Uniregistry Comment on "Perceived Inconsistent Expert Determinations"

[Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the "Proposed Review Mechanism to 
Address Perceived Inconsistent Expert Determinations on String Confusion 
Objections."  This comment is submitted on behalf of Uniregistry, Corp. 
("Uniregistry"), an applicant for .CARS, which prevailed in its string 
similarity dispute with Charleston Road Registry ("Google").

The Applicant Guidebook provided no mechanism for appeals, and all parties 
applied for their top-level domains under the express promise by ICANN, and the 
reasonable contractual expectation of the applicants, that decisions by the 
dispute resolution providers would be final.  The proposal to further 
reconsider these decisions on what appears to be an arbitrary selection basis 
for such reconsideration is an invitation for all parties dissatisfied with 
outcomes to lobby for ad-hoc changes to the new TLD process.

The decisions of the panels should be implemented in the manner they were 
decided.  DERCars, LLC is now in a contention set for .CAR, which can proceed 
to resolution in advance of the resolution of .CARS. If DERCars prevails in its 
first contention set, it then would be placed in the .CARS contention set with 
Uniregistry and Koko Castle, LLC ("Donuts"). If it was not the prevailing part 
in the CAR contention set, then the .CARS contention set would proceed solely 
between Uniregistry and Donuts. In no event would Uniregistry or Donuts, 
prevailing parties in their disputes, be placed in a contention set with .CAR.

At present, it is unclear whether the proposed review mechanism is aligned with 
the view expressed above. The current draft suggests that "Only the applicant 
for the application that was objected to in the underlying SCO and lost 
('Losing Applicant') would have the option of whether to have the Expert 
Determination from that SCO reviewed." This is listed as an "anticipated 
process detail."  If the Board decides to add an appeal mechanism not 
contemplated by the Applicant Guidebook, the principle that makes the appeal 
available only to the "applicant for the application that was objected to in 
the underlying SCO and lost" should be adopted subject to appropriate 
opportunity for comment, and not decided as a "process detail.”   We believe 
the more efficient view, however, is to allow the opinions to stand, as they 
are, and resolve the contentions as described above, which does not require any 
extraordinary intervention by ICANN.

Uniregistry looks forward to reading the submissions of other parties and 
expects to file a second comment during the reply period.


--
Bret Fausett, Esq. • Counsel to Uniregistry, Corp.
— — — — —