Features of the legal regulation of public relations on the Internet

The state of the Russian segment of the information and telecommunications network "Internet" is characterized by a significant increase in the number of users and sites, a qualitative expansion of the range of services provided with its help.

At the same time, special legislation in the field of Internet law is in its infancy, so so far there is no such separate institution in the system of information law in Russia.

Until recently, there were no legal definitions of most of the basic concepts related to Internet relations in regulatory legal acts, which prevented the possibility of effective application of even existing legal norms. Only in 2012, for the first time, amendments were made to the Federal Law of July 27, 2006 No. 149-FZ “On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection”, which fixed such fundamental definitions for regulating the Internet as a site on the Internet, website page on the Internet (web page), domain name, network address, website owner on the Internet, hosting provider.

The existing judicial practice, which is developing in connection with the use of the Internet, does not yet allow us to talk about the established experience of law enforcement. The reasons for this are both the insufficient theoretical study of certain fundamental regulations and the subjectively wary attitude towards the Internet on the part of law enforcement officials.

This state of affairs hinders the development of social relations that affect the use of the global computer network "Internet". According to A.V. Minbaleev, the functioning of a number of relations on the Internet indicates the need to include these relations in the subject of legal regulation and increase a number of areas and aspects of legal regulation.

Moreover, the absence of a legal framework in the global network may also have a negative impact on economic and economic relations, where the Internet is one of the most important tools. It can already be stated that a number Russian users Internet users are increasingly turning to specialized organizations outside of Russia for relevant services, which is easily implemented technically, taking into account the specifics of the Internet.

The presence of many problems so important for all members modern society networks "Internet" allow us to conclude that there is a need to develop an effective model of public management of relations related to the Internet, starting with the formation and implementation of state policy in this area.

Since the issue of the legal nature of the Internet network itself has not yet been resolved, there is also no sufficient certainty in understanding the issue of the law applicable to these legal relations. We suggest that by relations on the Internet (Internet relations) we understand such public relations in the information space of the Internet, the participants of which act as bearers of subjective rights and obligations.

The right should perform the function of regulating the virtual space, it should not replace the technical norms governing the principles of building a network at the level of various network protocols (sets of rules and sequence of actions that allow connection and data exchange between two or more devices included in the network), but should influence only those types of relations that arise in connection with the practical implementation of the tasks and functions of information and legal activities. The law should regulate relations with the participation of various entities realizing their both legal and illegal goals through the Internet.

E.S. Andryushchenko proposed the concept of "Internet legal relationship", which means any Internet relationship regulated by law (subject to law), including those where the Internet is not a legally significant element of the legal relationship 1 .

The Internet has a number of features that must be taken into account when addressing the issue of its legal regulation. A.V. Minbaleev refers to them the following: mass character; accessibility of the Internet to almost any user; openness of information.

Noteworthy is the methodology of legal regulation of public relations on the Internet by E.S. Andryushchenko, which identified three different approaches to the possibility of regulating Internet relations.

Firstly, it is the rejection of any interference by the authorities in the regulation of the Internet, which is proclaimed a zone of complete freedom, which should be enshrined in special Russian laws.

However, in our opinion, such a position does not carry a constructive basis, since the impunity of offenses on the Internet, which arose due to the fact that it was outside the zone of legal regulation at the initial stage of development, should be ended in our country, and in developed countries (including France, England, the USA, etc.) - has already ended.

We fully support the opinion of E.V. Mikhailenko that none of the branches of law contains an indication that the legal norms do not apply to relations arising on the Internet. The fundamental principles of law are quite applicable here, although some aspects of the implementation of law on the Internet are of a special nature 1 .

Indeed, in fact, the era of gradual regulation of the Internet space by law is now coming.

The second point of view is directly opposite, based on the fact that the regulation of the Internet should take place on a general basis.

Thirdly, regulation is proposed to be carried out by creating certain norms by the participants of Internet relations with their subsequent investing in the norms of law.

We believe that the existence of the Internet is impossible both without numerous regulations and standards of a technical nature, and without mandatory informal social norms for people who make up communities or groups in the network space.

In the legal resources of the Internet, ordinary and corporate relations with the corresponding specifics of the Internet have long become the norm. The latter were not established in the manner typical for the adoption of legal acts, and cannot be enforced using coercive measures of public authority, but, as practice shows, it is precisely such norms that allow the Internet to constantly develop even in the absence of proper legal regulation.

Therefore, we believe that it is not necessary to radically rebuild the established systems of self-regulation of the Internet, but it is necessary to preserve this institution of public self-government as an element of interaction between civil society and the rule of law.

However, such an apparatus for regulating relations should in no case replace state administration, but is intended to organically supplement it in those issues that, due to the specifics of the organization of the Internet network, cannot be regulated by law.

The development and further successful and safe operation of the Internet is impossible without joint (society - state) regulation of the processes taking place in it with the dominance of public administration with the obligatory participation of public self-regulation.

One of the first and most complete lists of Internet relations, depending on the subject composition that needs to be regulated by law, was proposed by I.M. Rassolov:

• ? between developers of cross-border information networks and their partners who are in a contractual relationship;
• ? between professionals producing and distributing information on the Internet;
• ? between the latter and specialists providing various services;
• ? between the subjects listed above and consumers of information on the Internet;
• ? between citizens, organizations, firms and other consumers;
• ? between providers (operators) and the state regulator issuing a license to provide online services;
• ? between providers (operators) and users (customers) of networks for their own needs.

We believe that at present this list should be supplemented with Internet relations arising between government bodies and other entities in the course of public administration:

• ? in the implementation of the provision of public services using the Internet in the course of implementing the concept of the information state and the functioning of e-government;
• ? on informing citizens about the activities of state bodies and local self-government bodies;
• ? in the implementation of document management and use electronic signature;
• ? while providing the necessary level information security.
• ? The following private-law relations that arise also need to be regulated:
• ? during e-commerce;
• ? when regulating advertising activities on the Internet;
• ? when distributing mass media on the Internet.

One of the main features of social relations in the network

"Internet", which has a significant impact on their legal regulation, is the mandatory presence of a technical component in these relations.

American scientists Lawrence B. Solum and Ming Chan in their work The Layers Principle: Internet Architecture and the Law developed a concept that directly links the principles of regulation of Internet relations with the organization of the technical protocol for internetworking information exchange TCP / IP. They propose that public regulators of the Internet adopt the principle of layers and its implications as a framework for evaluating proposed regulation of the Internet. In general, regulation should be directed to, or appropriate to, the layer where the problematic activity occurs. According to this theory, for Internet regulation to succeed, public authorities must have a basis for understanding how the proposed regulation action will interact with the architecture of the Internet, and only after that the proposal can be translated into rules for regulating relations on the network.

Unfortunately, in practice, most public authorities, as well as legislative bodies, are poorly informed about the principles of networking, and the architecture of the Internet for them is most often akin to a mysterious black box. Often, decisions to regulate social relations in the network are made by government bodies as a result of political pressure or a reaction to acute problems of society, essentially without taking into account the negative cumulative effect of such decisions. As an example, we can cite a number of problems that followed the creation of the Unified Registry of domain names, site page indexes on the Internet and network addresses that make it possible to identify sites on the Internet that contain information that is distributed in Russian Federation forbidden.

An interesting feature of the legal regulation of public relations on the Internet is that this network has no owner or owner, and there is no single centralized management. The Internet is not a legal entity, and therefore cannot perform the function of a subject of legal relations. At the same time, a regular network client communicates with a real service provider that provides him with a communication channel, technical devices and software necessary for organizing Internet access. Therefore, already now we can talk about a special way of the emergence of legal relations between individuals and legal entities that communicate with each other through the computer network "Internet". According to A.V. Glushkov, legal relations are generated not by the Internet as a computer network, but by the objects themselves, which in one way or another are connected with such a network, since the Internet as a computer network only provides opportunities for network users to realize their needs.

The way out of this situation could be the process of creating a single body responsible for the Internet. In this regard, it is proposed to single out the international, regional and national levels of legal regulation of relations developing on the Internet. The world community and the Russian Federation have taken several steps to create Internet governance structures. The global decision to establish an Internet Governance Forum was taken at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis in November 2005. The UN Secretary-General was tasked with convening a Forum to provide a multi-stakeholder policy dialogue for the development of the global network. Such an apparatus was successfully established and the 9th Internet Governance Forum was held in Istanbul on September 2, 2014. It was attended by about 2500 representatives of governments, the private sector and civil society from many countries around the world. However, this organization never became the governing body of the network. Forum participants discuss the problems of security and accessibility of the Internet, as well as issues related to its openness and the possibility of free expression of opinion on the World Wide Web, but the issue of centralization of control has not yet been resolved.

To resolve issues related to approval technical standards data exchange, networking principles, registration of Internet nodes, domain names (identification names of such computers), the largest Internet operators are united in several organizations of the so-called Internet community operating under the auspices of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which is a specialized agency of the United Nations in the field of information and communication technologies. However, these organizations are not the governing bodies of the network. They deal with the technical functioning of the network, but their solution is not enough to manage an organization like the Internet.

At the national level, Internet governance issues are discussed at the permanent Russian Internet Governance Forum. The Fifth Forum took place on April 7, 2014 in Moscow and was organized by the Coordinating Center for the ccTLD "Internet" and the Internet Technical Center with the support of ICANN and RAEC 1 . As a rule, Russian and foreign legislative initiatives related to the Internet are discussed at the forum during a tripartite dialogue between representatives of government, business and civil society. However, no final policy documents following the results of this event are usually adopted, and this platform serves mainly for the exchange of views, having nothing to do with the real management of the Internet.

One of the basic principles of building the Internet is its global nature. At the same time, the question is increasingly being raised that states should have the sovereign right to develop and implement state policies, including international ones, on Internet governance and regulation of the national segment of the Internet, as well as the activities of territorial organizations providing Internet access and carrying Internet traffic. The Russian Federation has repeatedly made similar proposals at the UN and at meetings of the International Telecommunication Union. According to these proposals, ITU members should have equal rights to govern the Internet industry, which will be implemented through the allocation, assignment and withdrawal of an IP address, domain name, access to resources and determination of their ownership. It is also necessary to support the operation and development of the basic infrastructure of the Internet. States should strive to create policies to meet public demands for Internet access and use, and to support, including through international cooperation, the operation and development of the Internet. Thus, we can say that proposals are being made to extend state sovereignty to the Internet space. However, despite a certain positive effect that this initiative can give, it was not supported at the political level by the world community as a whole, although the number of adherents of this method of regulating the Internet is growing every year.

Thus, guided by a systematic approach, based on an analysis of the features of the construction and functioning of the global network, we can propose the following model for regulating relations in the Internet.

• 1. At the international level, focus on activities that contribute to the speedy development of an international legal act and its subsequent ratification by the participating countries, which will develop the basic principles for regulating Internet relations, namely:
  • ? formulate a definition and general concept of the Internet and its features;
  • ? determine the principles of legal regulation of relations on the Internet;
  • ? define the basic concepts of the field of Internet relations;
  • ? will resolve the issue of sovereignty over segments of the Internet and the limits of national regulation of Internet relations.
• 2. At the national level of legal regulation of the Internet network, solve the following tasks:
  • ? determine the priorities of the state policy in the field of development of the Internet network in accordance with the Strategy for the Development of the Information Society in the Russian Federation and consolidate these priorities and key indicators development in the form of a subprogramme in State program Russian Federation "Information Society (2011 - 2020)".
  • ? develop a special law regulating relations in the network. The development of an Internet law will solve the problem of the lack of an effective regulatory framework in this area. Despite the presence of separate norms in the Federal Law "On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection", the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the Code of Administrative Offenses, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Mass Media" and a number of others, the urgent need is to develop a single law , which will unite the set of norms of legal regulation on the Internet and complete the formation of the institution of Internet law as part of the information law industry;
  • ? optimize activities to create special institutions that coordinate the work of network management

"Internet" on the territory of the Russian Federation with the involvement of specialists in the field of network technologies who are able to effectively participate in the high-quality and professional development of new legal mechanisms for regulating Internet relations.

Ostroushko A.V. On the issue of legal regulation of communication on the Internet (abstracts) // Actual problems of criminal law, the process of criminal law. Scientific collection of materials of the II International Scientific and Practical Conference (m. 8 Odessa, July 2010). U 2 vol. T. 1. Odessa, 2010. S. 234-236.

Mordovian State University name

Supervisor:

Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor

Head of the Department of International and European Law

International legal regulation of relations on the Internet.

Over the past decades, the scientific and technological revolution has most of all affected the information and telecommunication sphere, causing the rapid development and widespread dissemination of information and communication technologies (ICT). The Internet is the fastest growing means of communication that has ever existed. According to forecasts, already in 2011 there will be 2 billion Internet users.

Currently, there is a need for regulatory regulation of the virtual space, in particular with regard to the protection of the rights of law-abiding Internet users, privacy and intellectual property rights. The information sphere began to actively influence the state of political, economic, socio-cultural, defense and other components of national and international security. In this situation, it is of fundamental importance for each state to develop its own position regarding the regulation of the Internet, to actively participate in the development and adoption of international legal documents in this area.

The question of at what level, from the standpoint of the greatest efficiency - national or international - can be adopted normative acts that can really affect the functioning and development of the Internet is also relevant. In recent years, a number of international organizations have already taken concrete steps in this direction. First of all, this applies to the field of combating cybercrime and Internet governance.

It should be noted that most of the relations in the field of the Internet relate more to the sphere of private law regulation. International public law governs the area of ​​interstate relations that develop between states as subjects of power on the basis of the need to regulate relations for the management of the Internet.

The normative basis of this issue is formed by such international documents as the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data of 1981, the Convention on Cybercrime of 2001, the Okinawa Charter Global Information Society 2000, CIS Agreement on the Exchange of Economic Information of 01.01.01, CIS Agreement on the Exchange of Legal Information of 01.01.01; as well as regulatory acts of the Russian Federation, such as the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law “On Communications” of 2003, the Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies of Informatization and on Information Protection” of 2006, the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 01.01.2001 (in 01.09.2000) No. 000 “On Additional Guarantees of Citizens’ Rights to Information”, Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 01.01.2001 No. exchange ", the Doctrine of information security of the Russian Federation, approved by the President of the Russian Federation on 09.09.2000 No. Pr-1895, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 01.01.2001 No. 000 "On measures to organize the provision of universal communication services". The attention of scientists-researchers to the problems of informatization, building the information society, as well as information security has recently increased significantly. Theoretical basis of the issue under consideration are the works of Russian scientists, such as:, and others. As well as the works of such foreign authors as: D. Barlow, F. Baringer, D. Verhoeven, M. Vivant, S. Whitford, G. Grager, M. Geist , R. Zdrozheski, A. Lamberteri, K. McCarthy, M. Maher, E. Major, D. Mente, C. Nagendra, M. Totti, T. Hardy, V. Friedman, etc. that the topic of legal regulation of the Internet, including international law, is much more often considered by Western scholars, especially in the United States and the European Union.

The main task of international legal regulation in the field of the Internet is to ensure the interaction of states and coordinate their efforts in organizing the worldwide information exchange.

The lack of legal regulation of the Internet has a negative impact on the development of social and economic processes in society. Special legal norms regulating the Internet are already being created within the framework of the domestic law of individual countries. However, the non-territorial nature of the Internet initially places barriers to their implementation. This necessitates the harmonization of national legislation through the development and adoption of international treaties on various aspects of Internet activity. The Internet gives an additional impetus to the process of harmonization and convergence of national legal systems.

The object of regulation in this area (Internet) may be the relations of operators and users of the Internet, both among themselves and in relations with other persons and government agencies in connection with the transfer of information and the provision of services. International legal regulation of relations in the field of the Internet is based on generally recognized principles and norms of international law. For example, the norms of international law concerning the protection of the human right to freedom of expression are applicable to electronic means of communication, including the Internet. Steps taken at the national level to regulate the Internet should be fully consistent with the principles and norms of international law.

The main way to resolve the issues raised by the Internet for the international community is the adoption of international legal documents regulating the use of the Internet. This approach is supported by such a main feature of the Internet as its non-territoriality.

Through international treaties, states are trying to ensure joint control of the Internet. The scope of international legal cooperation extends from the fight against cybercrime to the protection of intellectual property, from the prevention of uncontrolled access to information to the settlement of electronic commerce issues.

Currently, international Internet law has begun to take shape. , which can be defined as a set of legal principles and norms governing relations between states, as well as international organizations, arising in connection with their activities to develop, manage and control the use of the Internet. The Cybercrime Convention is currently the only multilateral international treaty entirely devoted to the regulation of a special kind of relations on the Internet and aimed at solving the problems associated with computer crimes and the collection of evidence in electronic form. In order to develop effective principles and norms for the functioning of the Internet, it would be advisable to establish a special UN committee (such as the UN Committee on Outer Space). A public organization engaged in the formation of policy and regulation of relations in the field of cyberspace must be open, transparent and follow stable, well-defined procedures designed to protect the rights of all stakeholders.

The provisions of this issue, namely the international legal regulation of relations on the Internet, can be used in the development of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of Internet governance, as well as at international conferences and in the course of work on draft international legal documents related to global or regional regulation relationships arising from the Internet.

It is believed that the motley community of netizens is able to regulate itself. In this regard, it seems interesting the idea that was expressed in one of the high-profile cases related to the use of domain names in the Russian segment of the Internet. It was made in response to the court's assertion that the specifics of the Internet are so great that the current legislation does not apply to it. After all, then it was equally possible to declare in the recent past that the current legislation does not apply to television, the use of fax, etc. In this case, it turns out that, for example, an insult expressed not personally, but on television or even on phone, will not have any legal consequences.

It is in the network in recent years that many offenses have been committed, sometimes criminally punishable. The specificity of computer technologies is such that it is very difficult to trace, and even more so to prevent violations on the Internet.

The first group of problems of legal regulation of the Internet is related to e-commerce and is of the greatest interest to the legislator. The State Duma is considering a draft law “On Transactions Made by Electronic Means (On Electronic Transactions)”, and a law “On Electronic Digital Signature” has been adopted. Among the problems of this group, one can single out the issues of determining the place and time of the conclusion of the contract, reliable identification of the party to the contract, accounting and taxation of electronic transactions, as well as, due to the cross-border nature of the Internet, issues of applicable law and choice of jurisdiction. In addition, the network has problems of protecting information in general and confidential information and trade secrets in particular.

In a separate group, one can single out the problems associated with the existence of electronic newspapers and magazines, which may not be published in the traditional sense of the word, that is, on paper. Do such newspapers (and in general a site on the Internet) belong to the mass media? If so, are they subject to regulation as media? How then, for example, to establish the volume of circulation of such "publications" and, in particular, is it necessary to register them as mass media in the Ministry of Press (on the part of which corresponding attempts were made)?

A large block of issues is related to the protection of intellectual property rights. Copyright infringements associated with copying, reproduction, processing of literary, artistic, musical works without the author's indication and without the latter's permission have become especially widespread.

In the field of industrial property protection, the most acute and numerous disputes, including litigation, are conducted in relation to the protection of rights to trademarks and trade names from violations associated with the use of domain names on the Internet. Within the framework of this article, it is not possible to give a detailed description of all the above problems, therefore, as an example, let's consider the situation with domain names.

At first glance, a domain name and a trademark have nothing in common: a domain name is an electronic address, and a trademark is a designation that distinguishes goods and services of one person from similar goods and services of another person. For example, the designations "Kodak", "Fuji", "Agfa" are trademarks that are used for photographic products. A more detailed analysis reveals that trademarks and domain names have quite a lot of common ground. Suppose a user is interested in banking services. Then he can randomly type www.bank.ru and will not be mistaken. If he is interested in photo products, he can dial www.kodak.ru. Naturally, knowing this, the owners of information resources (sites) try to choose a domain name that would be easy to guess, that is, known and reflecting the content of the site.

There is a functional similarity of domain names and means of individualization of participants in civil circulation. Like a trademark, a domain name identifies a certain amount of information, which, among other things, may contain information about the product and the manufacturer, sometimes the product itself (if it can exist in digital form). With the help of the original verbal e-mail address, it is possible for users to distinguish this kind of information among other similar offers on the Internet and address the corresponding information resource. Taking into account the possibility of transactions in the network, it can also be argued that the goods offered for sale can be introduced into civil circulation.

The formal similarity of objects is manifested in the following:

1. the domain name is registered by the owner of the information resource independently using the services of special organizations (the powers of these organizations are also undisputed); according to paragraph 1 of Art. 2 of the Law on Trademarks, “legal protection of a trademark in the Russian Federation is provided on the basis of its state registration in the manner prescribed by this Law, or by virtue of international treaties of the Russian Federation”;

2. domain names are unique, that is, the existence of a similar domain in the network is impossible. Therefore, due to their uniqueness, verbal e-mail addresses have a distinctive ability, and this is the main criterion for the protection of trademarks;

2. The choice of the name is made by the owner of the domain, which is also typical for the owner of a trademark in relation to the choice of the appropriate designation.

The possibility of free choice of a domain name also gives rise to an illegal phenomenon - cyber squatting (eng. -cybersquatting), which means the registration of domain names that match or are similar to the means of individualization, with their subsequent unfair use both for their own commercial purposes and for the purpose of offering for sale the right holders of the means of individualization. Not always in this case, trademark owners sought to protect their rights and eliminate violations.

The Eastman Kodak Company Corporation, the owner of the Kodak trademark (the example above was not accidental), lost all instances on grounds of trademark infringement and all instances on grounds of trademark infringement, with the exception of two cassations, which canceled previous decisions and sent the case for a new trial. The court refused to protect the right holder's rights with reference to the lack of legislative regulation of relations related to the name of domains on the Internet, as well as to the fact that a domain name is neither a product nor a service, therefore it is not subject to the Law "On Trademarks".

Even the Supreme Arbitration Court (SAC) of the Russian Federation did not put an end to this dispute, but the trend is still positive. In its ruling on sending the case for a new consideration by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, it noted that “the absence in the said norms of the Law of a direct indication that the use of someone else’s trademark in a domain name is a violation of the rights of the trademark owner does not prevent the court from recognizing such actions of an entrepreneur as an offense. According to Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention, all acts capable of causing confusion in any way with respect to the establishments, products or industrial or commercial activities of a competitor are to be prohibited.

An analysis of the materials of judicial practice confirms the need for active inclusion in the legal field of such concepts as "Internet", "domain" and other related ones.

The future law on the Internet, of course, must be comprehensive (contain the norms of various branches of law) and must regulate the principles of applying the legislation of the Russian Federation (primarily civil) to relations on the Internet, some fundamental principles for regulating these relations, taking into account their specifics, fundamental resolving the issue of the legal nature of domain names and other Internet objects, as well as approaches to their legislative regulation (for example, "relations regarding the registration and use of domain names are regulated by the legislation of the Russian Federation on ...", etc.). It is also important to introduce into the legislation and norms that allow effective application of the current legislation to these relations by analogy, eliminating the contradictions and inconsistencies that arise in the process of direct application of the norms that exist today.

Unfortunately, the attempts made by the legislator in this direction sometimes only complicate the situation. Let's return to the situation with domain names.

In December 2001, the State Duma adopted an amendment to Art. 4 of the Trademark Law. Paragraph 4 of Art. 4, it is proposed to add a paragraph as follows: “An infringement of the rights of the owner of a trademark is also recognized as the unauthorized use of a trademark in the worldwide computer network Internet, including in the name of a domain, if as a result of this the person who violated the right received or could receive income, acquired or could acquire any business advantage. The attention of the legislator to the above problem is in itself very commendable, but the practical side of the issue caused a lot of disapproving remarks among lawyers specializing in the field of legal regulation of the Internet. Despite the fact that domain names and trademarks, as shown above, have much in common, their full identification in law will lead to inevitable problems in the process of its application.

The proposed amendment opens up wide scope for abuse by trademark owners. So, any person, having registered a trademark corresponding to a certain domain name, can bring a lawsuit against a bona fide domain owner for violation of his rights and demand that the domain be transferred to him. If the language of the amendment is strictly followed, this requirement will be satisfied. This problem is not new, and in the materials of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) it was called "reverse domain takeover".

Another problem is related to the fact that trademarks in accordance with the International Classifier of Goods and Services are registered in 42 classes separately. It is not uncommon for one company (for example, a food manufacturer) to register a trademark in one class, and the same mark is registered by another company (for example, a publishing house) in another class. After the adoption of the new version of the Trademark Law, a dispute may arise between such companies regarding the right to a domain name.

Further, the procedure for registering domain names will become more complicated, since, in order to protect yourself from the situation described above, you will have to first register the corresponding trademark with Rospatent. In this case, in order to register a domain name, it will be necessary to prove the absence of an identical trademark. This will significantly increase the cost (fees, patent attorneys and lawyers are added) and duration of domain name registration. However, even in this case, the question of the protection of rights remains unresolved. individuals who have registered a domain name, since the subjects of a trademark right can only be legal entities and individual entrepreneurs.

However, you can not reinvent the wheel. Approaches to solving these problems have already been developed in world practice. For example, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Rules, which are in force in many domain zones, in particular in the .com, .org, .net zones, provide that a domain dispute will be considered only if all three of the following circumstances are present:

1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark to which the applicant has rights;

2) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and

3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Thus, in world practice, trademark owners are far from always able to claim the corresponding domains. Therefore, the need for amendments to other legislative acts is obvious. Moreover, these changes should be aimed not only at giving priority to the owners of trademarks and trade names, but also at resolving contradictions that arise between persons who have “equal rights” to a domain name. In addition, it is important to avoid infringement of the rights of individuals.

So, there is practically no doubt that the legal regulation of the development of global information networks will become one of the priority areas for the development of legislation in the coming century. At the same time, questions about who will carry out such regulation, in what areas to regulate and how, are very acute. The emergence of special legislation should be accompanied by the improvement of already existing regulations.

The Internet is a single information network, without which the life of a modern person is almost impossible. However, the development of this area currently requires a detailed study, since no country in the world has codified legislation governing legal relations on the Internet. The practice of law enforcement in this area is underdeveloped, complicated by the lack of a federal law on the Russian segment, the extraterritorial nature of the Internet, and other factors.

In the most general form, the main provisions for regulating the Internet sphere are enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation: the Basic Law establishes that the collection, storage, use and dissemination of information about the private life of a person without his consent is not allowed (Article 24). Everyone has the right to freely seek, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information in any lawful manner. Freedom of the media is guaranteed. Censorship is prohibited (Article 29). Information and communications are under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation (Article 71). The exercise of these rights may be subject to restrictions established by law and necessary in a democratic society to respect the rights and reputation of others, to protect state security and public order, which is also enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as in Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental freedom.

Entering into a discussion about the legal regulation of the Internet, one should, first of all, formulate an answer to the question: is there an urgent need for a special law regulating relations on the Internet, or for a special state policy in relation to the Network, or can current legislation be dispensed with by introducing into it the necessary amendments? This issue has been repeatedly discussed at various levels, including in the Government of Russia. As a result, it was concluded that today there is no need to develop special laws. The adoption of such a law may create some additional psychological convenience for a certain circle of people, but will not provide any additional guarantees, except for those given by the country's Constitution and other basic laws. However, it must be taken into account that the correlation of any normative legal act of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, whether it is related to the regulation of the Internet space or not, is the exclusive prerogative of the executive branch, which, one way or another, may serve as a reason for the implementation of a certain policy on the network. Thus, a formal reason for the introduction of censorship appears, which, it seems, is unacceptable in a democratic state, which Russia is currently.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation itself stipulates that the determination of the foundations of the state's foreign and domestic policy is the prerogative of the President of the country. Therefore, the normative acts that will be discussed should be introduced regulations President. Therefore, most likely, it would be most correct to enact a special presidential decree that would regulate this industry in one way or another. However, upon further research, it can be understood that there are many presidential decrees on this topic, so further research is needed on the problem.

Nevertheless, it seems that the accumulated experience makes it possible to create an operating legal framework regulating both rights and freedoms, as well as responsibility for exceeding and abusing them. The implementation of this task requires special technologies, but this is no longer a legal issue. Thus, first of all, it is necessary to create such a legal framework for specific areas of Internet use so that the constitutional rights of citizens are not violated.

With regard to the legal regulation of information support, here it is necessary to highlight three key problems: firstly, it is necessary to have a procedure for registering domain names that provides for the suppression of attempts to capture domain names that match trademarks. This is an acute problem that should be solved by introducing an appropriate amendment to the law on trademarks. It should clearly spell out how attempts to appropriate a trademark or domain name are punished. Secondly, it is necessary to resolve the issue of electronic digital signature - that is, in this regard, it is necessary to adopt a federal law that would regulate this issue. Thirdly, there is a need to make changes and additions to the current Law "On Information, Informatization and Information Protection" - here it is necessary to take into account that it is necessary to make amendments related to the implementation of the protection of personal and personal information, including on the Internet. Here, special attention should be paid to the so-called information security, which consists of three interrelated parts. The first is to ensure the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens in the information sphere. The second is the integration of Russia into the world information space, as well as the creation of a competitive industry of information services. The third is to ensure the security of the functioning of the information infrastructure.

In general, judicial precedents in this area are extremely rare and are concentrated mainly around the institution of intellectual property, restricting access to sites containing extremist materials, and bringing to justice those who distribute child pornography on the Internet. In this regard, along with general support for the free functioning of the Internet, President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev noted that the Internet is a force that can be constructive, useful, or destructive and capable of destroying social systems, causing direct harm to people's health and life. Despite the absence of a special act on the Internet, the subjects of relations in the Russian segment of the Internet have the rights and obligations established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws, as well as subordinate normative legal acts and in case of committing offenses are subject to liability established by law.

The Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the CIS Member States at the 36th plenary session, held on May 16, 2011, adopted a model law "On the Basics of Internet Regulation", which was developed by the Russian Association for Electronic Communications (RAEC) .

The Law, adopted by Decree No. 36-10 of May 16, 2011, contains three chapters and thirteen articles. It establishes the principles and defines the main directions for regulating relations related to the use of the Internet, establishes the procedure for state support for the development of the Internet, determines the relationship between the participants in the Internet regulation process and their functions in the implementation of regulation, establishes the rules for determining the place and time of legally significant actions when using the Internet.

For the first time, the Law provided legal definitions for such basic concepts as "Internet", "Internet regulation", "Domain name", "Website", "Internet service provider", "Authorized body (in the field of the Internet)", "Domain name ( domain)", etc.

The document establishes the procedure for state support of the Internet, regulates the process of its regulation, relations between the participants in this process, their functions, and also establishes the rules for determining the place and time of legally significant actions when using the Network.

The regulation of relations related to the use of the Internet is carried out in compliance with the following basic principles:

ensuring the rights and freedoms of citizens, including the right to use the Internet and access to information posted on it;

taking into account the peculiarities of the construction and development of the Internet, including the applicable organizational rules and technical procedures established at the international level and in force at the time of the adoption of this Law;

limiting the sphere of regulation of the Internet only to those subject areas in respect of which there are no or cannot be applied due to the requirements of the current legislation, the norms and rules established at the international level or adopted self-regulatory organizations users and operators of Internet services;

non-distribution of regulation to relations related to the development of the Internet and not affecting the rights and interests of the individual, society and the state established by law.

International cooperation in the field of Internet regulation is carried out on the basis of observance of the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, international treaties, as well as those established in international practice customs and business habits.

The authorized body, within its powers, represents and protects the interests of the state in the field of the Internet, interacts with the authorized bodies of foreign states, intergovernmental and international non-governmental organizations, and also coordinates international cooperation in the field of the Internet, carried out by the state, its citizens and organizations, ensures the fulfillment of the obligations of the state arising from international treaties in the field of the Internet.

Interaction and dispute resolution of the CIS member states on Internet regulation issues is carried out through the Coordinating Council of the CIS member states on informatization under the Regional Commonwealth in the field of communications, created by the decision of the Council of CIS Heads of Government.

In some economically developed states, Internet access has been recognized as a right. For example, the Estonian parliament passed a law in 2000 declaring Internet access a fundamental human right. A massive program to expand access to the Internet in countryside where economic development is constrained by the lack of decent roads and other transport links. According to the government, the Internet is essential to life in the 21st century.

The French Constitutional Council has declared Internet access a fundamental human right. Parliament in its Law "for the further dissemination and protection of creation on the Internet" says that in accordance with Article 11 of the Declaration of Human Rights of 1789, free expression of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious human rights, every citizen can say so, write and publish freely, except when such freedom is abused in cases provided by law, and this right includes access to the Internet.

With today's means of communication and in view of societal developments, Internet services are an essential tool for participating in democracy and expressing ideas and opinions, this right implies freedom of access to such services.

The Council also noted that the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial were being undermined. He wrote: "In accordance with Article 9 of the Declaration of 1789, every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, Parliament cannot introduce the principle of the presumption of guilt in criminal cases."

Finland is the country with the most free access to the Internet. About 95 percent of the population has access to the Internet. On October 14, 2009, the Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications passed the Law on Minimum Internet Access Speed. In accordance with the law, the minimum speed of outgoing traffic functional Internet access is 1 Mbps. However, the average speed is at least 750 Kbps in a 24-hour measurement and 500 Kbps in any 4-hour measurement time period. Every Finnish citizen must be guaranteed this right by July 1, 2010. The legal implications are that Internet service operators are required to provide a certain level of service to all consumers at reasonable prices. This move by Finland aimed at providing Internet access in rural areas where geographical problems have limited access so far to 1 Mbps, however, this is just an intermediate step. The country is aiming for 100 Mbps for everyone by 2015.

According to research conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation in March 2010, 79% of those surveyed in 26 countries consider the Internet to be a fundamental human right.

South Korea, Mexico and China have the highest percentages of the population who consider the right to access the Internet a basic right. According to the survey, South Korea (96%), Mexico (94%) and China (87%) think so.

The survey also showed that the majority of Internet users believe that the Internet should not be regulated by the government. More than half (53%) of Internet users agreed that "the Internet should not be regulated at any level by the state" - a large majority in South Korea (83%), Nigeria (77%) and Mexico (72%).

Forty-four percent of citizens of various countries admitted that they would not be able to live without using the Internet: Japan (84%), Mexico (81%) and Russia (71%), Pakistan (19%), Philippines (21%), Turkey ( 27%), Brazil and India (29%).

A total of 27,973 citizens, in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, El Salvador, France, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, the Philippines, Portugal, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone between November 30, 2009 and February 7, 2010.

Thus, the legal regulation of the Internet should be carried out by all subjects of the international community, involving interested participants in this virtual environment. Network users should be the main driving force in the regulation process.