Detailed Comments: Module 2
To: Rod Beckstrom, CEO/President; Peter Dengate Thrush, Chair, ICANN Board; ICANN Board Members and Staff of ICANN MarkMonitor respectfully submits these detailed comments on Module 2. 2.1.1 General Business Diligence and Criminal History MarkMonitor recognizes and appreciates the special consideration that entities traded on the top 25 largest exchanges are granted with regards to background due diligence but questions why this is the only special consideration made to rights owners. 2.1.2 History of Cybersquatting Screening of applicants against UDRP and legal databases is not an effective measure for determining cybersquatting. An overwhelming majority of cybersquatting is never disputed and would be missed by this approach. In order to uncover a history of cybersquatting, MarkMonitor would recommend that an independent firm conduct investigations to uncover patterns of abuse in addition to using UDRP and legal databases. We'd also recommend that during the impending review of the UDRP that ICANN consider creating a consolidated data store for complainant, respondent, decision and other important data to make this process more effective. 2.2.11 String Similarity Review While the PF-AG does provide a definition that "similar" means strings so similar that they create a probability of user confusion, additional clarification is required in the form of examples. For instance will .bank and banque all be considered similar? What about three-letter TLDs where there is only a difference of one letter? For example will .eco be too similar to .co or .com? Considering the significant investment required to apply for a new gTLD, understanding where potential contention may exist is of utmost concern to potential applicants. 184.108.40.206.2 String Requirements Prohibiting the inclusion of hyphens or digits in the string represents a significant change in approach and further explanation as to why this change has been made should be included in the PF-AG.. 220.127.116.11.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names Will the Geographic Names Panel reject an application that is considered to be similar to an alpha-3 code, long form or short form name, or must the string be an exact match to the alpha-3 code, long form or short form name to be considered a country or territory name?