June 2018 - comments-o-com-single-char-10may18@icann.org

[Comments-o-com-single-char-10may18] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
by Suriyaa Sundararuban June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

Hello everyone, I'm a ICANN newcomer. I have a question about this public comment: Is it really necessary and useful to register only one .com domain name with a single-character label? Why not for all .com domains? Yours Sincerely, *Suriyaa Sundararuban* *(https://about.suriyaa.tk <https://about.suriyaa.tk>)*

1 0

[Comments-o-com-single-char-10may18] Comment on O dot com release for registration
by Mark Vandendyke June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

I support the release for registration one .COM domain name with a single-character label: O.COM. In light of the long existence of other single letter domains already released, there are no persuasive technical arguments against permitting the same status for O.COM. Sincerely, Mark Vandendyke

1 0

[Comments-o-com-single-char-10may18] Public Comment
by Joseph "Joe" Weissman June 14, 2018

June 14, 2018

Verisign's RSEP proposal for offering "O.Com" contains no Rights Protection Mechanisms ("RPMs"). Such protections should be inherent in any new offering of domain names. By way of example, registry operators subject to the Trademark Clearinghouse are required to offer a Sunrise period of at least thirty (30) days. See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/sdrp-2013-10-31-en. To this end, Verisign offered a Sunrise period for various IDNs of ".com". Verisign should not be permitted to offer any SCDN in .com or .net without similar RPMs. It is unclear why Verisign's subject RSEP does away with RPMs, especially in light of a November 28, 2006 communication between Overstock.com and the ICANN Board that is available publically at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/warren-to-board-28nov06-en.pdf. Therein, Overstock.com expresses interest in the release through auction of SCDNs to "parties with established trademark or use rights in the 'name.'" Overstock.com suggests in its 2006 communication that auction proceeds go to ICANN except for "a one time per name contribution [in the form of] a percentage of the payment from the auctioned name [going] to any special/restricted funds which the Board and the community have agreed ... ." Overstock's communication is significant for at least three reasons. First, it seems to outline the process for the auction of "O.com" currently under consideration in the form of Verisign's RSEP. Second, Verisign's RSEP nevertheless omits a key aspect of Overstock.com's 2006 proposal, i.e., mechanisms to protect trademark or use rights in "names" to be auctioned. Third, the communication raises the specter of impropriety in Verisign's RSEP for auctioning off "O.com" in the form of a potential quid pro quo in which ICANN permits the registration of "O.com" in exchange for funding from Overstock.com for ICANN programs and/or ICANN-supported projects over a number of years. Recognizing that ICANN and Versign derive their contracts from the United States government, both entities are responsible for upholding their obligations. These obligations include transparency and equitable treatment to avoid confusion and protect brand owners. Instead of providing RPMs, the RSEP states that "if any disputes arise from the allocation of this SCDN, it is recommended that the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy be used." Yet, the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy applies only to bad-faith registrations and thus would fail to protect a brand owner from a registrant savvy enough to avoid providing indicators of bad faith. Importantly, public comments have already supported a sunrise period for the release of SCDNs. ICANN proposed releasing SCDNs through auction back in 2007. The public comment period brought submissions supporting a sunrise period or some other procedure for protecting intellectual property rights in the release of SCDNs. (See https://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/pdf6q6lG1u1pw.pdf) [cid:image001.png@01CF7061.3AE55380] Joseph J. Weissman, Esq. Board Certified in Intellectual Property Law SunTrust Bank Building 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 3100 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813.225.2500, ext. 2095 Fax: 813.223.7118 The information contained in this transmission may be attorney/client privileged and therefore confidential. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing or copy of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, or if you are not the individual or entity named above, the receipt of this transmission is not intended to and does not waive any privilege, attorney/client or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by telephone or e-mail. Thank you.

1 0

[Comments-o-com-single-char-10may18] Ratified: ALAC Statement on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 5, 2018

June 5, 2018

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC Statement on the Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Rel…>. Ratification information has been included on the cover page. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<http://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<http://www.twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [ignature_72118515]

1 0

[Comments-o-com-single-char-10may18] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
by JS Lascary June 5, 2018

June 5, 2018

It occurred to me that the Registry Service request from the registry operator, VeriSign, Inc. (hereinafter the 'Request') is in conflict with ICANN's Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN Guidelines (hereinafter the 'Guidelines') as published at the following uri < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf>. Specifically, section 2.5.3 of the Guidelines mentions that : " TLD registries are encouraged to apply additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables as determined by Unicode Technical Report #36: Unicode Security Considerations ( http://unicode.org/reports/tr36) and Unicode Technical Standard #39: Unicode Security Mechanisms (http://unicode.org/reports/tr39) " In fact, the single character domain name proposed in the Request, o.com (Latin script), is Whole-Script Confusable with xn--0xa.com (Greek Script) and xn--n1a.com (Cyrillic Script). At the time of this comment, the latter two are registered in the .com namespace and have been for over 14 years. Given the above, I would welcome clarifications on the below points for the benefit of the entire ICANN community : (i) What is each stakeholder's position on the matter. I note neither the Request nor ICANN's Review of the Request discuss the issue of Whole-Script Confusables. Moreover, there is no published policy on Whole-Script Confusables for the .com namespace at this time. (ii) Assuming both the Guidelines and the Amendment to the .com Registry Agreement are adopted contemporaneously, will Verisign be required to update its .com IDN policy to reflect the Guidelines prior to proceeding with it's plan to release any single character domain name. (iii) What are the "additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables" envisioned by Verisign. (iv) In which scenario(s) can the domain name proposed in the Request, o.com (Latin script), be safely released in accordance with the Guidelines. Many thanks, Jean-Sebastien Lascary cc idngwg(a)icann.org

2 1