I write to submit my opposition to the proposed Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM. The proposed release and amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement are troubling for a number of reasons, specified below, and I would encourage ICANN to reevaluate the proposed release to take into account alternatives that would be consistent with existing policy, as well as to enhance the public benefit of any prospective change. Specifically, my concerns are as follows: · The proposal appears to set up a preferential exception to the current ICANN rules for no apparent objective reason by virtue of the fact that only one of the possible single character domain names is addressed. It is not clear why just the letter “O” is singled out so as to justify a rule specific to it alone rather than any other single character domain name or all single character domain names, absent the appearance of outside influence. · The proposal sets up the potential for either (a) a questionable precedent for handling release of other single character domain names or (b) inconsistent handling of all single character domain names. · The proposal does not afford any protection for trademark owners who may have existing rights in the specified single character. o Preferential protection of existing trademark owners is accounted for in other new TLD offerings o Inclusion of existing trademark owner precedence in this case would permit consistent protection of trademark rights across all domain name classes. · The charities to receive proceeds should not be deemed confidential and should be identified by name for public review and scrutiny in order to establish accountability and transparency with funds acquired by means of a public service. Transparency is especially important in this case given the extremely narrow tailoring of an exception to long-standing rules, which can easily raise questions about the motivations and influences behind the decision to amend. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal, and I urge the Commission to thoroughly evaluate the ramifications of this proposed amendment and to modify it to promote sound public policy. Please note that I am writing this opposition in my personal capacity as an intellectual property attorney and not on behalf of my employer, and it in no way is intended to reflect the views or legal position of the University of Notre Dame. Timothy J. Flanagan Associate General Counsel Concurrent Professor of Law University of Notre Dame