Will ICANN disqualify Demand Media / eNom from being a new TLD applicant due to multiple UDRP losses of apparently related companies?

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just to followup on my prior comment at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/msg00004.html

and to demonstrate that I'm not picking on GoDaddy, the exact same reasoning 
and 
questions would appear to apply to Demand Media / eNom, one of the world's 
largest registrars.

In particular, the company "Demand Domains" has lost numerous UDRP cases (as 
found via UDRPSearch.com), for example:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1325235.htm
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2010/d2010-0657.html
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-1184.html
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-1068.html

just to name a few (UDRPSearch.com has other matches). It appears highly likely 
that "Demand Domains" is related to Demand Media / eNom. In particular, in the 
first case above, Demand Domains was represented by Christine G. Radocha. A 
quick search at LinkedIn finds a "Christina Radocha" who is described as:

"I am currently Corporate Counsel for Demand Media, Inc., an online social 
media 
giant with offices in Santa Monica, CA, Bellvue, WA, Austin, TX and the UK. 
Prior to Demand Media, I was employed at Microsoft Corporation as an IP 
Paralegal whilst putting myself through law school."

So, the same questions to ICANN apply, in particular why is there an apparently 
gaping loophole in the guidebook that would permit TLD applicants where 
cybersquatting has been found to occur in their related companies (i.e. shell 
companies, dummy corporations, etc.)? 

We call for:

(1) an independent study on the extent of cybersquatting by registrars and 
their 
related companies (a deeper investigation should also "pierce the veils" of 
WHOIS proxy services, to unmask the true clients, to determine if they are 
being 
used to hide the cybersquatting activities of registrars)

(2) correction of the guidebook to ensure that the "intent" of preventing 
cybersquatters from applying for TLDs is matched by the actual language. In 
other words, remove the loopholes that permit cybersquatting from related 

companies!

(3) Why would ICANN disqualify certain parties from being TLD operators, but 
smile, wink and allow those same parties to be registrars, without any penalty 
whatsoever? What's the acceptable "standard" to become a registrar?

The public deserves answers. ICANN has proven, through the loopholes in DAGv5, 
that it is impossible for this to be the "final" guidebook. It's simply 
unacceptable. We reiterate our past comments, and ask whether a 
deeper investigation on ICANN "insiders" is warranted, to explain how and why 
such a gaping loophole could be permitted to be published in a guidebook that 
ICANN believes is "final"?? 

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
President
Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
http://www.leap.com/