1. Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) Proposal Comments Sue Todd, Director, Product Management Monday 11 May 2009, San Francisco

2. Melbourne IT Experience  Sole administrator for.com.au in 1996 − Policy rules result in few trademark infringement issues in.com.au with more than a million names registered  Largest gTLD registrar outside of North America − Manage more than 5 million small business names  Significant corporate domain registrar − Manage more than 500,000 corporate domains  Partnered with Neustar in the creation of.biz  Want to design processes that provide appropriate levels of consumer protection that can also scale to millions of second level registrations

3. 1.0 IP Clearinghouse  Melbourne IT supports IRT’s recommended proposal  The IP Clearinghouse will likely be used by registries and registrars, if: − No additional access charges, similar to the escrow service − ICANN provides free web based public access − Allow automated access to ICANN accredited registries and registrars  Provide access to other organizations, if: − They pay an accreditation fee. − Contract with ICANN not to use the information for non-trademark protection purposes

4. 1.1 Globally Protected Marks List  Melbourne IT supports this list primarily for protection at the second level  Though we do have concerns with regards to the criteria and agree with the proposals statement that the criteria should be reviewed. − The bar of 200 registrations an 90 countries seems high ▪What was the benchmark used? − Concern that a single trademark registration by another party can raise the bar even higher ▪If the bar is raised higher, then there needs to be a minimum standard for the single trademark registration. –e.g subject to an examining authority that required the applicant to show use of the mark. Avoid situations as occurred during the.eu sunrise process ▪Note that the holder of a single trademark registration would still be able to register a second name, and could use their trademark registration as part of evidence to support their application.

5. 1.2 Non-GPM Marks and IP Claims Service  The level of protection for non-GPM marks is fairly weak in the proposed IP claims service. − Although a registrant is required to warrant that they won’t mis-use the name, there is no requirement to authenticate the identity of the registrant.  Suggest the creation of an additional classification − Regional Protected Mark – where trademark registration would be required in at least 10 countries, in at least 2 ICANN regions. − For names that have regional level of protection, the registration process at the second level must incorporate authentication of the registrant (e.g to extended validation website certificate level) to ensure that the warranty provided has more significance.

6. 2.0 Uniform Rapid Suspension System  Melbourne IT supports the URS and we recommend : − Pre-registration should be managed as part of the IP Clearinghouse − Copies of the WHOIS complaint and offending website should be time and date stamped.  URS System should included automated mechanisms other than email to notify a registry or registrar of URS proceedings. − Email doesn’t scale well. − Could use similar technical approaches as provided for transfers in EPP registries.  A registrant that submits an Answer should also be subject to an authentication step to verify the identity of the registrant. − This could be managed as part of the neutral IP Clearinghouse and the information need not go to the complainant.  More definition of an abusive trademark holder is needed. − E.g 3 failed URS proceedings in a 30 day period.

7. 3.0 Post-Delegation Dispute Processes  Melbourne IT supports the need for the post-delegation dispute processes.

8. 4.0 Thick WHOIS  Melbourne IT supports the use of a “thick” WHOIS at the registry − More reliable, and consistent data formats  Automated access to the thick WHOIS should be restricted to accredited registrars, and other parties accredited by ICANN − Organizations pay an accreditation fee, and contract with ICANN to ensure that the data is only used in connection with domain name operations and not to be used for marketing purposes.  Melbourne IT does not support a single, central WHOS registry − Instead Melbourne IT recommends that ICANN focus on standardising queries and data formats that support scripts other than the Latin script.

9. 5.0 Process for String Confusion  Melbourne IT supports an additional check for aural and commercial impression AFTER a string is already found to be visually similar. − E.g.com and.kom are visually similar and sound similar −.mate and.make may be visually similar but have different meaning

10. 6.0 Other Proposals  Melbourne IT supports separate rules with respect to selecting one or more registrars for corporate brand/single registrant gTLDs  Melbourne IT supports a fee structure that recognises IDN/ASCII equivalents of the same string. − Provided that each second level name is managed by the same registrant and maps to the same Internet location.

11. Digital Brand News − Current information on new gTLDs maintained by Melbourne − http://www.digitalbrandnews.com http://www.digitalbrandnews.com Contact: − Sue.todd@melbourneitdbs.com Sue.todd@melbourneitdbs.com Latest Information