Page History

...

• All of Scorecard #6.1, including #6.1.7.1 so long as such use of the Trademark Clearinghouse does not delay registrations
• Simplified complaint format (#6.2.2)
• Decisions should not require full panels (#6.2.3)
• Remove reference to "substantive evaluation" (#6.2.4)
• Six month deadline for filing an appeal (#6.2.10.2)
• A successful complainant should have first right of refusal for transfer (#6.2.12)

However, we draw the line at measures that go beyond protection of public trust and confidence, but are designed to lower standards of protection, reduce due process and to "bully" potentially legitimate strings; these are measures in the Scorecard that, in our opinion, are against reasonableness, due process, community consensus and the public interest. In these instances we support the ICANN Board's response:

• Removal of reference to "substantive evaluation" (#6.2.4)
• Elimination of reasonable due process (#6.2.5, 6.2.9)
• Reducing standards of proof to not require "clear and convincing evidence" (#6.2.6)
• Elimination of a requirement of bad faith when determining URS action (#6.2.7)
• A "loser pays" regime (#6.2.8)
• Requirement of a separate rationale for filing of appeal (#6.2.10.1)
• Extend URS beyond exact matches (#6.2.13)

...

• It is essential that there be mechanisms in place to ensure that cultural and IDN TLDs are not disadvantaged by the rules. Specifically, there is a fear that under some regimes, the requirement to use ICANN accredited registrars and to not self-distribute could jeopardize TLDs that will have a specific regional focus or those using less common scripts or languages. The lack of registrar interest or registrar capability could potentially impact the viability of just those new TLDs that we most want to succeed.
• On issues of applications for single-registrar TLDs that are not community applications, for which allocation policy is made by the registry (generally known as "dot-brands") the At-Large community is divided. Some believe that dot-brands are not in the public interest. Others believe that allocation is acceptable for unique coined brand names (ie, .exxon or .persil) but not for brands that are also generic words (ie, .apple shell or .tide). Our general recommendation is At Large recommends that this particular form of application has not been sufficiently thought out to determine its impact on the public. Our preference is to postpone the allocation of dot-brands until more study can be done on the public-interest aspects of single-registrar TLDs. This is in-line with the GAC recommendation against TLDs in which the registry owns or controls all its registrars.There should be viable ways for single registrant TLDs to operate effectively. In such a single registrant TLD, all 2nd level domains are used by the registry itself (or its corporate parent) and are not made available to outsiders. The registry controls, and is legally responsible for, all 2nd level domains. The largest projected use is for corporations where the TLD relates to a trademark, but it could also be used for not-for-profits, charities and NGOs. The specific issue is that if there is no demonstrable added value to registrar involvement (since there is no consumer and no competitive issues), such intermediaries should not be required. The benefit to the gTLD eco-system of such gTLDs is that they will serve to acclimatize users to the concept of new gTLDs and will facilitate their acceptance in the general case.the gTLD string evaluation process has demonstrated more maturity, gained greater awareness by the community and been studied in regard to public-interest aspects
• Compliance will be a critical part of gTLD deployment. It is essential that the rules surrounding the new gTLDs be sufficiently clear and reasonably enforceable; and that ICANN put in place mechanisms to ensure reasonable compliance. The enforcement mechanisms must be sufficiently public that third-party scrutiny and whistle-blowers are welcomed to augment official investigative efforts.

...