names and resolutions of disputes arising from domain names.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALKAN, MUSTAFA / CANBAY, Cafer, İnternet Alan Adları Yönetimi, Mevcut Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri, (Access date: 01.07.2019) https://www.btk.gov.tr/uploads/pages/ slug/internet-alan-adlari-yonetimi-mevcut-sorunlar-vecozum-onerileri.pdf
BAL, NURULLAH, “İnternet Alan Adları ve İnternet Alan Adı Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkim Yoluyla Çözümlenmesi”, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 17, Issue: 1-2, 2013. DAL, SENİHA, “Türk Hukukunda İnternet Alan Adları (Domain Names) ve Bu Alandaki Son Gelişmeler”, Marmara Üniversitesi İnsani ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Issue: 1, 2010.
KARAMAN, ZELİHA, İnternet Alan Adı Uyuşmazlıkları ve Çözüm Yolları, 1. Ed. (Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2017).
KIZILKAYA, SİNEM, “Alan Adı ve Alan Adının Hukuken Korunması”, Terazi Hukuk Dergisi, Issue: 62, October 2011.
OĞUZ, SEFER, “İnternet Alan Adı (Domain Name) Haklarının Korunması”, Unpublished PhD Thesis, The University of Selcuk, The Institute of Social Sciences, Konya 2011.
OĞUZ, SEFER, “Alan Adını Düzenleyen Türk İkincil Mevzuatının Değerlendirilmesi”, Terazi Hukuk Dergisi, Volume: 9, Issue: 97, September 2014.
SOYSAL, TAMER, “İnternet Alan Adları Sistemi ve Tahkim Kuruluşlarının UDRP Kurallarına Göre Verdikleri Kararlara Eleştirel bir Yaklaşım”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Issue: 21, 2006. ŞENOCAK, KEMAL, “Tescilli Markanın Aynısının veya Benzerinin Alan Adı (Domain Name) Olarak Kullanılması Suretiyle Marka Hakkının İhlali”, BATİDER, Volume: 25, Issue: 3, 2009.
ŞENTÜRK, BEREN, “Alan Adının Tanıtma Vasıtalarından Doğan Haklara Aykırı Kullanımı”, Unpublished LLM Dissertation, The University of Gazi, The Institute of Social Sciences, İstanbul 2011.
COURT OF CASSATIONS DECISIONS The Court of Cassation, 4. C.D., T. 23.05.2007, E. 2006/8350, K. 2007/6880. The Court of Cassation, 4. C.D., T. 15.11.2016, E. 2015/10593, K. 2016/11227. The Court of Cassation, 11. C.D., T. 01.07.2019, E. 2018/1996, K. 2019/5016.
FOOTNOTE
1 The Official Gazette (OG), dated 07.11.2010, numbered 27752.
2 The OG, Repeated, dated 10.11.2008, numbered 27050.
3 Kemal ŞENOCAK, “Tescilli Markanın Aynısının veya Benzerinin Alan Adı (Domain Name) Olarak Kullanılması Suretiyle Marka Hakkının İhlali”, BATİDER, 2009, Volume: XXV, Issue: 3, p. 92.
4 Code No. 5809, art. 3/y.
5 WIPO, Guide to WIPO Domain Name Dispute Resolution. Wipo Publication No: 892(E), 2008, https:// www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/ en/docs/guide-en-web.pdf, (Access date: 01.07.2019), p. 3.
6 Zeliha KARAMAN, İnternet Alan Adı Uyuşmazlıkları ve Çözüm Yolları, 1. Edition (Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2017), p. 33.
7 Report on the Transfer of the .TR (Turkey) country-code top-level domain to Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İletişim Kurumu (BTK), https://www.iana.org/ reports/2019/tr-report-20190417. html, (Access date: 07.07.2019).
8 The Court of Cassation, 4 C.D., T. 23.05.2007, E. 2006/8350, K. 2007/6880.
9 Şenocak, p. 95.
10 Karaman, p. 33.
11 ICANN, Governance Guidelines, 2008, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/guidelines-en, (Access date: 03.07.2019).
12 ARTICLE 4:”(1) Below mentioned principles are considered in application of this Regulation: a) Unless objective reasons require otherwise, quantitative and qualitative continuation, non-discrimination, regularity, effectiveness, objectivity, proportionality, transparency, effective use of resources and technology free behaviour, b) Providing and protecting free and competitive field, c) Protection of consumers’ rights, ç) Encouraging to enhance the quality of services, d) Consideration of international practices and standards, e) Practices regarding domain names to be appropriate for the country conditions, effective and long term solutions, f) Encouraging practices which can be easily benefited from in reasonable conditions, g) To avoid compulsory purchase of any services except the services requested by real and legal persons, ğ) Protection of third persons’ rights.”
13 ŞENOCAK, p. 95.
14 KARAMAN, p. 33.
15 KARAMAN, p. 34.
16 Sinem KIZILKAYA, “Alan Adı ve Alan Adının Hukuken Korunması”, Terazi Hukuk Dergisi, October 2011, Issue: 62, p. 20.
17 KARAMAN, p. 37.
18 Seniha DAL, “Türk Hukukunda İnternet Alan Adları (Domain Names) ve Bu Alandaki Son Gelişmeler”, Marmara Üniversitesi İnsani ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2010, Issue: 1, p. 482.
19 ŞENOCAK, p. 95.
20 For criticism of METU Domain Name Management, please see Mustafa ALKAN/Cafer CANBAY, İnternet Alan Adları Yönetimi, Mevcut Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri, https://www.btk. gov.tr/uploads/pages/slug/internet-alan-adlari-yonetimi-mevcut-sorunlar-ve-cozum-onerileri.pdf (Access date: 01.07.2019), p. 22; Beren ŞENTÜRK, “Alan Adının Tanıtma Vasıtalarından Doğan Haklara Aykırı Kullanımı”, Unpublished LLM Dissertation, The University of Gazi, The Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara 2010, p. 15.
21 TRABIS is the abbreviation of the term .tr network information system. TRABIS is defined in the Regulation as “the system established to operate ‘.tr’ domain names and its database, to create the guidelines, to update them, to provide guideline services and to enable timely domain name application and other transactions in a secure and continuous manner” (3/1-n).
22 Only articles 14, 15, 24 and the provisional article 1 of the Regulation entered into force on the date of its publication. Article 13 of the Regulation will enter into force after 3 years following the establishment of TRABIS, while the provisional article 3 of the Regulation will enter into force 12 months following the establishment of TRABIS. On the other hand, other provisions of the Regulation will enter into force at the date of establishment of TRABIS (Regulation, art. 33). As shown, only a few of the provisions of the Regulation are effective as TRABIS has not yet started to operate.
23 For the declaration of the METU President Mustafa Verşan Kök on May 8, 2019, which states that the legal process before the Council of State was concluded with the advisory decision for the parties to reach an agreement, please see https:// turk-internet.com/odtu-rektorlugu-nictr-devri-icin-btk-ile-anlasma-yapmis/ (Access date: 19.09.2019).
24 As a matter of fact, because METU did not provide the necessary technical support to ICTA, a lawsuit was filed against METU by ICTA on the grounds they delayed the establishment of TRABIS. See: The Court of Cassation, 4. C.D., T. 15.11.2016, E. 2015/10593, K. 2016/11227.
25 Bilgi Teknolojileri İletişim Kurumu, 2018 Faaliyet Raporu, https://www. btk.gov.tr/uploads/announcements/ bilgi-teknolojileri-ve-iletisim-kurumu-2018-faaliyet-raporu-yayimladi/ faaliyet-raporu-2018.pdf, (Access date: 03.07.2019), p. 81.
26 For an English version of the Guidelines visit. https://www.nic.tr/ forms/eng/policies.pdf?PHPSES- SID=1569934561195175207170537 783 (Access date: 03.07.2019)
27 Sefer OĞUZ, “İnternet Alan Adı (Domain Name) Haklarının Korunması”, Unpublished PhD Thesis, The University of Selcuk, The Institute of Social Sciences, Konya 2011, (Hakların Korunması) p. 58.
28 Nurullah BAL, “İnternet Alan Adları ve İnternet Alan Adı Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkim Yoluyla Çözümlenmesi”, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2013, Volume: 17, Issue: 1-2, p. 339.
29 OĞUZ, Hakların Korunması, p. 61.
30 DAL, p. 487.
31 OĞUZ, Hakların Korunması, p. 59.
32 OĞUZ, Hakların Korunması, p. 449.
33 Sefer OĞUZ, “Alan Adını Düzenleyen Türk İkincil Mevzuatının Değerlendirilmesi”, Terazi Hukuk Dergisi, September 2014, Volume: 9, Issue: 97, (İkincil Mevzuat) p. 73.
34 BAL, p. 340.
35 KARAMAN, p. 42.
36 The Court of Cassation, 11. C.D., T. 01.07.2019, E. 2018/1996, K. 2019/5016.
37 DAL, p. 488.
38 For more information about the Regulation only being implemented for disputes arising from ‘.tr’ code domain names and disputes regarding domain names without country codes being resolved in accordance with the ICANN arbitration procedure please see: Tamer Soysal, “İnternet Alan Adları Sistemi ve Tahkim Kuruluşlarının UDRP Kurallarına Göre Verdikleri Kararlara Eleştirel bir Yaklaşım”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2006, Issue 21, p. 502-503.
39 DAL, p. 494.
40 DAL, p. 494.
41 OG, dated 21.08.2013, numbered 28742.
42 ALKAN/CANBAY, p. 15.
