Detailed Comments: Module 2

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

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.

 

2.2.1.3.2 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..

 

2.2.1.4.1 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?