Detailed Comments on Module 2

["Elisa Cooper" <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

MarkMonitor is pleased to provide the following comments on 'Module 2'.
Our consolidated comments were also sent to 2gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx.

Section 2.1.2.2 - Ability to Provide Missing, Incomplete or Incorrect
Application Information

The application process entitles applicants to only one exchange of
information if clarification is required. This is an extremely
inflexible procedure given the level of commitment made by the
applicant.  ICANN should therefore allow for additional exchanges of
information. In addition, although specified channels for receiving
updates about applications have been identified as a requirement in
version 2 of the Applicant Guidebook, this is not an appropriate
mechanism for providing additional or clarifying application
information. Given the high cost of the application fee, and the
complexity of the process for most applicants, this provision should be
amended to allow a more structured communication channel between
applicants, evaluators and ICANN.

Comments on 'Attachment to Module 2'

New Potential Questions to be Added re: Moral and Legal Standing 

In addition to the requirement for proof that the applicant entity is
'legally established and in good standing,' it is essential that
thorough investigative checks of applicants including board members,
executives, funding sources, etc. be conducted in order to identify any
involvement by those who seek to control a registry in criminal
activities, or any wrongful activities associated with the domain name
industry. To that end, examples of some questions that can be asked to
elicit the above information are: 

"Have you been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.  

"Have you or any company that you have been associated or affiliated
with or been the subject of an action (court case or any dispute
resolution proceeding) as a defendant in connection with any domain name
related matter.

Applicants that have significant or repeated ties to illicit or wrongful
activities should not be allowed to proceed through the process.
Falsification of, providing misleading or omitting data should result in
application disqualification, or, in the case of a delegated registry,
it should be re-delegated when such is discovered.

Question 43 - Standardizing 'Measures Against Abuse'

Although the questionnaire does address 'Measures Against Abuse,'
allowing registries to define their own policies for policing, managing
and remediating is too vague. Measures to mitigate abuse should be
mandated by ICANN so that they can be fully vetted and standardized.
There appears to be industry support for a group similar to the IRT
which would assist in establishing and developing draft proposals,
including an effective mechanism for insertion in registry contracts to
deal with malicious conduct as opposed to trademark protection
mechanisms. 

Question 45 - Requirement for a "Thick" Whois Model

ICANN is considering assigning more points for registries that adopt a
'Thick Whois" model.  ICANN should go further and require a 'Thick
Whois' model for all registries so that access to full ownership records
is ensured by ICANN. This will be especially important for addressing
issues of consumer fraud enabled by domain name abuse. International
right to privacy standards have long been cited as a barrier to
availability of 'Thick Whois'. While those rights are well understood
and recognized, 'thin' registries do not afford proper safeguards to
protect brand owner rights nor to support the needs of law enforcement
dealing with abusive activities, given that control of the registrant's
data is largely held by the individual registrar.