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

[Comments-o-com-single-char-10may18] (no subject)
by Olusegun H. Olugbile June 18, 2018

June 18, 2018

Dear Everyone, I have been following discussions and comments on the release of o.com. Thanks to the BC volunteers for helping in drafting the BC comment. Contributing on behalf of AfICTA, AfICTA has been engaged in ICANN since 2012 representing the views and perspectives of concerned African ICT Associations and professionals. AfICTA supports the release of the trial of o.com as proposed in the RSEP and .com Registry amendment. We understand the need to recognize prior rights to ensure that the allocation of single letters can progress and that the use of the auction funds should support and contribute to the broader ICANN community. While AfiCTA supports the general areas identified by the original Working Group on Reserved Names, we also note that capacity development should be defined broadly to also support participation in ICANN and related activities. Thank you. Segun Olugbile

1 0

[Comments-o-com-single-char-10may18] MY COMMENT ON: Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
by Wisdom Donkor June 16, 2018

June 16, 2018

My name is Wisdom Donkor, i am from Ghana and an engineer by profession with specialization in E-government Networks and Infrastructure, Internet Governance, Open Government Data Policies platforms and community development, Geospatial technology, Software Engineering, Databases, Human Resource Planning and Development and Open Source Technology. I have organize and facilitated many workshops, forums, and main sessions within IGF and outside of IGF. I have also facilitated many SDG data road maps forums in Ghana and few other parts of Africa. I work for government and also i Co-Founded African Open Data and Internet Research Foundation (AFRIODIRF). I have been an ICANN Fellow and Coach Since ICANN 49 and also a member of NCSG, NCUC and AFRALO and also belong to few of the working groups within ICANN. I am commenting in my individual capacity. I have been able to contribute to ICANN because I have been part of the Fellowship Program that focuses on enhancing participation and also provides capacity building to participants from not only governments, but the technical community, small business from developing countries, legal community, civil society and NGOs. One of the things that I respect, and find vitally important to support is the inclusive nature of ICANN for participation of all different representatives from different groups. ICANN exists within a larger ecosystem, as is well recognized. Decisions about ICANN taken in other groups, like the ITU, the IGF In other capacities, I am a member of the Internet Governance Forum Multi Stakeholder Advisory Group [IGF-MAG]. I am also engaged in advancing and supporting the national IGF in my own country. Many people from developing countries cannot travel to the ICANN meeting, but they need to understand ICANN's purpose, and its mission, and its activities. I do note that I have an example of one kind of activity that might fall into "capacity building". For instance, it could be supporting the national IGFs ability to convene at a national levels, with inclusion of ICANN related workshops or sessions would mean that more can participate and contribute toward ICANN's policy, and core mission. In my continent, we struggle with having access to the Internet, to energy, and to capacity building., there have been many attempt and effort to also introduce internet governance into the educational curriculum of the developing countries at all levels and there is the need to intensify awareness and engagement within the educational sectors of the developing countries and this will go a long way to addressing the sustainable development goal 4 by 2030 that will in-turn feed into all sectors of the developing countries economy We are making significant progress in addressing these challenges. And, , we are strongly committed to ICANN, and to a continually strengthened Internet, and we understand that ICANN security and stability depends on informed multi stakeholder participation. Which means that capacity building at the national level is essential -- not only with the technical community, but also with the policy makers. Thus, I reviewed the areas that the auction funds from O.com could support and I support a broader definition of capacity building that merely adding new registries and registrars. That does not require a change in any way; merely an acknowledgement that capacity building has a broad and inclusive definition. I support the proposed auction of O.COM <http://o.com/> as is proposed in the RSEP, and moving ahead. I can envision how the auction funds can support the broader Internet and ICANN communities. As to this being a trial, sometimes it is necessary to take the first step forward. I urge that this first step be taken, and that the auction for O.com proceed. I also reviewed the earlier work of the Working Group on Reserved Names and commend the thoroughness of that process. *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* *Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation (Co-Founder)* E-government, Internet Governance & Open Government Data and platforms Specialist ICANN Fellow / UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Member. National SDG's data Roadmaps Advisory Board Member, Ghana Ghana Energy Data Task-force Member Ghana OGP Advisory Committee Member Email: wisdom.dk(a)gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: Kwasi Wisdom Linkdin: Kwasi Wisdom

1 0

[Comments-o-com-single-char-10may18] o.com comments
by Scott McCormick June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

I have been involved in ICANN since 2007, and my primary focus has been on security and stability. These comments are offered in my individual capacity as a security expert. It is apparent that the release of the single letters in the legacy gTLDs, the ccTLDs and also the new gTLDs offers no technical challenges to the Internet. As the single letters are available now in the other legacy gTLDs, it is time to move ahead with the release of o.com<http://o.com> as a trial. Of course, recognition of prior rights is an important element to prevent misuse or delay in the use of the single letter. The Working Group on Reserved Names of the GNSO Policy Council did tremendous work earlier and their suggested uses of the auction funds from single letters should be respected, ensuring that the funds benefit the broader ICANN community. V/r, -Scott Scott McCormick Mobile 443.691.2013

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 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 14, 2018

June 14, 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 4, 2018

June 4, 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