PRO WG Report - GNSO - icann

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_____ for the current revision.Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and NumbersPROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERSWORKING GROUP (PRO WG)FINAL REPORTWorking Group Chair: Kristina RosetteICANN Staff: Liz WilliamsFinal Report GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC), Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 1 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20071. SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 32. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................. 73. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY ............................................................... 124. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 135. OUTCOMES .................................................................................................. 166. OUTSTANDING WORK ................................................................................ 20ANNEX ONE – REGISTRY SUMMARIES ......................................................... 27ANNEX TWO – PARTICIPATION DATA ........................................................... 90ANNEX THREE – QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ............................................... 92ANNEX FOUR – NEW TLDS PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS &IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES ................................................................... 106Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 2 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20071. SUMMARY1. This is the Final Report of the Protecting the Rights of Others (PRO-WG)Working Group. The PRO-WG was formed as a sub-group of the GNSO’sCommittee for the Introduction of New Top-Level Domains to consider issuesthat related to the registration of names at the second level in new TLDregistries. The GNSO Council considered the request to form a WorkingGroup at its 1 February 2007 meeting 1 and ratified the Statement of Work atits 15 March 2007 meeting 2 , the minutes of which are posted on the GNSO’swebsite 3 .2. There are six substantive sections to this Report that map directly to theStatement of Work in addition to the Annexes which contain backgroundinformation 4 . This Report will be used as further input into the new TLDsFinal Report which is due to be released in early June 2007.3. The Statement of Work included the background and rationale for the work 5 .“There is a new gTLD committee of the GNSO that is developing policyrecommendations with respect to the introduction of new gTLDs. In additionto policy recommendations, the committee is also considering guidelines thatmay assist the ICANN staff in preparing an application process, and alsocreating a framework agreement for registry operators. The current registraraccreditation agreement requires that Registered Name Holders representthat, to the best of the Registered Name Holder's knowledge and belief,1 Agenda posted at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-01feb07.shtml2 Agenda posted at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-15mar07.shtml3 Minutes posted at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-15mar07.shtml4 On 15 March 2007 two decisions were made which are recorded in the minutes. Decision 2:The GNSO Council approved the revised charter for the working group on "Protecting the rightsof others and Decision 3: The Council extended the timeline for the working group on theProtection of the Rights of Others from the end of April to May 17, in order for the report to beconsidered at the GNSO Council meeting on 24 May 2007. This deadline was not met as thegroup needed more time to agree on the substantive recommendations.5 A full set of the proposed recommendations and implementation guidelines (as at 30 May 2007)are found in Annex Four. These provide the context for this work.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 3 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007neither the registration of the Registered Name, nor the manner in which it isdirectly or indirectly used, infringes the legal rights of any third party. ICANNalso has a Consensus Policy called the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP) that is intended for resolving disputes between the registrant and anythird party over the registration and use of an Internet domain name. In pastnew gTLD rounds, applicants for new gTLDs have been required toimplement measures that discourage registration of domain names thatinfringe intellectual property rights; reserve specific names to preventinappropriate name registrations; minimize abusive registrations; comply withapplicable trademark and anti-cyber squatting legislation; and provideprotections (other than exceptions that may be applicable during the start-upperiod) for famous name and trademark owners. There have been a range ofapproaches used which vary in terms of both cost to registrants and thirdparties affected by registration, and effectiveness. As part of the new gTLDcommittee's deliberations, there has been some discussion about whatadditional protections beyond the current terms in the registration agreementand existing dispute resolution mechanisms should be in place to the protectthe legal rights of others during the domain name registration process,particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contentionfor what Registrants perceive as the "best" names.”4. The Statement of Work then described the purpose of the work. “Thepurpose of the working group is to: (1) Document the additional protectionsimplemented by existing gTLD operators beyond the current terms in theregistration agreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms to theprotect the legal rights of others during the domain name registration process,particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contentionfor what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. The documentation shouldidentify the problems that the protections were intended to solve. The workinggroup should establish definitions of terms used in this document to ensure aOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 4 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007common understanding amongst members of the working group. Thesedefinitions would only be in the context of the document, and withoutprejudice to the meaning of these terms in other legal contexts. In addition,the work will “(2) Determine whether to recommend to Council a bestpractices approach to providing any additional protections beyond the currentregistration agreement and UDRP policy for the legal rights of others duringthe domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start up ofa new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive as the"best" names. A best practices document could be incorporated into thematerial for the application process for new gTLD applicants. The GNSOcould elect in future to use the policy development process (PDP) to create aConsensus Policy in this area”.5. The work was conducted using teleconferences and one face-to-face meetingthat coincided with ICANN’s March 2007 meeting in Lisbon. The WorkingGroup had a relatively diverse membership but patchy and inconsistentrepresentation from some constituencies and none from the Internet ServiceProviders Constituency. The full set of participation data is found in AnnexTwo. In addition, MP3 recordings of the meetings can be found herehttp://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may.6. The GNSO PRO WG did not conclude its work on the Terms of Reference asspecified by the GNSO Council. This report also provides a written summaryof areas in which broad agreement and support were not reached and forwhich the PRO WG believes additional time is necessary. The WG discussedvarious approaches to providing additional protections beyond the currentregistration agreement and UDRP policy for the legal rights of others duringthe domain name registration process for new TLDs, but was unable to reachconsensus on whether to recommend a "best practices" approach toproviding such protections. The group was unable to agree on a commonapproach because of a wide variety of registry services business models andOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 5 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007the diverse objectives of the working group participants. In addition, WGmembers who opposed recommending “best practice” guidelines stated aconcern that, if “best practices” were developed and incorporated into the newTLDs implementation plan, there could be negative implications for newregistry operators that chose not to implement them.7. The WG was able to develop a list of draft principles that various WGmembers believe should be considered as policy statements for TLDoperators to implement, but has yet to fully engage in discussion of that list ofdraft principles.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 6 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20072. DEFINITIONSThe table below sets out the definitions for some key terms which were developed by the WorkingGroup.Abusive RegistrationAuthentication AgentAuthentication ofLegal RightsAuthentication ofApplicantCharter EligibilityDispute ResolutionPolicy (CEDRP)DefensiveRegistrationsFirst Come FirstServed (FCFS)Abusive Registration means a Domain Name which either: i . wasregistered or otherwise acquired in a manner which, at the time when theregistration or acquisition took place, took unfair advantage of or wasunfairly detrimental to another’s Legal Rights; OR ii. has been used in amanner which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental toanother’s Legal Rights.An Authentication Agent is the person or entity authorized by a new TLDregistry to authenticate the Legal Rights claimed by a domain nameapplicant or to authenticate the identity of a domain name applicant.Authentication of Legal Rights is the process performed by theAuthentication Agent to confirm that the claimed Legal Rights are primafacie authentic based on documentary evidence and of a nature andclass accepted by the TLD registry for its Rights Protection Mechanisms.Authentication of the Legal Rights has no bearing on their validity whichis a matter for courts of competent jurisdiction.Authentication of Applicant is a service conducted by the AuthenticationAgent to confirm the identity of the domain name applicant claiming aLegal Right in a Rights Protection MechanismThe CEDRP followed by certain TLDs (such as .aero, .biz, .coop,.museum, .name, .pro, and .travel), provides a mechanism forchallenging a domain name registration on the grounds that theregistrant does not meet the eligibility requirements set forth in the TLDcharter. Any person or entity may bring such a challenge under theCEDRP.Defensive Registrations are domain name registrations by holders ofLegal Rights primarily for the purpose of preventing third parties fromregistering strings that include names identical to or similar to their LegalRights.FCFS is an allocation policy adopted by a TLD registry where a domainname registration is awarded to the first registrant that successfullysubmits a valid registration request for the requested string to the registrythrough its registrar.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 7 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007IP Claim ServiceLand RushLegal RightsName StringNotificationProtecting thecommons 6Rights ProtectionMechanismsAn IP Claim Service is a service that permits a registrant to submit anIntellectual Property Claim (“IP Claim”), based on asserted Legal Rights.(NeuLevel, which used an IP Claim process for the .biz TLD, restrictedthe bases for IP Claims to registered or common-law trademarks.) Filingof an IP Claim does not automatically entitle the holder of that claim toregistration of the domain name corresponding to the IP Claim; rather,the filing ensures that any potential applicant for a domain nameregistration corresponding to the IP Claim would be (1) notified of the IPClaim and (2) have to affirmatively agree to proceed with its applicationafter such notification. The holder of an IP Claim may challenge anypotential applicant through the Start-up Trademark Opposition Process(“STOP”).Land Rush is the commencement of the “go live” period of a new TLDlaunch where the registry begins accepting live domain registrations fromregistrants through registrars.Legal Rights are rights of a nature and class recognized by a TLD as,subject to Authentication, entitling owners to participate in a RightsProtection Mechanism. Legal Rights have included registered nationaland regional unitary marks and, in so far as recognized by the law of thenation state where they are held, unregistered trademarks, trade names,business identifiers, company names, geographical names anddesignations of origin and distinctive titles of protected literary and artisticworks.A Name-String Notification is a paid subscription function where theowner of a Legal Right can be notified by a registry of an application toregister a new domain name which includes the monitored name-string.Language itself is not property and as such belongs to the commonsavailable for free and unencumbered use by all people. While manylegal entities are placing trademarks on common natural words whenused in specific commercial contexts, these trademarks may not affectthe rights of individuals to use these words or to register them as domainnames. Within ICANN this can be taken to mean that these names areto remain available for registration according to the regular procedures,for example, first come first served or as determined by the registry, aslong as the registrant is not in violation of provisions of the UDRP.RPMRights Protection Mechanisms are processes or mechanisms adoptedand implemented by TLD registries for the purpose of protecting LegalRights by discouraging or preventing registration of domain names thatviolate or abuse a participant’s Legal Rights. Rights ProtectionMechanisms are in addition to the protection afforded through the UDRPand Registration Agreement.6 This definition, provided by Nominating Committee Representative Avri Doria, was not agreedupon by the Working Group but was used to illustrate differing points of view.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 8 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Rights of Others 7Start-Up TrademarkOpposition Policy(STOP)Sunrise ProcessUniform Domain-Name DisputeResolution Policy(UDRP)Rights of Others are the rights of the public to use descriptive andgeneric words, including where permitted by the law of the nation statewhere they reside, to use words which may be subject to Legal Rights inparticular classes of the Nice Classification System–outside thoseclasses. In relation to unregistered Legal Rights, they include the right touse words that are not subject to protection in their nation state or whereno goodwill or reputation arises in their nation state in relation to such aword. They include the right to make fair and legitimate use of words inwhich others may claim Legal Rights.Start-Up Trademark Opposition Policy is a policy available only to an IPClaimant who properly claimed Legal Rights through the IP ClaimService. STOP is a unique dispute resolution process, similar to theUDRP, and put in place for dealing with disputes between IP Claimantsand potential registrants. An IP Claimant shall prevail over the potentialregistrant in a STOP proceeding where it demonstrates that a TLD waseither (1) registered in bad faith or (2) used in bad faith,A process in which owners of Legal Rights have the opportunity toregister domain names before the Landrush process open to the public.Registries that used a Sunrise Process identified the Legal Rights onwhich a Sunrise Process registration could be based.ICANN-accredited registrars in all gTLDs have adopted UDRP. Underthe UDRP, dispute proceedings arising from alleged abusiveregistrations of domain names (for example, cyber squatting) may beinitiated by a holder of trademark rights. The UDRP is a policy betweena registrar and its customer and is included in registration agreements forall ICANN-accredited registrars.7 This definition, provided by the NCUC, was not approved by the Working Group but is providedhere as a reflection of the discussion.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 9 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007The tables illustrate the kinds of mechanisms which are used in a variety of registries –sponsored, generic and country code – to further explain the context for the work. See below forcharts that set out the current proposals for the introduction of new top-level domains from theGNSO Committee.TLD Eligibility and Name SelectionTLD EligibilityRequirementsTLD-SpecificEligibility IdentificationNumberName SelectionRequirementsEligibility ChallengeMechanism.aero .aero .museum .aero.cat .museum .travel .museum.coop .travel .name.eu.museum.pro.travelRights Bases and ValidationRights Bases Tied toNational LawRights Bases OtherThan/In Addition toRegisteredTrademarks ofNational EffectValidation by Registryof Claimed Rights.cat .cat All – .cat, .eu, .us .eu.dk .coop Only if competing .usapplications – .dk.eu .dk For limited purpose –.coop.eu Random selection –.mobiRights Claim and Blocking Registration MechanismsOnline NationalTrademark OfficeDatabase(s) Used forRights VerificationApplicant Informed of Rights Claim andRequired to Confirm Intent to Register Name.biz.dk.name“Defensive” Blocking Registrations.cat.name.proSunriseFirst come, firstserved allocationPhased Registration ChallengeMechanisms.cat .cat .eu.coop .eu .info.eu .mobi .mobi.usOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 10 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Watch Service and Category-Specific ProcessesWatch Service Place Name Process Generic Terms Process.name .coop .museum.museum.mobi.travelOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 11 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20073. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARYSupported by(see table below)1 That there is no universal rights protection mechanism (RPM). VMcE, TR, KR,JN, AD, KWS,EC, JeffN2 That each new gTLD should adopt and implement a dispute mechanismunder which a third party could challenge another’s use of that gTLD’sRPM that results in obtaining a domain name registration.3 That the Legal Rights on which a party bases its participation and seeksto protect in a RPM should be subject to actual authentication, at least ifthe authenticity of such rights is challenged.4 That if a new gTLD elects to use a Sunrise Process as its RPM, it shouldrestrict eligible Legal Rights in such a manner as to discourage abusiveregistration.5 That regardless of other authentication of Legal Rights, all new gTLDsshould institute measures to deter abuse of the RPMs and clearly falsesubmissions. These measures could be automated or conducted on anad hoc basis to focus on RPM submissions that are nonsensical or likelyto be false (e.g., registration number is 12345, date is 00/00/00, name isJohn Doe).6 That all Legal Rights to be protected in an RPM must be capable of beingauthenticated.VMcE, KR. PGO,KWS, EC, MR,JeffNVMcE, KR, JN,PGO, KWS, EC,MR, JeffNVMcE ,TR, KR,JN, PGO, AD,KWS,VMcE,TR, KR,JN, PGO, AD,KWS, MRVMcE,TR, KR,JN, PGO, AD,KWS, EC, MR,JeffNAbbreviation Name ConstituencyAD Avri Doria Nom ComEC Edmon Chung RegistryJeffN Jeff Neuman RegistryJN Jon Nevett RegistrarKR Kristina Rosette IPCKWS Kelly W Smith IPCMR Mike Rodenbaugh BusinessPGO Peter Gustav Olson IPCTR Tim Ruiz RegistrarVMcE Victoria McEvedy NCUCOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 12 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20074. DISCUSSION1. The introduction of new top-level domains (TLDs) in 2000 (.aero, .biz, .coop,.museum, .name and .pro) included the introduction of several rightsprotection mechanisms which aimed to protect trademark and other rightsfrom third party domain name registrations that may have violated thoserights. These methods varied as did their complexity and ultimate success. 82. In 2007, as ICANN considers the introduction of additional TLDs, the rightsprotection mechanisms used in the past are instructive but raise questionsconcerning the necessity and adequacy of such mechanisms. The PRO-WGwas chartered to provide a report to the GNSO Committee on the Introductionof New Top-Level Domains with a view to assessing further steps to take,including the possible need for the creation of a Policy Development Process(PDP) on rights protection mechanisms beyond the protections embodied inthe current Registration Agreement and the Uniform Domain Name DisputeResolution Policy.3. The GNSO Council provided the PRO-WG with the following Statement ofWork:(1) Document the additional protections implemented by existinggTLD operators beyond the current terms in the registrationagreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms to theprotect the legal rights of others during the domain nameregistration process, particularly during the initial start up of a newgTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive asthe "best" names. The documentation should identify the problemsthat the protections were intended to solve. The working groupshould establish definitions of terms used in this document toensure a common understanding amongst members of the working8 See Evaluation of the New gTLDs: Policy and Legal Issues, by Summit Strategies International,http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf.; Registry Proof of Concept Reports,http://www.icann.org/registries/poc/.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 13 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007group. These definitions would only be in the context of thedocument, and without prejudice to the meaning of these terms inother legal contexts.(2) Determine whether to recommend to Council a best practicesapproach to providing any additional protections beyond the currentregistration agreement and UDRP policy for the legal rights ofothers during the domain name registration process, particularlyduring the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contentionfor what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. A best practicesdocument could be incorporated into the material for the applicationprocess for new gTLD applicants. The GNSO could elect in futureto use the policy development process (PDP) to create aConsensus Policy in this area.4. To determine the answers to the questions posed in the Statement of Work,the Working Group used several different work methods. The first was ananalysis of existing registry operations. Those summaries are found in full inAnnex One, the majority of which were completed by WG members. Inaddition, some ccTLD registries were included in the summaries to seewhether there were additional lessons to be learnt from the ccTLDenvironment. The Working Group also developed a questionnaire whichposed a range of questions that were developed by the Working Group duringa teleconference and refined through the mailing list. The questionnaire wasdistributed in both Word format and was posted using on-line polling software.The full results of the survey are found in Annex Two and the results are usedthroughout this work. The url for the poll results ishttp://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=3bSZ4z3AQauWM7Ukrige.Finally, the Working Group utilized the expertise within the Group 9 .5. The Working Group was tasked to provide a report to the GNSO Council andconclude its work by 17 May 2007 to provide sufficient time for its report to beincorporated into the Final Report of the GNSO New gTLDS Committee.9 It was brought to our attention, after the poll closed, that the online poll did not offer the fulllisting of countries from which respondents may have come. This was a deficiency in theproprietary software and respondent were also able to respond using email and a Worddocument attachment.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 14 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Kristina Rosette of the GNSO Intellectual Property Constituency was electedChair by the Working Group members.6. Working Group members were encouraged to review the following fivedocuments, in line with the Terms of Reference:a. Draft Recommendations from the New gTLD PDP Committeeb. December 2003 new sTLD Application Form, Part Bc. IPC Evaluation Chart for Proposed TLDs (October 2000)d. Registry Proof of Concept Reportse. Evaluation of the New gTLDs: Policy and Legal Issues, SummitStrategies International, July 20047. WG members recognized that any rights protection mechanism may be:a. controversialb. costly and complex for registries and registrars to operatec. costly and time consuming for registrantsd. open to comprehensive and automated gaming8. In addition, WG members recognize that registry and registrar businessmodels may be different and that the introduction of IDN TLDs may presentfurther layers of complexity which require deeper examination.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 15 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20075. OUTCOMES1. The PRO WG discussed various approaches to protecting the rights of othersincluding whether to provide additional protections beyond the currentregistration agreement and UDRP policy in new top-level domains. The WorkingGroup was unable to reach consensus on whether to recommend a "bestpractices" approach to providing such protections.2. The WG was able to develop a list of draft principles that some WG membersbelieve should be considered as possible principles for new TLD operators toconsider in their implementation plans but the Working Group has yet to fullyengage in discussion of that list of draft principles.3. The first table below set out where there is agreement on the approach. Thesecond table illustrates where there is some support (either with or withoutalternative language). Section 6 sets out where additional work may beconsidered by the GNSO Council for future examination.4. For the purposes here “agreement” means that there is broad agreement withinthe Working Group (largely equivalent to “rough consensus” as used in theIETF). The PRO-WG did not use the word “consensus” because that term hasa particular meaning as used by the GNSO Council. An “alternative view”means that a differing opinion has been expressed, without getting enoughfollowing within the Working Group to merit either “agreement” or “support”. TheWG used the RFC 2119 (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2119.txt) as the basisfor determining where the words “should”, “must” and “may” ought to be used.5. The on-line questionnaire provides some interesting results which may haveassisted the Working Group in their deliberations. Forty responses werereceived online with two others submitted by email. More than 50% of the onlinerespondents (there were two offline respondents who identified themselves as IPrights owners or representatives) identified themselves as either IP rights ownersor representatives. Thirteen respondents identified themselves as civil societyrepresentatives. Five respondents identified themselves as either a registrar orOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 16 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007registry. There was a 50:50 split between respondents who answered thequestion about whether “IP owners need new or enhanced protection rights”.Most respondents indicated, for each of the TLDs identified, that the rightsprotections mechanisms were not applicable to them. Of those that did respond,the majority said that the rights protection mechanism provided by the registryoperator met their needs. Most respondents used either an IP claim or a sunriseregistration to protect their rights. A large proportion of respondents indicatedthat they did own defensive registrations even in registries where there weresponsored or chartered restrictions on domain name registrations. Respondentsindicated varying percentages of defensive registrations in their portfolios.6. The overview of the results needs to be read in the context of a limited responserate and a statistically insignificant random sample from which the responsescould be drawn. In addition, the questionnaire did not meet best practice surveymethodology but was rather intended to get a general sense of direction fromsome interested stakeholders.7. In summary, the PRO-WG reached agreement on the following areas:1 That there is no universal rights protection mechanism.2 That each new gTLD should adopt and implement a dispute mechanism under which a thirdparty could challenge another’s use of that gTLD’s RPM that results in obtaining a domainname registration.3 That the Legal Rights on which a party bases its participation and seeks to protect in an RPMshould be subject to actual authentication, at least if the authenticity of such rights ischallenged.4 That if a new gTLD elects to use a Sunrise Process as its RPM, it should restrict eligibleLegal Rights in such a manner as to discourage abusive registration.5 That regardless of other authentication of Legal Rights, all new gTLDs should institutemeasures to deter abuse of the RPMs and clearly false submissions. These measures couldbe automated or conducted on an ad hoc basis to focus on RPM submissions that arenonsensical or likely to be false (e.g., registration number is 12345, date is 00/00/00, name isJohn Doe).6 That all Legal Rights to be protected in an RPM must be capable of being authenticated.Agreed Proposals 1Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 17 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20078. Alternative views which had some support are included in the following tables.“Support” is defined as “there is some gathering of positive opinion butcompeting positions may exist and broad agreement has not been reached. An“alternative view” indicates that a differing opinion has been expressed withoutgetting enough following with the Working Group to merit either “agreement” or“support”.1 That all new gTLDs must provide an RPM.Alternative view: That all new TLDS may provide an RPM2 Each gTLD applicant MUST describe in its application (a) the RPM(s) it intends to provideand; and (b) how that RPM/those RPMs will protect the rights of others and discourageabusive registrations.Alternative view: That each gTLD applicant MUST describe in its application the methodsthey will employ to protect the rights of others.Alternative view: That each TLD applicant MUST describe in its application the methods, ifany, they will employ to protect the rights of others.3 That if a new gTLD elects to adopt and implement an RPM that consists of eligibility ormembership verification requirements and second-level name selection criteria (such asthose used by the .museum, .aero, and .travel TLDs), an additional RPM MAY NOT benecessary.Alternative view that if a new gTLD elects to adopt a description that includes eligibility ormembership verification requirements and second-level name selection criteria (such asthose used by the .museum, .aero, and .travel) TLDs or another similar set of criteria, a RPMSHALL NOT be necessary.4 That if a new gTLD elects to use a Sunrise Process as its RPM and second-level names arenot awarded on a First-Come, First-Served basis, then competing applicants MAY beprovided with an opportunity to reach an allocation decision between/among themselves.5 That to the extent a gTLD is intended for/targeted to a particular geographic region, the LegalRight on which the owner or claimant bases its participation in the RPM SHOULD originatefrom the laws that apply to a country in the region or, in the case of a gTLD intendedfor/targeted to a region within a country, the laws that apply to the region.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 18 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20076 That the creation of “Approved Model RPMs” (to be developed later) SHOULD be availableat the registry’s sole discretion to select, which standardizes the RPM across aregistry/registrar to minimize the costs of implementation, and eliminates the need for ICANNto scrutinize this aspect of an application during the new TLD process. A registry applicantthat fails to pick an “Approved Model RPM” MUST not be prejudiced in any way if it elects notto use a “Approved Model PRM” as this is purely a voluntary standard that is meant to makethe launch of new TLDs more efficient. The list of Approved Model RPMs MAY be updatedfrom time to time.Alternative view that “Approved Model RPMs” (to be developed later) SHOULD be utilized bythe new registry, unless there are reasonable grounds for non-use in the particular registry.Such use of a standardized RPM MAY minimize the costs of implementation for all interestedparties, and would lessen the need for ICANN to scrutinize this aspect of an applicationduring the new TLD process. The list of Approved Model RPMs could be updated from time totime.Alternative view that the Supported principle is acceptable subject to the substitution of “andmay eliminate the need for ICANN to scrutinize this aspect of an application during the newTLD process” for “and eliminates the need for ICANN to scrutinize this aspect of anapplication during the new TLD process.”Supported Proposals 1Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 19 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20076. OUTSTANDING WORK1. Some members of the Working Group have identified some proposals forprinciples which have not been fully discussed. Significant discussion tookplace on the mailing list and within the teleconferences about the scope andapplicability of the Working Group’s remit. Leaving that discussion aside, thefollowing areas were identified as perhaps warranting more detailed analysis.1 All potential registrants have legal rights. gTLD operators should not consider the legal rightsof IP holders as superior to of the legal rights of others to register and use a domain name.2 The Rights Protection Mechanisms used by gTLD operators should not presume that aregistrant intends to infringe on or violate the legal rights of others simply by the act ofregistering a domain name.3 All potential registrants should have an equal opportunity to register common words, phrases,labels or strings as domain names.4 All principles relating to RPMs should equally apply to both ASCII/LDH TLDs and IDN TLDs.5 Rights protection mechanisms for second level names SHOULD also apply to third andhigher level names made available for general registration by the TLD operator.Outstanding Work 12. In addition, some members of the WG proposed principles regarding feerelatedaspects of RPMs. All such principles have been segregated into thissection and no levels of support have been developed for any of them.1 New gTLDs should accept payment for participation in RPMs by means other than creditcards.2 The fees charged by a gTLD for participation in its RPM should be reasonable and eachgTLD applicant MUST identify in its application the basis of its fee calculation.3 The fees charged by a gTLD for participation in its RPM must be reasonably close to theiractual or expected costs.4 The fees associated with the use of Rights Protection Mechanisms must be established at thesole discretion of the gTLD operator.RPM Fee Related Aspects Principles 13. Several members of the WG proposed new RPMs or RPM features. Theseproposals are listed below. The WG has not yet developed levels of support.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 20 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007These proposals should be considered among the WG’s Outstanding Work,but are identified separately for ease of reference.1 Centralized Mechanism for Authentication of Legal Rights by Multiple Providers. Owners ofLegal Rights would identify the Legal Rights on which they would rely in an RPM, wouldsubmit the documents required to authenticate such Legal Rights, and would designate theRPM in which they desired to participate. Once authenticated, the providers would conveythe confirmed authentication to the registry or registrar. A Legal Rights owner could selectamong/between more than one provider. Legal Rights owners would be required to affirmperiodically, most likely annually, that their Legal Rights remain valid and subsisting. LegalRights claims that were not affirmed would be deleted from the database.2 Standard Sunrise Mechanism. To adequately protect Legal Rights, owners of "ExistingNames" should have - in addition to the traditional Sunrise Process which accompanies thelaunch of a new TLD - two new methods of combating abusive registrations, namely"Defensive Removals" and "Name-String Notification". The "sunrise" itself should beoutsourced to an organisation which will provide sunrise registrations and defensiveremovals for all new TLDs.3 Outsourced Sunrise: A "Standard Sunrise Service Provider" (SSSP) would administer allfuture sunrise processes. The SSSP should be an internationally qualified and respectedNGO or not-for-profit corporation. The SSSP would provide a website where relevant datacan be collected and recycled in the future. The collection of such sunrise data involvesproviding input access and data storage of "official" domain name-related correspondenceand documentation. Thus ICANN or WIPO would appear to be an ideal candidate for SSSP.ICANN has the advantage that it already has contractual relations with accredited registrars,and could use these to control input, avoid abuse and to track problems.The SSSP will provide a standardised sunrise website at tld.sunrise.sssp.org. Theinformation provided to the SSSP website is standard contact information, the type of"Existing Name" and the possibility of uploading a PDF showing the existence of the name.The owner of the "Existing Name" will indicate whether the domain name at issue is to be aused, i.e. traditional sunrise application, or whether the domain name should be permanentlyremoved from the pool of available names. Thus at the completion of the sunrise period, theSSSP will provide to the TLD two lists: one for the sunrise names which should beregistered and function, and another list of names which should be permanently removed.The SSSP will produce the list at an at-cost basis and provide it to the new TLD in digitalformat such that the new TLD can "plug it in" to its registration function. The price of such adefensive removal would thus be inexpensive, probably in the neighbourhood of 1 U.S.dollar. As long as the prospective new TLD is aware at the outset that a number of domainnames will be permanently removed from the pool of available domain names, and does notbase its business model on the registration and renewal of cybersquatted domains, thenthese permanently removed domain names have no value to the TLD.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 21 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20074 A "Defensive Removal" is the permanent removal of specific domain name from the pool ofavailable domain names. An unlimited number of domain names may be removed asDefensive Removals based on the existence of a single Existing Name. In that the namesare permanently removed, there is no administration and no need for renewal fees. Theeligibility requirements would be the recognized Early Name rights from previous sunrises,including 1) Organisation names, 2) Public body names, 3) Geographical Indications 4)Registered trademarks, and 5) Other recognized commercial signs such as companynames. Due to the possibility of challenging such defensive removals, there is no need toapply strict eligibility requirements. The basis of the removal would be a .pdf documentingthe existence of the Existing Name, timely filed with the Standard Sunrise Service Provider(SSSP)Defensive Removals can also be made after the launch of the TLD, but there would behigher costs involved. The permanence of the defensive removal could be changed, eitherby the party who originally requested it, or by a Third Party Challenge (see below).It would not be possible to make a blanket Defensive Removal covering all new TLDs, butthe SSSP would notify the owners of Existing Names by e-mail of the launch of new TLDs,and offer to reuse the existing documentation for new defensive removals. It can beanticipated that the choice of defensive removals will vary from TLD to TLD. For example, inthe event that dot-xxx was a reality, an organisation like ICANN might have wanted todefensively removeicann.xxxicanngirls.xxxicann-girls.xxxicannbabes.xxxicann-babes.xxxetc. from the dot-xxx pool of available names.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 22 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20075 Name-String Notification. Name-String Notification (NSN) is a paid subscription functionwhereby the owner of Legal Rights can be notified of an application to register a newdomain name which includes the name-string, and given the opportunity to file a Protestwithin a short timeframe, e.g. 20 days. For example, if ICANN were notified of the following:hot-icann-girls.xxx or tammicannotsayno.xxxthey might find only the first of these to be a problem and file a protest.If the NSN subscriber filed the protest, the applicant would be asked to confirm that thedomain name application should proceed, despite the existence of the Legal Rights, and thedomain name would be sent to a UDRP-like function. Each party (the owner of the ExistingName and the domain name applicant) would pay full price for a one-person UDRP, i.e. afull double payment, such that the winner would receive a refund, paid by the loser. If thedomain name applicant did not pay the UDRP price (US $ 1500 at WIPO), the domain namewould not be registered, and conversely, if the subscriber/protestor did not pay the UDRPprice within the specified time, the domain name would be registered. The onus would be onthe domain name applicant to demonstrate that the domain name could be used withoutinfringing the Existing Name, as set forth below. It can be assumed that the "loser pays US $1500" will discourage both abusive registrations and overzealous rights owners.The NSN would be fully automated and e-mail based, and thus relatively inexpensive. To bemost effective, it would have to be in place prior to the launch of the traditional sunrise. Itshould be administered by the TLD (though if this also could be centralised and outsourcedlike the sunrise, this would be an advantage for all involved).For the duration of the NSN process, the domain name will not function. If the NSNsubscriber does not utilize the opportunity to lodge a protest, the he or she can still initiate aUDRP or other proceedings at a later date.6 Challenge. It is well settled that to be successful in a UDRP proceeding, the complainantmust demonstrate that all three of the following conditions are met:(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark inwhich the complainant has rights; and (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimateinterests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the respondent's domain name has beenregistered and is being used in bad faith.If the UDRP complainant fails on any one of these 3 elements, the UDRP Complaint shouldfail. Thus in a Challenge process, either under NSN or to challenge a Defensive Removal,the domain name applicant has to prove that one or more of the following elements ispresent:(i) the domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark inwhich the complainant has rights; or (ii) the respondent has rights or legitimate interests inrespect of the domain name; or (iii) the respondent's domain name will be used in goodfaith.In other words that a regular UDRP brought against this domain name applicant would fail.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 23 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20077 Traditional sunrise: The traditional sunrise, whereby owners of Existing Names getan opportunity to register domain names before the "land rush", will be available,but due to the availability of the defensive removals and the name-string notification,this will be effectively limited to the new domain names which the owners actuallyintend to use. No validation need take place as a general rule, but only in the caseof conflict. Traditional sunrise and defensive removals can be made at the sametime, on the SSSP website mentioned above.Conflicts can arise in several situations:1) Two or more parties request defensive removals, no sunrise: here there is noconflict. All are interested in not having the domain name be registered. Both partiesshould be noted as having this defensively removed, which means that if one ofthem changes their mind, or if the removal is challenged, both will be heard. If theone party who removed the domain name now wants to use and register it, theparties can either agree, or the UDRP-type function with loser pays describedabove will apply. Again, it will be up to the new applicant to show that its registrationof the domain name will not be harmful to the owner of the Existing Name. Thus it isunlikely that a abusive registration with a bogus Existing Name could first removeicann.xxx and thereafter activate it by registration, if ICANN had also established adefensive removal of the same name.2) One or more parties want the domain name defensively removed and one ormore parties want it registered under the sunrise. Firstly the parties should be givenan opportunity to discuss this among themselves, given a one-month deadline,extendible at the joint request of all parties. If there is no agreement, the UDRP-typefunction with loser pays described above will apply.3) No defensive removals, but two or more sunrise applications. Firstly the partiesshould be given an opportunity to discuss this among themselves, given a onemonthdeadline, extendible at the joint request of all parties. If there is noagreement, the parties will firstly have to validate their rights (self validation). If bothparties validate their rights, there will be an auction, where the new TLD retains theproceeds. The UDRP-type function with loser pays described above will also apply.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 24 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20078 Principles for resolving conflicts: As regards competing rights owners who seekdifferent goals, there are as I see it four main scenarios:1) two competing genuine rights of about the same size (like United Airlines andUnited Van lines)2) two competing genuine rights of very different sizes (like WENDY'S chain ofrestaurants and a single WENDY's hair salon)3) two competing rights, where one can be considered in bad faith (e.g. GOOGLEfrom Palo Alto on the one hand and a Uzbeki registration from 2006 for GOOGLEfor clothing; the bad faith could also be generic, e.g. APPLE for computers on theone hand and a Benelux registration from 2006 for APPLE for paints on the otherhand)4) two competing bad faith rights (e.g. any two of the more than 200 Benelux,Danish and other registrations for SEX in various classes that were competing forSEX.EU)Guiding principles should be1) first let the parties try to sort it out, much like the "cooling-off" period of the CTM,e.g within two months (extendible at the joint request of both parties).2) mediation, e.g. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center with UDRP panelists.Here the mediators would be given wide latitude to take all aspects of the matterinto consideration, such as the size of the each rights owner, the TLD, languagesetc., and may either find for one party or end in a draw. For instance forWENDYs.ASIA, the mediator might find for the restaurant chain that had over 1000restaurants in Asia; but if the new TLD was WENDYS.HAIR, the mediator might findfor the hair salon. UNITED.[TLD] would end in a draw (but the parties wouldprobably have sorted this out themselves, probably agreeing that one of them wouldregister the domain name and that neither would use this and similar domainsduring the "cooling-off" period). It is difficult to consider a scenarios where amediator reasonably could find for the Uzbeki GOOGLE registration, but it could beGOOGLE.[TLD meaning "clothes" in Uzbeki]. The parties split the cost of themediation.3) auction: in the case of a draw, the parties can bid for the domain name.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 25 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20079 Name-String Watch Service and Notification (modeled on .biz IP Claim and .nameName Watch Service): Name-String Watch Service and Notification (NSWSN) is apaid subscription function whereby the owner of an authenticated Legal Right willreceive notification of every applied-for domain name that matches the watchedname-string. The domain name applicant would receive notification that its namehad matched a watched string and information about the watched-string right basisand claimant. The domain name applicant would then be required to confirm that itwished to proceed with registering the domain name. The Legal Rights ownerwould receive notification of the registrant’s intention to proceed and would beprovided a relatively short (not more than 30 days) period within which to initiate aproceeding to block the name’s registration.To prevail in a challenge, the Legal Rights owner would be required to show that (a)the applied-for name is identical or confusingly similar to its authenticated right; (b)the applicant has no right or legitimate interest in the applied-for name; and (c) theapplicant has registered or seeks to use the name in bad faith. [Alternativerequirements noted above.] The Legal Rights Owner would be required to pay thedispute resolution fee. However, the applicant would be required to pay a small fee(USD 50) as a “bond.” If the applicant did not submit the bond, the proceedingwould not go forward, the dispute resolution provider would not issue a decision,and the applicant’s registration would be blocked. If the applicant submitted thebond, the proceeding would go forward to resolution. [If the applicant prevailed, itwould be refunded the bond amount.] An unsuccessful challenge would have nopreclusive effect on the Legal Rights owner’s right to later initiate a UDRPproceeding.The applied-for domain name would not resolve until any proceeding challengingthe name was decided. Multiple Legal Rights owners could participate in NSWSNfor the identical string, and multiple Legal Rights owners could challenge theapplied-for domain name. Multiple challenges would be consolidated into oneproceeding, the filing fee would be divided among/between the Legal Rights ownerson a pro rata basis, and only one applicant bond would be required. Any onesuccessful Legal Rights owner would be required to block the name.The NSWSN would be automated and e-mail based. All proceedings would be filedand conducted solely electronically; paper filings would not be permitted.10 Rapid Suspension Procedure. Registries should institute a rapid suspensionprocedure in which a response team of independent experts (qualified UDRPpanelists) will be retained to make determinations shortly after they receive a shortand simple statement of a claim involving a well-known or otherwise inherentlydistinctive mark and a domain name clearly used in bad faith, or for which noconceivable good faith basis exists. Such determinations MUST result in animmediate suspension of resolution of the domain name, but will not prejudice eitherparty's election to pursue another dispute mechanism. The claim and proceduralrequirements SHOULD be modeled after the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.Proposals: Not discussed 1Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 26 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ANNEX ONE – REGISTRY SUMMARIESA key piece of the analysis was to look at previous rights protectionmechanisms from other top-level domains.The tables below include all the summaries that were completed by membersof the Working Group or constituencies represented in the Working Group. Notethat there is a mix of generic, sponsored and country code registries.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 27 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_____ for the current revision.Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.aero (prepared by Paul D. McGrady, Jr. (IPC Member) and Kristina Rosette)Part ATLD EligibilityAn Aviation CommunityMembership (“ACM”) IDis a necessaryprerequisite forregistering ormaintaining a .aerodomain nameregistration.Mechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)In addition to theUDRP, the .aerodomain name isgoverned by theEligibilityReconsiderationPolicy ("ERP") and theCharter EligibilityDispute ResolutionPolicy (“CEDRP”).Rights Bases RequirementsSociete Internationale deTelecommunicationsAeronautiques SC (SITA), the.aero sponsor, restrictsregistration to members of theaviation community. SITArecognizes 18 registrantcategories including, for example,aerospace, airlines andcommercial operators, airports,and pilots.Submission ProcessWhen .aero first launched, a twostepprocess applied. First, theapplicant was required to obtain anACM ID. Once issued, the applicantcould then apply for registration of.aero domain names through one ofabout a dozen registrars. SITA laterintroduced a consolidated process inwhich an applicant could applysimultaneously for both the ACM IDand the desired .aero domain name.SubmissionCostThere is nosubmission costfor applying forthe ACM ID.There areregistrar costsassociated withthe actualregistration,which costs varyby registrar.Final Report GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC), Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 28 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Part BApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessSITA implemented an applicanteligibility verification process.After supporting documentationwas reviewed, the ACM ID waseither issued or the applicationwas rejected. By way ofexample, an applicant seekingto demonstrate its eligibility as amember of the “pilots” registrantsubgroup could submit a copyof a website; a copy of a Pilot’slicense; or the date on whichthe applicant’s Pilot’s licenseissued.ChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)YesChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterWIPO; its websitedoes not list filingfees for CEDRP.Challenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)ERP: The applicant seeking reconsideration mustidentify the registrant group(s) in which it claimsmembership, identify the ACM ID and domain namefor which reconsideration is sought, and specify howit meets the Eligibility Requirements or, asapplicable, the manner in which the domain namecomplies with the .aero Domain ManagementPolicy.CEDRP: The Registered Name violated theEligibility Requirements.No. ofChallengesNone. Nopublisheddecisions.For the majority of categories,SITA verifies once anapplication is submitted online.Part CSuccessful Challenges(Number & %)Total No.RegisteredNamesNo. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsReferencesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 29 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Successful Challenges(Number & %)Total No.RegisteredNamesNo. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsReferencesn/a (no challenges) unknown n/a • .aero website• WIPO registry-specific procedures for .aero• Unpublished manuscript prepared by Paul D. McGrady, Jr.,Esq.Summary submitted to SITA for review, but no comments werereceived before the final report deadline.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 30 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007.cat (prepared by Tim Ruiz)Part ATLD EligibilitySponsored TLD.Prospective registrantsmay be locatedanywhere in the worldbut they mustdemonstrate arelationship with Catalanlinguistic and culturalcommunity.It is estimated thatworldwide 10 millionspeak the Catalanlanguage, of which 9million live in Spain.Mechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)Three phase Sunrise.Phase I – Feb 13through Apr 21, 2006.Businesses,institutions, publicbodies, and othersengaged in thepromotion of theCatalan languageand/or culture.Applicants alsoneeded to be includedin third-party identifiedlists, registries ordatabases. So thelistings of schools,universities, membersof writers'associations, culturalassociations, etc. werechecked to verifyeligibility.Rights Bases RequirementsPhase I – Applicants had to beprepared to demonstrate theireligibility and agree to cancellationof their domain name if they werelater found not to qualify.Phase II – Applicants had to providea URL to a website that was at leastpartially in Catalan.Phase III – These Entities were predeterminedand if had to request anauthorization code from the registryto register their names.Defensive Registrations – TheEntity must provide the mark,registration number, date of issue,and country where the trademarkwas issued. Defensive registrationsmay not have name serversassigned to them and so cannot belive sites.Submission ProcessApplications were taken by ICANNAccredited registrars andsubmitted through the EPP SRS.SubmissionCostPhases I and II€75 first year +€25 second year(but two yearsminimum, so€100).Phase IIIEntities of anykind: same asabove.Individuals: €10Phase II – Feb 20through Apr 21, 2006.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 31 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007TLD EligibilityMechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)Entities proving prioronline presence andcommunications inCatalan.Rights Bases RequirementsSubmission ProcessSubmissionCostPhase III – Feb 27through Apr 21, 2006.Entities who wereinvolved in the supportand/or establishmentof the .CAT gTLD.Applicants wererequired to haveprovided theirformal support andcontact detailsbeforehand in thecampaign officialWeb site. They werethen provided withcorresponding codesneeded to register aname.DefensiveRegistrations – Feb 13through Apr 21, 2006.Entities that do notqualify to apply duringany of the threeOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 32 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007TLD EligibilityMechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)Sunrise Phases butare able to proverights in a stringthrough trademarkregistration.Rights Bases RequirementsSubmission ProcessSubmissionCostIf there is a Phase Iapplication for thesame string, thePhase I applicant haspriority.Part BApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost &ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. ofChallengesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 33 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessApplications were verified asthey arrived. Phase I applicantshad priority.No applications in Phase II orPhase III were considered orverified until after review andconclusion of all Phase Iapplications.In all Phases, after validation,names were assigned on a firstcome first served basis.puntCAT reserved the right tocancel a registration at any timefor non-compliance.ChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost &ArbiterYes ERDRP: €1300(EligibilityRequirements DisputeResolution Policy)Mediation: €1000(This is a non-bindingoption to the ERDRPor UDRP. None havebeen started to date.)Challenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)This ERDRP is available to whoever thinks thata .cat domain name (or a defensive registration)has been registered improperly and nothonoring the .cat eligibility requirements andmay want to ask for its cancellation.The policy does not intend to substitute for theUDRP, nor the decisions of any judge or court.It is intended to complement them, offering away to cancel (and if required, transfer)registrations made not complying the .catrequirements.Sunrise applicants were obliged to participate inthe process and comply with its result. TheERDRP is a mediation process intended to be atool to reach good will agreements by means ofexperienced professionals.No. ofChallenges1Part CSuccessfulChallenges(Number & %)Total No.RegisteredNamesNo. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsReferences/ObservationsOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 34 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007SuccessfulChallenges(Number & %)Successful – 0(only 1 filed)Total No.RegisteredNames22,100(As of April18, 2007)No. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsNames Applied For AllPhases – 11,400(An additional 86names were appliedduring the DefensiveRegistrations phase.)References/ObservationsThe following documents and materials were referenced:The .CAT out of the Bag by Amadeu Abril i Abril / Werner Staub:http://www.dotcym.org/dogfennau/cat-Studienkreis06v2.pdf.CAT Registry Agreement Appendix S:http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/cat/cat-appendixS-22mar06.htmSuccessfulRegistrations AllPhases – 9,247 plus 9pending for variousreasons.domini puntCAT Website:http://www.domini.cat/en_index.htmlData verified by Jordi Iparraguirre (puntCAT) and Amadeu Abril I Abril.Challenges – 1Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 35 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007.coop (prepared by Victoria McEvedy)Part ATLD EligibilityApplicant can bring itself within oneof the following seven categories,member of the NationalCooperative Business Association(NCBA);i. member of the International CooperativeAlliance (ICA);ii. association of cooperatives;iii. cooperative that is committed tothe seven cooperative principles(voluntary and openmembership; democraticmember control; membereconomic participation;autonomy and independence;education, training andinformation; cooperation amongcooperatives; and concern forcommunity) and whose status asa cooperative has been verifiedby a designated verificationpartner of dotCoop;iv. company that is an affiliate of acooperative (a) falling withincategories (i) or (ii) above or (b)Mechanism Type(Sunrise, IPClaim, Other,None)Sunrise forFoundersDuring pre- launchperiod (7/01-01/02), members ofFounderorganizations (thatwere all eligible),were able toregister namesprior to generalregistration on afirst come, firstserved basis.Rights BasesRequirementsPhase 1. Founders are theorganizations that providedspecific monetary andfunctional support todotCoop during the prelaunchperiod. Founderscontinue to provide .coopwith valuable input onbusiness and functionalaspects of the TLD postlaunch.Theseorganizations have made.coop available tocooperatives world-widewith their support.Phase 2. First come, firstserved subject to twospecial classes:(a) registration ofgeographic and geopoliticalnames under theCommunity Namesprogram, which allowsapex organizations orSubmission ProcessThe pre-launch process was aregistry-based registration process.All names were migrated toaccredited registrars after registrarbasedservices were implemented.The Community Names program isdescribed on the registry site athttp://www.nic.coop/information.asp.Each registrant must provide, inessence a proposal with informationon the following:1. Information on the cooperativesfocus, sector and interest in .coop.2. a list or description of the featuresproposed for the .coop CommunityNames site.Provide information about the historyof cooperatives in [location orsector].SubmissionCostPre-launchcosts were thesame as thoseimmediatelyfollowinglaunch. NopremiumalthoughFounderscontributed tostart-up costs.Registrationfees were $160for a 2-yearregistrationduring prelaunchanduntil registrarservices wereintroduced. Atthat time theaverage DNYcost became$99. RegistryOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 36 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007whose status has been verifiedin accordance with (iv);v. entity whose operations arededicated to servingcooperatives, as determined bydotCoop or as verified by adesignated verification partner ofdotCoop; orvi. a registrant whose use of a.coop domain name, in theopinion of the DotCoop Board ofDirectors, would advance theinterests of the cooperativesector in general or would assistin the development ofcooperatives worldwide.leading co-ops in a countryor geopolitical area toregister these domainnames.(b) the “Brandsafe”program which allowstrademark holders toreserve a domain nameeven though they are noteligible to use the domainname based on theCharter.1. Provide a directory ofcooperatives in [location or sector].2. Provide links to the web sitesof cooperatives in [location orsector], government agenciesrelated to cooperatives, and to themain cooperative organizations in[location] and the world asappropriate for the [sector.]3. Provide information aboutcooperative laws and legislativeprojects that may affectcooperatives in [location or sector].4. Publish a calendar ofcooperative activities of the[location or sector.]5. Publish an online version ofthe [location or sector publications.]6. Provide statistics about thecooperative movement in [locationor sector.]7. Discussion of relevant issuesin [location or sector.]8. Provide access to the portalwith all appropriate [location orsector] cooperatives so they can beidentified within the community.3. Information on how access to thesite will be determined.4. Proposed date of site activation.chargesremained thesame at$64/DNY,Communitynamesoriginallyrequired a 5yearregistration butthatrequirementwas dropped.These nameswere sold atthe standardrate.The Brandsafeprogramoriginallyrequired a 5year minimumbut that wasdropped.These wereoriginally$2000 for a 5-yearregistration butthe cost wasdropped to$500. ThisOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 37 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007The Brandsafe program requireseither:1. Documentary evidence of aregistered trademark beingregistration certificates. This will besufficient to extend the reservationto the mark and close variants.2. In the case of unregisteredmarks and trade names,documentary evidence of letterheadand other evidence of actual use ofthe name in trade over a period.was the priceto the registrar..Coop currentlyrequires thestandard 1-year initialregistration.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 38 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Part BApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcess(1)DotCoop validated that allregistrants met the eligibility criteriaas agreed to in the Charter usinginformation from the Internet, theSponsors, the Verification Partnersand co-operative organizationsaround the world to verify theeligibility of registrants.dotCoop has a verification processthat uses input from outsidesources to assist in verification.Verification Sponsors areorganizations or individuals that aresupplied by the registrant that canconfirm the eligibility of theregistrant for the domain name.Verification Partners areorganizations that dotCoop hascontracted with in locations aroundthe world that agree to becontacted by dotCoop forverification assistance forregistrations from particularcountries.ChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)YesChallengeMechanism Cost &ArbiterCharter EligibilityDispute ResolutionProcess(CEDRP)(any evidencesubmitted by thirdparty challengers isconsidered andrespondent mustestablish its eligibilityunder any of the 7criteria in the first boxin A of this table)Challenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)Evidence that the organization falls within oneof the following seven categories (see eligibilityrequirements above), and demonstration ofrights or legitimate interests to the domainname for purposes of Paragraph 4(a) (seebelow).No. ofChallengesNo CEDRP orDCDRPchallenges todate.Statistical VerificationOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 39 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost &ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. ofChallenges1. Registrations of names by anew registrant are statisticallyselected based on the Countryinformation contained on theregistration transaction that isreceived by the registry. Thissampling is not related to theregistrar that submitted theregistration. Verifications donot imply that the registration issuspect - it is just part of theverification process to checkfor compliance with theeligibility requirements of theTLD. The registration ismarked "Pending."2. An e-mail is sent to theRegistrant alerting them thateligibility for registration isbeing reviewed and that theywill be notified within five (5)days of the result of theprocess. It is also noted thatdotCoop may contact theSponsors that they noted intheir registration for verificationof eligibility. They areinstructed to contact dotCoopatAs to Prior Rights and Legitimate Interests: AnyOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 40 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessverification@communicate.coop with specific questions on theprocess.3. At the same time, an e-mail issent to the appropriateVerification Partner providingthe information about theregistrant, including the contactinformation for the VerificationSponsors. Verification Partnershave signed agreements thatall information on registrants,including the names that arebeing registered, isconfidential. VerificationPartners are asked to respondwithin the time specified in theiragreement with arecommendation based on theinformation they have aboutthe registrant or that they canelicit from the VerificationSponsors.4. Based on the recommendationfor the Verification Partner andadditional research performedby dotCoop, plus any responsethat may have been providedby the registrant, a preliminarydetermination of eligibility isChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost &ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)of the following circumstances, in particular butwithout limitation, if found by the Panel to beproved based on its evaluation of all evidencepresented, shall demonstrate your rights orlegitimate interests to the domain name forpurposes of Paragraph 4(b)(ii):i. before any notice to you of the dispute,your use of, or demonstrable preparationsto use, the domain name or a namecorresponding to the domain name inconnection with a bona fide offering ofgoods or services, or as part of theoperations of a cooperative; orii. you have been commonly known by thedomain name, even if you have acquiredno trademark or service mark rights; oriii. you are making a legitimatenoncommercial or fair use of the domainname, without intent for commercial gainto misleadingly divert consumers or totarnish the trademark or service mark atissue.No. ofChallengesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 41 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessmade by dotCoop.5. If the registrant is eligible, thenthe registrant is Verified andthe domain names can then beactivated.6. If dotCoop cannot confirm theregistrant as eligible, then theregistrant is sent another e-mail that notifies them that theyhave 30 days in which toprovide information to helpconfirm their eligibility. First,they should supply otherVerification Sponsors thatmight be able to provideverification confirmation.Secondly, they can fax or e-mail various documents thatwould demonstrate their cooperativestatus such as:a. A copy of theorganization's bylaws,b. A copy of theorganization's most recentannual report or the mostrecent past two years ofaudited financialsc. Financial statementsprovided to members over thepast five years,ChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost &ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. ofChallengesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 42 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessd. A listing of theorganization's board ofdirectors with contactinformation,e. A sample of theorganization's membershipapplication forms and/ormembership materials,f. Promotional, sales orinformational material thatreference the organizationsstatus as a cooperative,g. A list of members of theapplicant.h. A copy of the cooperativeact in the country of origin orother legal definition of acooperative of the jurisdictionin which the applicant operatesand to which it conforms.7. If dotCoop does not get aresponse to the e-mail requestfor information within the 30days, an attempt is made tocontact the registrant viatelephone. Both valid e-mailand telephone numbers arerequired at time of registration.If these are not provided, thenit is a breach of the registrationChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost &ArbiterFor other mattersthe DotCoop DomainChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. ofChallengesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 43 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessagreement with dotCoop.8. If additional information issupplied, then dotCoop will reevaluatethe eligibility decision.Again, if it is decided that theregistrant is eligible, then thename(s) can be activated andthe registrant is marked asVerified. An e-mail thatprovides a confirmation of thisfinding is sent to the registrant.9. If the registrant is stilldetermined by dotCoop to beineligible, then the name isrevoked with no refund ofregistration fees irregardless ofany other grace period. An e-mail notifying the registrant ofthe revocation is sent to the e-mail addressed supplied at thetime of registration.10. Once the registrant is revoked,the registrant record is markedas deleted and the names thatwere registered by thatregistrant are available forregistration by others.Manual VerificationChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost &ArbiterName DisputeResolution Policy(DCDRP).(similar to UDRP)(WIPO) has beenselected by dotCoop toprovide disputeresolution services to.coop domain nameholders. WIPOconducts a formal,independentAdministrativeProceeding in whichthe two parties presenttheir respective viewsof a conflict to aneutral and impartialthird party - the WIPOPanel. The Panelhears the parties'claims in conformitywith ICANN's UDRPwww.icann.org/udrp,the CEDRP(Attachment A),ICANN's Rules, andWIPO's SupplementalChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. ofChallengesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 44 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcess1. Registrations can be selectedfor verification after they have beenaccepted into the registry systemeven if they have not been selectedfor verification by the statisticalsampling process of the system.These registrations are calledManual or "Spot Check"verifications. The registry can do amanual verification for any reasonbut typically these are related toincomplete or inconsistent date inthe registration. The registry canalso do a manual verification inresponse to a query concerningeligibility of a registrant from athird-party. An example of this iswhen a co-op wants to register aname that is already registered bysomeone else. The third party maynot be able to tell from the .coopWHOIS whether the registrant is aneligible organization and may bringthis concern to the attention ofdotCoop. In any case of manualverification, dotCoop does apreliminary determination usingimmediately available informationbefore taking any action on theChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost &ArbiterRules.Challenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. ofChallengesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 45 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcesssystem. If, after a reasonable effortis made using the informationprovided at the time of registration,eligibility cannot be confirmed.dotCoop will mark the registrant as"Under Investigation." A processwith similarities to the statisticalprocess ensues.ChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost &ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. ofChallenges1. Community Names – Anyoneregistering a community name iswell known by contacts at theInternational Co-operative Alliancein Geneva or at the NationalCooperative Business Associationin the US.2. Brandsafe – requires thedocumentary evidence dealt withabove as to registered andunregistered trade marks andnames.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 46 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost &ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. ofChallengesPart CSuccessful Challenges(Number & %)Total No.RegisteredNamesNo. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsReferencesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 47 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Successful Challenges(Number & %)As to the number of CEDRPand DCDRP challenges thatsucceeded- There were none.All issues were resolvedinformally.Total No.RegisteredNamesCurrentlyregistered –approximately6,000. Over10,000 havebeenregistered ITD.No. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsReferencesNil CEDRP and DCDRPclaims to date. See Proof of Concept Report at:www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/coop/poc-dcllc-102602.pdfOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 48 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007.dk (prepared by Peter Gustav Olso n)Part A – IDNs introductionTLD EligibilityNone. The expansion ofDanish letters Æ, Ø, Å,Ä, Ë, Ö, Ü and É to the.dk character set wasopen to anyone,anywhere, worldwide.However, the letters canonly readily be writtenwith a Danish (orSwedish or Norwegiankeyboard) and the wordswere mostly understoodby Scandinavians, so themarket was de factolimited to theScandinavian countries(Denmark, Norway andSweden)Mechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)IP Claim.Rights Bases Requirements"Special Rights", which included1) a right to a surname2) a trademark [includingregistered as well as unregisteredrights]or3) a statutory exclusive right touse a given designation [such asa company name]]Submission ProcessIn the 30-days prior to the generallandrush, anyone could file anapplication for a new specific domainname containing an IDN character.On the pre-launch application form, itwas possible to indicate that theapplicant had a "special rights" bychecking the appropriate box. Allfilers during this 30 day period weregiven the same filing date, namelyFebruary 1, 2004. If more than oneapplicant had filed for the samedomain name, all applicants wereinformed of any applicants which haddeclared that they had a special rightto a domain name, and were askedto confirm (by accessing a securewebsite) that they wished to proceeddespite the assertion of the specialright. If more than one applicantconfirmed, all applicant's remainingwere required to deposit DKK 5000(about US$ 850). If more than oneapplicant paid DKK 5000, theremaining applicants were all askedto pay a further DKK 5000. ThisSubmissionCostDKK 75 (aboutUS$ 13), thestandardapplication price.However, if anauction/lotterytook place theprice could riseto about US$2550.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 49 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Part B"auction" went on for three rounds. Ifmore than one applicant paid a totalof DKK 15000 (about US 2550),there was a lottery among theremaining applicants.The domain name was locked for 60days during which any party couldchallenge the validity of theregistration via the Danish DRP. Incase the challenger was successful,the deposit paid by the successfulapplicant (up to US$ 2550), could beused to offset the challengersattorney's fees.ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. ofChallengesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 50 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessThere was no pre-conflictvalidity of asserted "specialrights". This meant that if oneasserted a special right, and theother applicants withdrew, thedomain name was registeredwith no validation whatsoever.In the event of a conflict, suchrights were "validated" or rathertried by the trier of fact.ChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)YesChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterDKK 500 (aboutUS$ 85), refundedif the challenge issuccessful.Arbitration at theDIFO ComplaintsBoard for DomainNames.Challenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)Challenger must show that the registration of thedomain name was "in contravention of Danish law".This intentionally broad and open-ended policyincludes all Danish legislation, including legislationconcerning Personal Names, Unfair Competition,Contracts and Trademarks, as well as "general legalprinciples".The first Challenger to win received the domainname registration.No. ofChallengesApproximately23,000domainnamescomprising theIDNs wereregistered duringthe first year.Checking nowwith DK-Hostmasterwhether thereare statisticsPart CSuccessfulChallenges(Number & %)Total No.RegisteredNamesNo. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsReferencesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 51 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007SuccessfulChallenges(Number & %)Checking nowwith DK-HostmasterTotal No.RegisteredNamesAbout23,000Danish .dkdomainnamescomprisingIDNs wereaddedduring thefirst sixmonthsNo. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsChecking now withDK-HostmasterReferencesDK-Hostmaster Terms and Conditions, see http://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/fileadmin/filer/pdf/generelle_vilkaar/General_conditions_under_DK_ver-02.pdf, in particular section 12.2 (this is in English)For statistics, see DK-Hostmaster: http://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/index.php?id=209Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 52 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007.eu (prepared by Margie Milam)Part ATLD Eligibility(i) undertaking having itsregistered office, centraladministration orprincipal place ofbusiness within the EU;(ii) organizationestablished within theEU; or(iii) natural personresident within the EUMechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)Sunrise-During Sunrise,names were awardedfirst come first serve,for rights holders,subject to validation byPWCEach registrar wasgiven one connectionto the registry, whichresulted in thesignificant numbers ofregistrars accredited.Rights Bases RequirementsPhase 1:• registered National andCommunity Trademarks• geographical indicationsor designations of origin,public bodies• Phase 2:• Unregistered trademarks• Trade names• Business identifiers• Company names• Family names• Distinctive titles ofprotected literary andartistic worksNote:• Figurative Design marksallowed only if the generalimpression of the word isapparent, without anypossibility of misreading thecharacters• Exact match of domain nameto the characters of the priorright, with the followingexceptions: (1) characters ofSubmission ProcessFor Sunrise submissions, there weretwo processes involved:#1. Submission of the requestedname to EURid through standardEPP protocol.#2. Submission of documentaryevidence (either electronic orphysical) to appointed validationagent for EURid (PWC), requiredwithin 40 days of application (due toEC Regulation (874/2004))Note: Strict Compliance withdocumentary rules required, with noability to correct errors.Specific Documentary Rules:• Signed Coversheet requiring BarCode, and language ofdocumentary evidence• Applicant must match the holderof the prior right (licensees wereonly allowed withDeclaration ofLicense)• Copies of prior rightdocumentation required fromSubmission Cost- 10 EUR fordomainsubmission- 45 EUR forregistered TMholders (30 EURrefunded back ifapplication notreviewed)- 85 EUR forregistered TMholders (70 EURrefunded back ifapplication notreviewed)Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 53 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007TLD EligibilityMechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)Rights Bases Requirementspunctuation not allowed indomains can be transcribed,omitted or replaced withhyphen, and (2) names inotherwise standard latin scriptused generally acceptedtransliteration standardsSubmission Processofficial databases• No staples, folds allowed,letter size, printed only onone sideSubmission CostOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 54 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Part BApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessPhase 1:- Copy of trademark / renewalcertificate- Extract from official trademarkregister- Print out from the officialonline trademark register (ifavailable)Phase 2:- All of Phase 1 for registeredTMs- Varying requirements basedon type of prior right claimedand country in which such rightsare being asserted.Multiple applications wereallowed for the same name andvalidation was done in order…ifthe first applicant was denied,the second would have theirevidence reviewed, etc, etc…ChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)YesChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterAlternativeDisputeResolutionprocess put inplace forchallenges AFTERa decision wasrendered by theregistry. No otherchallengemechanism inplace.Czech ArbitrationCourt overseesthe .eu ADRprocessCosts start at1,850 EUR for onepanelist handling1-2 domain namesup to 5,020 EURfor three panelistshandling up to 9domains.Challenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)-the complainant must be the holder of a right that isrecognised or established by national and/orCommunity law;-the name for which complainant holds a right mustbe identical or confusingly similar to the name forwhich complainant holds such a right;-the domain name has been registered by its holder(i) without rights or legitimate interest in the name,or (ii) in bad faith, or the domain name is being usedin bad faith.No. ofChallenges~540 (as of3/7/07)Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 55 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Part CSuccessfulChallenges(Number &%)19% ofSunriseChallengesweresuccessfulTotal No.RegisteredNamesNo. ofMechanismRegistrations/Claims~2.5 million ~300,000Sunrisenames and398 Sunrisedecisionsrendered viathe ADRprocessReferences/ObservationsMaterials referenced in the collection of this data were:- www.eurid.eu- www.adr.eu- “Validation Services for EURid; Rules and Procedures for Dot-eu Sunrise” presentationprovided by PriceWaterHouse Coopers- http://www.pwc.com/Extweb/service.nsf/docid/D854DA8844872EF880256FA20035C724/$file/web.pdf- http://www.eurid.eu/images/Documents/Sunr_Presentation/general-presentationeurid_f[1].pdfObservations:• Rules complex and convoluted• Expedited Benelux trademarks allowed numerous generic names to be registered withoutrequirement of usage of marks• No correction mechanism available• Good transparency in sunrise procedures through Eurid’s publication of queues withWHOIS info and submission dates, allowing challenges where appropriate• Strict Compliance with documentary evidence requirements resulted in significantnumbers of sunrise names failing validationOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 56 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_____ for the current revision.Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.info (prepared by Damian Broadley (International Trademark Association Internet Committee Member)Part ATLD EligibilityNo restriction – opengTLD.Mechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None).info had an IP sunriseand uses the UDRP toprotect trademarkrights post the start-upperiod.Rights Bases RequirementsTrademarks registered before 2October 2000.The nationality and number of thetrademark had to be provided inthe sunrise application.The textual element of thetrademark had to be identical tothe domain name, but stylizedmarks were accepted.Submission ProcessSunrise claims had to be filedbetween 25 July and 27 August2001. Apart from the additionaltrademark detail, theapplications were typical of adomain name registration.Competing sunrise claims wereprioritized using a randomizedround robin queuing system.Submission CostThere was noadditional costfor a sunriseapplication, butthere was aminimum 5 yearregistrationperiod and a 180non-transferperiod.There was a sunrise challengeperiod during which third partiescould challenge the applicant’sbasis for their sunrise claim.WIPO was appointed todetermine these challenges. Ifchallenged, an applicant had tofile evidence of their trademark.Final Report GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC), Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 57 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Part BApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessThere was no formal verificationin .info. However, there was asunrise challenge mechanismand the registry itselfchallenged many names in whatwere known as ‘Challenges ofLast Resort.’In addition, the registryreportedly cancelled 7000Sunrise registrations when theregistrants failed to respond toregistry inquiries for trademarkinformation.ChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)YesChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterSunrisechallenges couldbe filed from 28August to 26December 2001.Challengers hadto pay a nonrefundable$75 feeand if more thanone challenge wasfiled to a namethey were rankedin order of priority.The ‘prioritychallenger’ thenhad to pay $225.The applicant hadto pay $295 todefend theirsunrise claim.Challenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)If more than one challenge was filed against asunrise application the challenges were ranked inorder of priority.The challenger needed to show:• At the time of registration of the domainname, no current trademark or service markregistration was issued in the registrant'sname.• The domain name registered is not identicalto the textual or word elements of thetrademark or service mark that is registered• The registration of the trademark or servicemark registered is not of national effect orwas not issued prior to October 2, 2000.There were no other grounds for challenging asunrise application.No. ofChallenges15172challenges werefiled, but 13593of these wereChallenges ofLast Resort filedby the registryitself. Only 1579were ‘regular’challenges.The arbiter wasWIPO.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 58 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Part CSuccessful Challenges(Number & %)Of the total 15172 challenges,the outcome was as follows:88.6% name cancelled,5.1% name transferred.5.4% challenge terminated0.9% challenge dismissedFor the 1579 Regularchallenges, the outcome wasas follows:26.5% name cancelled,49.2% name transferred.20.8% challenge terminated3.5% challenge dismissedTotal No.RegisteredNamesThe 4 millionth.info name wasregistered inMarch 2007.No. of MechanismRegistrations/Claims51,764 names wereregistered during theSunrise registrationperiod.ReferencesWIPO did a report on its involvement in the .info sunrise challenges:http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/reports/infosunrise/report/index.htmlSummary submitted to Afilias for review, but no comments werereceived before the final report deadline.For the 13593 Challenges ofLast Resort, the outcome wasas follows:95.8% name cancelled,3.6% challenge terminated0.6% challenge dismissedOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 59 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007.jobs (prepared by Mike Rodenbaugh)Part AMechanism TypeTLD Eligibility (Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None).Jobs reserves all domain Other (“Trade Namenames at the second level Period”)to ensure fair andequitable treatment for allemployers to acquire theirlegal or commonly knowntrade name at the point intime they desire to do so.Rights Bases RequirementsLegal or commonly known tradenames.Submission ProcessSubmission CostInitial 60-day ‘Trade Name Period” for No cost additionalcompanies to apply for registration with to registration fee.equal standing whether submitted onDay One or Day Sixty.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 60 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Part BApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessAll applications were validated bythe registry, to ensure domainswould be used by companieswith legal or other commonlyknown names corresponding torequested domain name.ChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)Yes. No cost. At the close of the Trade Name Period, registryexamined the duplicate applications and based uponvarious criteria to determined a clear differentiator(criteria based upon the best interests of thecommunity, i.e. one IBM employs 10,000 people andnone of the others employed more than 10). If registrycould not determine a clear differentiator, with one ofthe mechanisms allowing the parties to work outamongst themselves if they wanted to, it simply wentto a coin flip.No. ofChallengesOnly one namewas contested to acoin flip.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 61 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Part CSuccessful Challenges(Number & %)All but one contended stringwas resolved through registryvalidation or consent ofcompeting parties.Total No.RegisteredNamesNo. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsReferencesVia email correspondence with Ray Fassett, manager of .jobsregistry.Numerical data was requested from the registry, but was notreceived before the final report deadline.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 62 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_____ for the current revision.Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.mobi (prepared by Tim Ruiz)Part ATLD EligibilitySponsored TLD.DotMOBI domain nameregistrants that havewebsites accessiblethrough port 80 mustagree to implement themandatory registrantrules listed in thedotMOBI Switch On!Web Developer Guide.Note that dotMOBIregistrants are notrequired to have awebsite accessiblethrough port 80.In summary, themandatory elements ofthe current version of theSwitch On! WebDeveloper Guide are:Valid XHTML MobileProfile:Requests for URIsconsisting only of"example.mobi" orMechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)Two phase Sunrise.Phase I – LimitedIndustry Sunrise. Thisinitial phase ran forone week and wasreserved forparticipatingmobile/wireless TradeAssociations. Theparticipatingassociations were:• AMTA• CTIA• CWTA• GSMA• MMA• MEF• NZWF• RCAPhase II – GeneralTrademark Sunrise.This phase ran for 10weeks and was opento all holders oftrademarks andservice marks whoseRights Bases RequirementsDuring both Phases, mark holderswere required to provide thefollowing information:• Trademark name (must bethree or more ASCIIcharacters).• Trademark identificationnumber.• Date of Trademarkapplication (this date mustbe before July 11th 2005).• Date of granting oftrademark (this date cannotbe in the future).• Country of trademarkregistration.Trademark Name CriteriaInsert the textual or wordelements of the trademark here.(For example, “Cadbury CremeEgg” or “AT&T”.) This field canaccept ASCII letters andnumbers, spaces, and thesecharacters: .,&#()-_'~`!@$%^*+={}[ ]|:;?/\"

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007TLD Eligibility"www.example.mobi"must result in aresponse that isencoded in a format thedevice supports or validXHTML-Mobile Profile1.0 or later releasedversion [XHTMLMP],where "example" standsfor any domain name.Mechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)marks qualified underthe rules.Rights Bases RequirementsTrademark Country CriteriaThis is the country or nationaljurisdiction in which thetrademark was registered. Use“EU” for European Uniontrademarks, “BX” for Beneluxtrademarks, or “OT” for othertrademarks of national effect.Submission ProcessSubmissionCostIf the site provides itshome page byredirection then allintermediate pages thatare delivered in thecourse of the redirectionmust comply with thisrule.Second-LevelDomain Site:Domains that operate asite atwww.example.mobi mustalso implement a site atexample.mobi.Use of Frames:Do not use framesTrademark Number CriteriaInsert the trademark’sREGISTRATION number here.Note that a trademark applicationnumber may be different from thetrademark’s actual registrationnumber. This field can acceptASCII letters and numbers,spaces, and these characters:.,&#()-_'~`!@$%^*+={ }[]|:;?/\"

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007TLD Eligibility(standard or inline)unless the target client isknown to support them.Mechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)Rights Bases RequirementsIf not listed on the trademarkcertificate, the informationshould be available from thetrademark office, especially if itoffers an online database. Thisdate must be prior to July 11,2005.Submission ProcessSubmissionCostDate Trademark Registered CriteriaInsert the date that the trademarkoffice formally granted thetrademark. Many trademarkoffices call this the “RegistrationDate.” This date cannot be in thefuture.Part BApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. ofChallengesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 65 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessApplications were randomlychecked for accuracy andcompliance. Otherwise, mTLDrelied on the Sunrise Challengeprocedure to resolvecompliance challenges.mTLD reserved the right tocancel a registration at any timefor non-compliance.ChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterYes $750WIPOChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)dotMobi is provided a service for the resolution ofdisputed domain names registered during eitherPhase of the Sunrise Registration Period. Thisservice was available during the SunriseRegistration Challenge period which began on 28August 2006 and continued until 15 December2006.Dispute resolution services were providedexclusively by the World Intellectual PropertyOrganisation (WIPO); and challenges had to besubmitted directly to WIPO. WIPO made guidelines,forms, and lists of cases available on its website.No. ofChallenges18The only bases for a valid challenge to a SunriseRegistration was any one or more of the followingconditions:• At the time of the Respondent’s registrationof the Domain Name, no current (nonexpired)trademark or service markregistration was registered in theRespondent’s name.• The Domain Name was not identical to thetextual or word elements of the trademarkor service mark registration on which theregistration of the Respondent’s DomainName was based.• The trademark or service mark registrationon which the registration of theRespondent’s Domain Name was basedOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 66 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)was not of national effect.• The trademark or service mark on which theregistration of the Respondent’s DomainName was based was not registered orapplied for, prior to July 11, 2005, with thetrademark authority with which the mark isregistered.No. ofChallengesPart CSuccessfulChallenges(Number & %)Total No.RegisteredNamesNo. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsReferences/ObservationsOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 67 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007SuccessfulChallenges(Number & %)Of the eighteenchallenges filed:Successful – 9 (50%)Canceled – 2 (11%)Terminated – 7 (39%)Total No.RegisteredNames443,149(19/3/07)No. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsRegistrationsPhase I – 1,706Phase II – 13,081Total – 14,787Claims/Challenges18References/ObservationsThe following documents and materials were referenced:.mobi Switch On! Web Developer Guide (v1.0 Final Version)http://pc.mtld.mobi/documents/dotmobi_Switch_On_Web_Developer_Guide3.htmlOverview of Dispute Resolution on mTLD's Webiste:http://pc.mtld.mobi/switched/sr_dispresolution.html.mobi Sunrise Challenge Policyhttp://pc.mtld.mobi/documents/Sunrise-Challenge-Policy.pdf.mobi Sunrise Challenge Ruleshttp://pc.mtld.mobi/documents/dotmobi-Sunrise-Challenge-Rules.pdfSummary reflects comments and information received from Caroline Greer, mTLDTop Level Domain Ltd.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 68 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007.museum (prepared by Kelly W. Smith)Part ATLD EligibilitySponsored TLD.Eligibility for .museumnames is restricted tomuseums, professionalassociations ofmuseums, and individualmembers of the museumprofession.“Museum” is defined as“a non-profit making,permanent institution inthe service of societyand its development,and open to the public,which acquires,conserves, researches,communicates andexhibits, for purposes ofstudy, education andenjoyment, materialevidence of people andtheir environment.:”Mechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)Other.Rights-based NameSelection. MuseDoma(Museum DomainManagementAssociation) restrictsname selection to a.museum name that is“clearly andrecognizably derivedfrom the name by whichthe entity to which it isassigned is otherwisewidely known” and that“specifically designatesthe entity to which it isassigned.”Generic Terms/PlaceNames. Generic terms,and country, city orother geographicidentifiers, are not ableto be registered withoutadditional descriptiveterms (e.g.Rights Bases RequirementsName Selection. Eligibleapplicants may only register aname that is “clearly andrecognizably derived from thename by which the entity to whichit is assigned is otherwise widelyknown” and that “specificallydesignates the entity to which it isassigned.”Submission ProcessAll applicants are required toundergo an authentication process toconfirm their eligibility for a .museumname. Applicants must apply to theEligibility and Name Selection (ENS)Service for a “Community ID” beforeseeking to register a .museum name.To obtain a Community ID,applicants can submit a membershipnumber of ICOM (InternationalCouncil of Museums) or anotherprofessional museum organization ordetailed info regarding thenature/scope of museum activities.MuseDoma awards all .museumnames on a “first come, first served”basis to the first qualified and eligibleapplicant.Phase 0: June 30, 2001 – April 1,2002. Naming ConventionDevelopment and DemonstrationPeriod.Phase 1: April 1, 2002 – December31, 2002. Formal start-up period.SubmissionCostENS Servicefee: $100 USD(as of 2004,MuseDoma willwaive ifauthentication isstraightforwardand requires nodialogue withapplicant (e.g. ifbased on ICOMmembershipnumber)).Domain nameregistration:Wholesale cost$60 USD,Average retailcost $100 USD(annually)Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 69 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007“whitney.art.museum.”).Part BApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessYes, MuseDoma uses anauthentication process.Applicants must apply to theEligibility and Name Selection(ENS) Service for a “CommunityID” before seeking to register a.museum name. To obtain aCommunity ID, applicants cansubmit a membership numberof ICOM (International Councilof Museums) or anotherprofessional museumorganization or detailed inforegarding the nature/scope ofmuseum activities. Applicanthas one year to satisfyMuseDoma that it qualifies. Atthe end of one year, MuseDomawill ask applicant to addressoutstanding issues or will referthe matter to ICOM or anindependent expert panel.Part CChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)NoNote: Formalconcerns abouta registrant’seligibility maybe resolvedthrough theCharterEligibilityDisputeResolutionPolicy(CEDRP).ChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)N/A N/A N/ANo. ofChallengesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 70 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007SuccessfulChallenges(Number & %)N/A.Total No.RegisteredNames2,665 (as of2004).No. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsN/AReferencesRegistry website: http://www.museum.museum TLD Sponsorship Agreement:http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/museum/Evaluation of the New gTLDs: Policy and legal Issues(prepared for ICANN July 10, 2004):http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdfCommentsAdoption andimplementation of stricteligibility and nameselection requirementsobviated the need foralternative protectionmechanisms.Requested informationfrom MuseDoma as to thecurrent number ofregistered names.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 71 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007.name (prepared by Martin Schwimmer (IPC member) and Kristina RosettePart ATLD EligibilityIdentity to personalname or name by whicha person is commonlyknown.Owners of trademarksand service marks maypurchase 10-yeardefensive registrations(DRs) to block aparticular name.Mechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)Sunrise, OtherRights Bases RequirementsThe registrant can register theirlegal name, or a numeric additionto their legal name(JOHN.SMITH55.NAME), or aname by which the person iscommonly known, or a fictionalname if they own rights to thatname (HARRY.POTTER.NAME).These defensive registrations(DR) did not resolve. DRs couldblock at the second level(various.block), third level(block.various), or both(block.block). A Standard DR(SDR), targeted at the second- orthird-level, would block a nameonly at the purchased level andnot all levels. If a trademarkowner wished to block a name atboth levels, a Premium DR wasnecessary. Multiple persons orentities could obtain identical oroverlapping DRs upon paymentby each of the relevantregistration fee.Submission ProcessOnline registration, no verification ofcompliance.Phase I for DRs (start December 1,2001): Applicants were required toidentify the mark to which the DRcorresponded, the mark’sregistration date, the country ofregistration, and registration number.Phase I requirements did not applyafter Phase I. After June 13, 2002,any person could register a DR.DRs would not be granted if the DRconflicted with a prior PersonalName Registration or other reservedword or string.If applicant applied for nameprotected by DR, it would receive anotice of the DR. The applicantcould seek consent from the DRholder or challenge the DR holder’seligibility for the name under theEligibility Requirements DisputeResolution Policy (ERDRP). If theSubmissionCost1 year minimumfor personalnameregistrations$1000(wholesale priceto registrars) forPDR for 10-yeartermOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 72 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007During Phase I, DRs had tomatch the textual element of therelevant mark, the mark had to beof national effect, and itsregistration was required to haveissued before April 16, 2001.These requirements did not applyduring Phase II.applicant won an ERDRP challenge,it could register the name and theDR received a “strike.” DRs werecancelled after three strikes.Name Watch Service notifiedsubscribers (generally trademarkowners) if third party registers aparticular domain name. NameWatch Service did not prevent thethird-party registration, but notifiedthe subscriber to allow thesubscriber to challenge the nameunder ERDRP.Part BApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. ofChallengesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 73 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessn.a.ChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)Yes.ERDRP(general andfor DRs).ChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterWIPO and NAFwere approvedarbiters. Feeswere standardWIPO and NAFfees.Challenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)ERDRP: Challenger had to establish that theregistrant did not meet eligibility requirements andthat the challenger itself was eligible for the name.UDRP: Usual three-prong test.No. ofChallengesWIPO identified6 .NAMEUDRPs out ofapprox. 19,000,and 5 ERDRPS.Part CSuccessfulChallenges(Number & %)Total No. RegisteredNamesNo. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsReferencesOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 74 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007SuccessfulChallenges(Number & %)Total No. RegisteredNamesNo data There were over 92,000.name registrations as ofFebruary 2003.No. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsUnknown.ReferencesEdelman, .NAME registrations not conforming to .NAMERegistration Restrictions athttp://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/name-restrictions/.WIPO Press Release March 2007, Appendix A athttp://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pressroom/en/articles/2007/docs/wipo_pr_2007_479a.pdf.name Registry Proof of Concept ReportsSummary reflects review by and information from Hakon Haugnesand Asbjorn Mikkelsen of Global Name Registry.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 75 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007.pro (prepared by Lance Griffin)Part ATLD EligibilityNon-Sponsored TLDPersons/entitiescredentialed to provideprofessional services;currently limited tomedical, legal,accounting andengineeringprofessionals in U.S.,Canada, Germany andU.K.Mechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)Sunrise Periodallowing for four typesof DefensiveRegistrations: (1)ProGuard: blocks allidentical third levelregistrations in onethird level domain(smith.law.pro); (2)ProBlock: blocks allcurrent and future thirdlevel domains(smith.law.pro,smith.med.pro, etc.);(3) ProDefense:blocks registrations insecond level domains(smith.pro); (4)ProReserve:professional outsideU.S. can block secondor third level. All fourare non-resolving.Rights Bases Requirements(1/2/3)ProGuard/ProBlock/ProDefense:Owners of trademark/servicemarkof national effect registered prior toSeptember 30, 2003; Supplementalor State/Province registrations notaccepted; registration must coveridentical ASCII text/word (mayinclude design elements).(4) ProReserve: potentialregistrants, no basis requested forblocking.Submission ProcessProGuard/ProBlock/ProDefense:Must attest to ownership of right andprovide information on trademark,date of registration, country ofregistration and registration number.Click-though agreement.ProReserve: No submission oftrademark information required.(process at domainpeople.ca)Submission CostFour year term:ProGuard $896ProBlock: $2,699ProDefense:$3,499ProReserve: $896(retail prices atdomainpeople.ca)Part BOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 76 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterChecking with Registry Yes $500WIPO Arbitrationand MediationCenterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)Must prove existence of active trademarkregistration at time of IP Defensive Registration, andspecifically show; textual or word elements areidentical to domain name; registration has nationaleffect; for IP Defensive registrations during SunrisePeriod, registration was achieved prior to09/30/2003.No. ofChallengesChecking withRegistryPart COutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 77 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Successful Challenges(Number & %)Checking with RegistryTotal No.RegisteredNamesChecking withRegistryNo. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsReferencesRegistration Agreement, specifically Appendix G, L and M:http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/pro/.RegistryPro web site: www. Registrypro.comCurrent registration process and retail pricing atwww.domainpeople.ca and http://www.domainsite.com/pro/.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 78 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007.travel (prepared by Kristina Rosette)Part ATLD EligibilitySponsored TLD.Eligibility for .travelnames was restricted to‘people, organizations,associations, andprivate, governmentaland non-governmentalagencies in the traveland tourism industry.”Illustrative eligibleindustry categoriesinclude airlines;attractions/theme parks;bed & breakfast houses;bus/taxi/limousineoperators; camp facilityoperators; car rentalcompanies/airportspecialty car parkcompanies; computerreservation/traveltechnology provider;convention & visitor’sbureaus; cruise lines;ferries;hotels/resorts/casinos;Mechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)Other.Rights-based NameSelection. Tralliancerestricted nameselection to the .travelnames correspondingto names and marksowned or used by theapplicant. After anAuthenticationProvider authenticatedthe applicant’seligibility for .travelnames, the applicantwas provided with alist of .travel namesthat, based on itseligibility application, itwas entitled toregister.Place Names:Tralliance created alist of country andplace (city, county,continental regional,Rights Bases RequirementsName Selection. .Travel namechoices were limited to the namesan applicant owned or used. Each.travel applicant received a NamesList of names it was eligible toregister based on information itprovided during the authenticationprocess. Documentation of use orregistration of each name wasrequired. The illustrative list of“name types” consists of :• “doing business as” names, tradenames, or “usual” business names;• usual business name used inURL;• trademark (registered, appliedfor, or used);• service mark (registered, appliedfor, or used);• product name (registered orused);• division name;• subsidiary name (wholly ownedor controlled);• promotion or venture name;• partnership name (registration orSubmission ProcessAll applicants are required toundergo an authentication processto confirm their eligibility for a.travel domain name. Onceauthenticated, the applicantreceives a Unique IdentifyingNumber (“UIN”) and a Names Listof names for which the applicant iseligible to apply for based on theName Selection Data it provided.The UIN and Names List for eachapplicant is posted to a databaseand made accessible to both theapplicant and its AuthenticationProvider. Applicant selects a.travel accredited registrar andsubmits its .travel nameregistration application(s).Tralliance matches applicantname, UIN and applied-for .travelname against database. All threeelements must match forregistration to be successful.Tralliance awarded all .travelnames except place names andreserved names on a “first come,SubmissionCostUnable todetermine.Accreditedregistrars chargedifferent prices.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 79 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007TLD Eligibilitynational tourism offices;passenger rail lines;restaurants; touroperators; travel agents;travel media; travelconsumer and marketresearch organizations;ravel insurance; andtravel training institutes.Mechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)state, province, andterritory) names, andinitially reserved thosenames for registrationby the governmentalauthority that holds aright to the namebased on use orlocation.Rights Bases Requirementsuse)• club name;• competition, games or eventname (registered, applied for orused);• transport vessel name;• acronyms of eligible name aslong as three letters ore more.Place Names. Priority granted togovernmental authority, agency,board or bureau with demonstrablerights to name. Policy indicatesdocumentation is required.Submission Processfirst served” basis to the firstqualified and eligible applicant.Pre-Authentication (July 1, 2005-September 29, 2005):Authentication available on arolling basis for members oraffiliates of AuthenticationProviders. Initial phase ended fivedays before Limited Launch.Applicants authenticated duringthis period could registerimmediately upon opening ofLimited Launch. First phasestarted on Limited Launch startdate and ran for 25 days.Applicants authenticated duringthis phase could register startingon second month of LimitedLaunch. Second phase of Preauthenticationstarted on 31st dayof Limited Launch and ran for 25days. Applicants authenticatedduring this phase could registerduring the third month of LimitedLaunch.SubmissionCostLimited Launch (Oct. 3, -December 26, 2005): Registrationopen to all entities that hadundergone Pre-authentication.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 80 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007TLD EligibilityMechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)Rights Bases RequirementsSubmission ProcessSubmissionCostOpen Launch (January 2, 2006):Authentication and registrationsequentially in real time.Place Names Reserved List(ended Sept. 25, 2005): Entitieshad an initial window to notifyTralliance that a relevant PlaceName was not on the PlaceNames Reserved List.Place Name Priority Rights (Oct. 1,2005-December 31, 2006):Eligible entitles were required tosend a letter to Tralliance onletterhead stationery that set forththe .travel names they wished toclaim from the Place NamesReserved List. Tralliance applieda “larger population” priority rightunder which the larger populationentity had priority to a place nameor a smaller population entity (e.g.,Paris, France had priority overParis, Texas).Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 81 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Part BApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessYes, Tralliance used anauthentication process, whichwas implemented by authorizedAuthentication Providers.Travel association memberscould be authenticated by theirassociation or by third-partyAuthentication Provider. Atravel association that is anAuthentication Provider canauthenticate only its ownmembers.ChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. N/A N/A None.No. ofChallengesApplicants submitted theirIdentification Data, ContactData, and Name Selection Datato an Authentication Provider.The Identification and ContactData were used to authenticateeligibility; the Name SelectionData was used to generate theNames List for the applicant.An applicant could appeal toTralliance the AuthenticationProvider’s denial of eligibility aslong as it did so within 30 daysof denial. All denials areOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 82 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessarchived in a central databaseto prevent “AuthenticationProvider-shopping.”ChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. ofChallengesPart CSuccessfulChallenges(Number & %)Total No.RegisteredNamesNo. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsReferences/ObservationsOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 83 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007SuccessfulChallenges(Number & %)Total No.RegisteredNames0 27033 as ofApril 15, 2007No. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsOne appeal to TTPCdenial review panelwas rejected.One appeal to UDRPwas rejected.References/ObservationsThe following documents and materials were referenced.• .travel New sTLD RFP Application• .travel Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement• Appendix S to .travel Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement• .travel press release, November 28, 2006• .travel Guide to Pre-Authentication, June 2005• .travel - Policies• Tralliance Corporation - Nations' Priority Right Advisory - Update,September 8, 2005Observations/comments• Initial examination suggests that adoption and implementation of stricteligibility and name selection requirements obviated the need for alternativeprotection mechanisms.• TTPC, the .travel sponsor, sought public comment on the reservationand public auction of premium names. The public comment period is over andnow TTPC is scheduled to take up the issue at its next board meeting.• Summary reviewed and quantitative data for numbers of registerednames and mechanism registrations/claims provided by Cherian Mathai,Tralliance Corporation.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 84 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007.us (prepared by Jon Nevett)Part ATLD EligibilityMechanism Type(Sunrise, IP Claim,Other, None)Rights Bases RequirementsSubmission ProcessSubmissionCost.US Sunrise Owners of existing or pending UStrademarks (must have beenapplied for prior to 7/27/01)ApplicationRequired data:-- requested .US name;-- exact trademark;-- TM date of application;-- TM date of registration (if applies)-- TM application number-- TM registration number (if applies)-- TM international industry code-- contact info of registrant, admin,tech & billing contacts;-- nameservers & IP addressesNo fee to apply5-yr registrationterm minimum($40-100 total)Part BOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 85 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ApplicationVerification/AuthenticationProcessChallengeMechanism(Yes/No)ChallengeMechanism Cost& ArbiterChallenge Mechanism Requirements(to Prevail)No. ofChallengesAll .US Sunrise applicationswere checked by the RegistryOperator (NeuStar) against theU.S. Patent & Trademark Office(USPTO) database.NoNeuStar reportsthere were zero(0) Sunrisechallenges asthey verifiedeach of theregistrations withthe USPTO.NeuStar providesa 30-day “hold”period so theregistrant canprove hiseligibility;otherwise thename is deletedwith no refundavailablePart COutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 86 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Successful Challenges(Number & %)Total No.RegisteredNamesNo. of MechanismRegistrations/ClaimsReferencesNeuStar reports that therewere zero (0) Sunrise Periodchallenges since allapplications were verifiedagainst the USPTO databasebefore registration proceeded.1,205,834 Zero (0). NeuStarreports there were nocomplaints orallegations of fraud, andthe Sunrise processoperated without anyflaws.www.DomainTools.com (as of 3/9/07)Email from Jeff Neuman, Sr. Director, NeuStarOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 87 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 88 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 89 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_____ for the current revision.Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and NumbersANNEX TWO – PARTICIPATION DATAParticipants Affiliation Dates20-Feb 27-Feb 6-Mar 13-Mar 20-Mar 25-Mar 3-Apr 10-Apr 17-Apr 24-Apr 2-May 9-May14-May16-MayPhilip Sheppard CBUC aa p aa aa aa p aaMike Rodenbaugh CBUC p p p aa p p p p p p p pAlistair Dixon CBUC p aaFrank Schilling CBUC p pKelly Smith IPC p p aa p p p p p p p p pLance Griffin IPC p p p p p p p p p p p p pKristina Rosette IPC p p p p p p p p p p p p p pUte Decker IPC pPeter Gustav Olson IPC p p p p p p p p aa p p p pVictoria McEvedy NCUC p p aa p p p p pMargie Milam Registrar p p p p p p p p p p pJon Nevett Registrar p p p aa aa p p aa p pJohn Berryhill Registrar p p p pTim Ruiz Registrar p p p p p p p aa pJeff Neuman gTLD Registries p p p p aa aa aa aa p p pMichael Palage gTLD Registries p p p aa p p p p pDavid Maher gTLD Registries p p p p p p p p p p pEdmon Chung gTLD Registries p p pAvri Doria NomCom app Coun p p aa p p p p p p p pJon Bing NomCom app Coun p p p aa p p p pEun-Joo Min WIPO observer p p p p p p pStaffLiz.Williams Sen. Policy Coun p aa p p p p p p p p p p aaGlen de Saint Géry GNSO Sec p p p p p p p p p p p p p pParticipants Affiliation DatesPatrick Jones Registry Liaison Manager pFinal Report GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC), Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 90 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Lisbon ObserversTricia DrakesAlan Greenberg ALACColin Adams Global StrategyMatt Selin MarkMonitorBill Jacobs MarkMonitorChris Bounds MarkMonitorSteve DelBianco CBUCLegend: p - present; a - absent; aa - absent apologiesNotes: ISPCP did not participate in this Working GroupOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 91 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_____ for the current revision.Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and NumbersANNEX THREE – QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTSThe results are online athttp://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=3bSZ4z3AQauWM7UkrigeThe following screen shot of the poll results pages provides a guide.Poll ResultsPoll menu: New gTLDs PRO-WGReport date: Tue 22 May 2007 11:48 BSTCountry: All1. Please categorize yourself (check all that apply):As at: Sat 05 May 2007 07:59 BSTNumber of voters: 40Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Rights owner representative 19 47.502 Intellectual Property Rights Owner 17 42.503 Civil society (non-profit or similar) 13 32.503 Registrant 13 32.503 Registrant representative 13 32.506 Other 4 10.007 Registrar 3 7.508 Registry 2 5.009 Government 0 0.002. Do IP owners need new intellectual property rights or enhanced protectionof rights in cyberspace compared to the protection that exists in the realworld?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 40Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Yes 19 47.501 No 19 47.503 No opinion 2 5.003. Should registries be mandated to provide such enhanced protectionsduring the introduction of new top-level domains?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 22Ranked by votesFinal Report GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC), Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 92 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Rank Opinion Votes %1 Yes 18 81.822 No 2 9.092 No opinion 2 9.094. Please list all TLDs in which you have participated in a rights protectionmechanism (such as a sunrise pre-registration period for the launch of a newtop-level domain).As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 31Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 .biz 18 58.061 .eu 18 58.061 .info 18 58.064 .us 15 48.395 .mobi 13 41.946 Other 12 38.717 .name 10 32.268 .jobs 8 25.819 .pro 5 16.139 .tv 5 16.1311 .travel 4 12.9012 .aero 3 9.6813 .cat 2 6.4513 .museum 2 6.4515 .coop 1 3.235. For each TLD in which you used or tried to use a rights protectionmechanism, please identify if you believe your rights were adequatelyprotected. First, in .aero?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 33Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 29 87.882 Yes 4 12.123 No 0 0.00Were your rights adequately protected in .biz?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 32Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 93 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20071 Not applicable 14 43.752 Yes 12 37.503 No 6 18.75Were your rights adequately protected in .cat?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 30Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 28 93.332 Yes 2 6.673 No 0 0.00Were your rights adequately protected in .coop?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 30Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 27 90.002 Yes 3 10.003 No 0 0.00Were your rights adequately protected in .eu?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 31Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 13 41.942 No 10 32.263 Yes 8 25.81Were your rights adequately protected in .info?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 31Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 15 48.392 Yes 9 29.033 No 7 22.58Were your rights adequately protected in .jobs?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 94 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Number of voters: 31Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 23 74.192 Yes 6 19.353 No 2 6.45Were your rights adequately protected in .mobi?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 31Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 18 58.062 Yes 9 29.033 No 4 12.90Were your rights adequately protected in .museum?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 30Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 28 93.332 Yes 2 6.673 No 0 0.00Were your rights adequately protected in .name?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 30Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 22 73.332 Yes 6 20.003 No 2 6.67Were your rights adequately protected in .pro?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 30Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 24 80.002 Yes 5 16.673 No 1 3.33Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 95 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Were your rights adequately protected in .travel?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 30Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 25 83.332 Yes 3 10.003 No 2 6.67Were your rights adequately protected in .tv?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 30Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 26 86.672 Yes 3 10.003 No 1 3.33Were your rights adequately protected in .us?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 30Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 16 53.332 Yes 10 33.333 No 4 13.33Were your rights adequately protected in other TLDs?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 34Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Yes 13 38.241 Not applicable 13 38.243 No 8 23.536. For any TLD in which you have participated in a rights protectionmechanisms, please tick the right(s) protection mechanisms you used:As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 30Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 96 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20071 IP claim 20 66.672 Sunrise registration 19 63.333 Sunrise challenge 6 20.003 Premium name 6 20.003 Other 6 20.006 Start up 5 16.676 Start up opposition proceedings 5 16.678 Place name 1 3.337. For any TLD in which you have participated in a rights protectionmechanism, please tick below the right(s) you sought to protect.As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 33Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Registered trademark 28 84.852 Entity name 20 60.613 Unregistered trademark 16 48.484 Personal name 7 21.215 Other 5 15.158. Do you believe rights protection mechanisms should protect rights othersthan those listed above?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 35Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 No 24 68.572 Yes 11 31.439. Are rights protection mechanisms necessary in the introduction of new toplevel domains?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 36Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Yes 29 80.562 No 7 19.4410. Should domain name registration rights protection mechanisms protectother things such as literary titles, geographic designations, protection of thecommons?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 97 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Number of voters: 37Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 No 19 51.352 Yes 18 48.6511. Could the dispute have been resolved in a different way?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 29Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Yes 15 51.722 No 14 48.2812. Which rights protection mechanism(s) could be used?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 18Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 IP claim 11 61.112 Sunrise registration 7 38.892 Sunrise challenge 7 38.892 Other 7 38.895 Start up opposition proceedings 5 27.786 Place name 4 22.227 Start up 3 16.678 Premium name 2 11.1113. Suggest other alternatives, if any.As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 15Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 No 12 80.002 Further information 3 20.0014. Do you own any defensive registrations?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 37Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Yes 19 51.352 No 18 48.65Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 98 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 200715. How many defensive registrations do you own in each TLD? First .aero:As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 22Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 19 86.362 11-25 2 9.093 51-100 1 4.554 26-50 0 0.004 100+ 0 0.00How many defensive registrations do you own in .biz?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 21Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 9 42.862 11-25 5 23.813 51-100 3 14.294 26-50 2 9.524 100+ 2 9.52How many defensive registrations do you own in .cat?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 20Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 19 95.002 100+ 1 5.003 11-25 0 0.003 26-50 0 0.003 51-100 0 0.00How many defensive registrations do you own in .coop?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 19Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 18 94.742 100+ 1 5.263 11-25 0 0.003 26-50 0 0.00Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 99 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20073 51-100 0 0.00How many defensive registrations do you own in .eu?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 22Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 10 45.452 100+ 5 22.733 11-25 4 18.184 26-50 2 9.095 51-100 1 4.55how many defensive registrations do you own in .info?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 22Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 8 36.362 26-50 6 27.273 100+ 5 22.734 11-25 3 13.645 51-100 0 0.00How many defensive registrations do you own in .jobs?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 21Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 18 85.712 11-25 2 9.523 100+ 1 4.764 26-50 0 0.004 51-100 0 0.00How many defensive registrations do you own in .mobi?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 23Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 17 73.912 11-25 2 8.702 51-100 2 8.70Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 100 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20074 26-50 1 4.354 100+ 1 4.35How many defensive registrations do you own in .museum?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 21Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 20 95.242 100+ 1 4.763 11-25 0 0.003 26-50 0 0.003 51-100 0 0.00How many defensive registrations do you own in .name?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 22Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 19 86.362 26-50 2 9.093 100+ 1 4.554 11-25 0 0.004 51-100 0 0.00How many defensive registrations do you own in .pro?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 20Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 18 90.002 11-25 1 5.002 100+ 1 5.004 26-50 0 0.004 51-100 0 0.00How many defensive registrations do you own in .travel?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 22Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 20 90.912 11-25 1 4.55Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 101 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20072 100+ 1 4.554 26-50 0 0.004 51-100 0 0.00How many defensive registrations do you own in .tv?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 21Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 15 71.432 11-25 2 9.522 26-50 2 9.522 100+ 2 9.525 51-100 0 0.00How many defensive registrations do you own in .us?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 22Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 0-10 12 54.552 100+ 5 22.733 11-25 3 13.644 26-50 2 9.095 51-100 0 0.00How many defensive registrations do you own in other TLDs?As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 24Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 100+ 9 37.502 0-10 8 33.333 51-100 5 20.834 11-25 1 4.174 26-50 1 4.1716. Please tick the percentage of your domain portfolio that consists ofdefensive registrations:As at: Fri 04 May 2007 23:59 BSTNumber of voters: 26Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 102 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20071 Less than 10% 11 42.312 10-24% 4 15.382 25-49% 4 15.382 50-74% 4 15.385 75% or more 3 11.54Section II. 1. For each mechanism you have checked above, please checkbelow the capacity in which you were involved:As at: Sat 05 May 2007 07:59 BSTNumber of voters: 25Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Sunrise reigstrant 17 68.002 IP claimant 15 60.003 STOP claimant 9 36.004 Sunrise challenger 5 20.005 Registrar 4 16.005 Other 4 16.007 Sunrise challenge defendant 3 12.008 STOP defendant 2 8.009 Dispute resolution provider 1 4.0010 Registry 0 0.002. If you are a registrar or registry, was it necessary to perform technical workor allocate resources specifically in order to implement any rights protectionmechanism process(es)?As at: Sat 05 May 2007 07:59 BSTNumber of voters: 28Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 22 78.572 Yes 5 17.863 No 1 3.573. What type of technical work or resources was required as a percentage ofthe implementation of the new TLD?As at: Sat 05 May 2007 07:59 BSTNumber of voters: 25Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Not applicable 16 64.002 10-24% 4 16.003 25-49% 2 8.004 Less than 10% 1 4.00Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 103 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20074 50-74% 1 4.004 75% or more 1 4.004. If rights protection mechanisms were used in the introduction of new TLDs,should that process be standardized across all new TLDs?As at: Sat 05 May 2007 07:59 BSTNumber of voters: 30Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Yes 21 70.002 No 9 30.005. Should registry operators be allowed to propose rights protectionmechanisms tailored to specific needs of their business model/communityprovided that certain base line criteria are met?As at: Sat 05 May 2007 07:59 BSTNumber of voters: 29Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Yes 20 68.972 No 9 31.036. What base line criteria should be met?Comment box only7. Would a sunrise registration process be a suitable rights protectionmechanism for a TLD associated within a defined geographic region in whichthere is a centralized trademark database for the registry to verify trademarkowner rights?As at: Sat 05 May 2007 07:59 BSTNumber of voters: 27Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Yes 20 74.072 No 7 25.938. Would a sunrise registration process be a suitable rights protectionmechanism for a TLD if the TLD community is associated with the specificgoods and services a specific international trademark classification, forexample, .cars?As at: Sat 05 May 2007 07:59 BSTOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 104 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Number of voters: 28Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Yes 19 67.862 No 9 32.149. Should any rights protection mechanism provide priority or superiorregistration access among different categories of rights owners (for example,owners of nationally registered trademarks vs. owners of unregisteredtrademarks vs. owners of business names)?As at: Sat 05 May 2007 07:59 BSTNumber of voters: 29Ranked by votesRank Opinion Votes %1 Yes 16 55.172 No 13 44.8310. Any other comments?Comment box onlyOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 105 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ANNEX FOUR – NEW TLDS PROPOSEDRECOMMENDATIONS & IMPLEMENTATIONGUIDELINESNEW TLD PRINCIPLES, PROPOSEDRECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATIONGUIDELINESThe following tables set out the principles, proposed recommendations andimplementation guidelines from the GNSO Committee on the Introduction ofNew Top-Level Domains. They are included here to provide some detailedcontext for the deliberations of the PRO WG. The outputs from the PRO WGwill be fed into the ongoing Committee deliberations.Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 106 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007PRINCIPLEMISSION ORCORE VALUEABCDEFNew generic top-level domains (gTLDs)must be introduced in an orderly, timelyand predictable way.Some new generic top-level domains shouldbe internationalised domain names (IDNs)subject to the approval of IDNs beingavailable in the root.The reasons for introducing new top-leveldomains include that there is demand frompotential applicants for new top-level domainsin both ASCII and IDN formats. In additionthe introduction of new top-level domainapplication process has the potential topromote competition in the provision ofregistry services, to add to consumer choice,market differentiation and geographical andservice-provider diversity. [Consistent withGAC Principle 2.6]A set of technical criteria must be used forassessing a new gTLD registry applicant tominimise the risk of harming the operationalstability, security and global interoperability ofthe Internet.A set of capability criteria for a new gTLDregistry applicant must be used to provide anassurance that an applicant has the capabilityto meets its obligations under the terms ofICANN’s registry agreement.A set of operational criteria must be setout in contractual conditions in theregistry agreement to ensure compliancewith ICANN policies.M1 & CV1 & 2,4-10M1-3 & CV 1, 4 &6M3 & CV 4-10M1-3 & CV 1M1-3 & CV 1M1-3 & CV 1Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 107 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION1 ICANN must implement a process that allowsthe introduction of new top-level domains.The evaluation and selection procedure for newgTLD registries should respect the principles offairness, transparency and non-discrimination.All applicants for a new gTLD registry shouldtherefore be evaluated against transparent andpredictable criteria, fully available to theapplicants prior to the initiation of the process.Normally, therefore, no subsequent additionalselection criteria should be used in the selectionprocess. [GAC2.5]2Strings must not be confusingly similar to anexisting top-level domain.MISSION &COREVALUESM1-3 & CV1-11M1-3 & C1-6-11345In the interests of consumer confidence andsecurity, new gTLDs should not be confusinglysimilar to existing TLDs. To avoid confusion withcountry-code Top Level Domains no two lettergTLDs should be introduced. [GAC2.4]Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights CV3of others that are recognized or enforceableunder generally accepted and internationallyrecognized principles of law.The process for introducing new gTLDs mustmake proper allowance for prior third partyrights, in particular trademark rights as well asrights in the names and acronyms of intergovernmentalorganizations (IGOs). [GAC2.3]Strings must not cause any technical instability. M1-3 & CV 1Strings must not be a Reserved Word.ICANN should avoid country, territory or placenames, and country, territory or regionallanguage or people descriptions, unless inagreement with the relevant governments orpublic authorities. [GAC2.2]M1-3 & CV 1& 3Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 108 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 20076 Strings must not be contrary to generallyaccepted legal norms relating to morality andpublic order.New gTLDs should respect:a) The provisions of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights which seek to affirm"fundamental human rights, in the dignity andworth of the human person and in the equalrights of men and women".b) The sensitivities regarding terms withnational, cultural, geographic and religioussignificance. [GAC2.1]7 Applicants must be able to demonstrate theirtechnical capability to run a registry operationfor the purpose that the applicant sets out.8Applicants must be able to demonstrate theirfinancial and organisational operationalcapability.An application will be rejected or otherwisedeferred if it is determined, based on publiccomments or otherwise, that there is substantialopposition to it from among significantestablished institutions of the economic sector,or cultural or language community, to which it istargeted or which it is intended to support.M3 & CV 4M1-3 & CV1M1-3 & CV19 There must be a clear and pre-publishedapplication process using objective andmeasurable criteria.10 There must be a base contract provided toapplicants at the beginning of the applicationprocess.11 Staff Evaluators will be used to makepreliminary determinations about applications aspart of a process which includes the use ofexpert panels to make decisions.12 Dispute resolution and challenge processesmust be established prior to the start of theprocess.M3 & CV6-9CV7-9CV7-9CV7-9Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 109 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 200713 Applications must initially be assessed in roundsuntil the scale of demand is clear.CV7-914 The initial registry agreement term must be of acommercially reasonable length.CV5-915 There must be renewal expectancy. CV5-916 Registries must apply existing ConsensusPolicies and adopt new Consensus Polices asthey are approved.17 A clear compliance and sanctions process mustbe set out in the base contract which could leadto contract termination.1819If an applicant offers an IDN service, thenICANN’s IDN guidelines must be followed.Registries must use ICANN accreditedregistrars.CV5-9M1 & CV1M1 & CV1M1 & CV1IG AIG BProposed ImplementationGuidelinesThe application process willprovide a pre-definedroadmap for applicants thatencourages the submission ofapplications for new top-leveldomains.Application fees will bedesigned to ensure thatadequate resources existto cover the total cost toadminister the new gTLDprocess.Application fees may differfor applicants.Mission & CoreValueCV 2, 5, 6, 8 & 9CV 5, 6, 8 & 9Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 110 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007IG CIG DIG EICANN will provide frequentcommunications withapplicants and the publicincluding comment forumswhich will be used to informevaluation panels.A first come first servedprocessing schedule withinthe application round willbe implemented and willcontinue for an ongoingprocess, if necessary.Applications will be timeand date stamped onreceipt.The application submissiondate will be at least fourmonths after the issue ofthe Request for Proposaland ICANN will promotethe opening of theapplication round.CV 9 & 10CV 8-10CV 9 & 10Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 111 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007IG FIf there is contention forstrings, applicants may:i) resolvecontentionbetween themwithin a preestablishedtimeframeii) if there is nomutualagreement, aclaim to support acommunity byone party will be areason to awarepriority to thatapplicationiii) If there is no suchclaim, and nomutual agreementa process will beput in place toenable efficientresolution ofcontention and;iv) the ICANN Boardmay be used tomake a finaldecision, usingadvice from staffand expert panels.CV 7-10Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 112 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007IG GIG HIG IIG JIG KWhere an applicant laysany claim that the TLD isintended to support aparticular community suchas a sponsored TLD, or anyother TLD intended for aspecified community, thatclaim will be taken on trustwith the followingexception:i) the claim relatesto a string that isalso subject toanotherapplication andthe claim tosupport acommunity isbeing used togain priority forthe applicationUnder this exception, StaffEvaluators will devise criteriaand procedures to investigatethe claim.External dispute providers willgive decisions on complaints.An applicant granted aTLD string must use itwithin a fixed timeframewhich will be specified inthe application process.The base contract shouldbalance market certaintyand flexibility for ICANN toaccommodate a rapidlychanging market place.ICANN should take aconsistent approach to theestablishment of registryfees.CV 7 - 10CV 10CV 10CV 4-10CV 5Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 113 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007IG LThe use of personal datamust be limited to thepurpose for which it iscollected.IG M ICANN may establish acapacity building and supportmechanism aiming atfacilitatingeffectivecommunication on importantand technical Internetgovernance functions in away which no longer requiresall participants in theconversation to be able toread and write English.CV 8CV 3 - 7IG NIG OICANN may put in place a feereduction scheme for gTLDapplicants from economiesclassified by the UN as leastdeveloped.ICANN may put in placesystems that could provideinformation about the gTLDprocess in major languagesother than English, forexample, in the six workinglanguages of the UnitedNations.CV 3 - 7CV 8 -10Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 114 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007ANNEX FIVE – MINORITY VIEWS – TIM RUIZPRINCIPLES FOR NEW gTLD REGISTRIESPROTECTING THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERSI. Rationale for PrinciplesA. Use of the Term “legal rights” in PRO-WG Statement of Work1. Given the context of the PRO-WG’s Statement of Work (SOW) it isunderstandable that some participants and observers may equate the use of the term“legal rights” within the SOW as pertaining only to those rights granted specificallyunder laws and regulations regarding trademarks, service marks, famous names,intellectual property, and anti-cybersquatting.2. However, it is far from clear that the GNSO Council intended such a limiteddefinition of “legal rights” as is evident from the remarks of at least one Councilmember, Avri Doria, on this subject that were submitted to the PRO-WG email list:“If I remember the discussion in the Council concerning the creationof this group correctly, one of the reasons it was called protectingthe rights of others was specifically because it had to include therights of those who did not hold Trademarks on generic strings, i.ethe general population's rights to use 'words' as strings for nonfraudulentpurposes.”3. Therefore, the definition of “legal rights” that I chose to use for the principlesincluded below is broader and more akin to the concept of unalienable rights:“An abstract idea of that which is due to a person or other entity bylaw or tradition or nature.”B. Rationale for the Definition1. The concept embodied in the above definition is espoused in The UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights as well as the Declaration of Independence of theUnited States of America, both of which recognize that we are all endowed withcertain unalienable rights, rights not awarded by human power or government, rightsthat cannot be taken away or even surrendered. Eleanor Roosevelt put it very wellwhen she said:"a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something thatnobody can take away."2. It is my view that the above concept of “legal rights” must be reflected in futureRights Protection Mechanisms used by gTLD operators. A person’s or entity’s use ofcommon words, phrases, labels, or stings IS a “legal right.” I believe it is no accidentthis concept of “legal rights” is also reflected in the Uniform Domain Name DisputeOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 115 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007Resolution Policy (UDRP) – full text: http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm3. Section 4.a. of that policy states that three elements MUST be proven to establishthat the registration of a particular domain name “infringes or violates someone else’srights” (emphasis mine):4.a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatoryadministrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant")asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules ofProcedure, that(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark orservice mark in which the complainant has rights; and(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;and(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in badfaith.In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that eachof these three elements are present.4. The concept that a person or entity has “legal rights” to the use of common words, phrases,labels, or strings is wisely reflected in the above requirements. It is obvious that the authorsrecognized that the mere existence of a trademark, service mark, or other intellectual propertydid not in and of itself prove that the registrant of a domain name containing an identical orconfusingly similar mark intended to infringe or violate others’ rights.5. The UDRP, in section 4.c. also clearly recognizes the “legal rights” of others to the legitimateuse of common words, phrases, labels, or strings for domain names. It gives three examples ofsuch use (emphasis mine):“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, iffound by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidencepresented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to thedomain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrablepreparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to thedomain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;orOutcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 116 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have beencommonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired notrademark or service mark rights; or(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domainname, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumersor to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”6. This concept is not lost on at least some UDRP Panelists as illustrated in theBosley Medical Group and Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Michael Kremer case(Case No. D2000-1647) brought before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centerin 2001. The Panelist concluded:“…the Complainants have not satisfied their burden of proving theessential elements of a claim under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy,since it appears that the Respondent has legitimate fair use andfree speech rights with respect to the use of the Domain Name fora criticism site. The Complainants’ claim for transfer of the DomainName "bosleymedical.com" is therefore denied.”Full text of the complaint and decision:http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1647.html7. The respondent’s rights to use the domain names it registered were later upheldby the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which decision stated inpart:“We hold today that the noncommercial use of a trademark as thedomain name of a website — the subject of which is consumercommentary about the products and services represented by themark — does not constitute infringement under the Lanham Act.”Full text of the decision of:http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B0C93358B88F28D88256FD90056994B/$file/0455962.pdf?openelement8. No doubt other UDRP and Court decisions could be cited to illustrate an oppositeview point on the definition of “legal rights” of others. The International nature of theInternet and the domain name space makes such conflicts inevitable. However, itcannot be denied that the definition of “legal rights” described herein is accepted in atleast some jurisdictions and within the public policy of certain nations affected by theRights Protection Mechanisms implemented by gTLD operators.9. It is with this understanding and definition of “legal rights” that I offer principles A,B, and C below.C. Rights of gTLD Operators1. There are a set of rights that are not directly the subject of the PRO-WG’s SOW,the rights of gTLD operators. However, the SOW indirectly implies the principle ofsupply and demand when it states in Purpose (2):Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 117 of 118

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated.Refer to the electronic document at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/_________ for the current revision.Final Report PRO WGDoc. No.:Date:26 June 2007“…particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where thereis contention for what Registrants perceive as the "best" names.”2. It may arguable, but we should consider that the “best” names arecommon words, phrases, labels, and strings for which there is a limitedsupply and high demand. It would therefore seem inappropriate to expectgTLD operators, or any other commercial enterprise, to not exercise itsright to apply the commonly accepted principle of supply and demandwhen setting the fees associated with mechanisms designed to allocateits products or services with the highest demand and most limited supply.3. It is with the above understanding that I offer principle D below.II. Suggested PrinciplesA. All potential registrants have legal rights. gTLD operators should not considerthe legal rights of IP holders as superior to the legal rights of all others toregister and use a domain name.B. The Rights Protection Mechanisms used by gTLD operators should notpresume that a registrant intends to infringe on or violate the legal rights ofothers simply by the act of registering a domain name.C. All potential registrants should have an equal opportunity to register commonwords, phrases, labels, or stings as domain names.D. The fees associated with the use of Rights Protection Mechanisms must beestablished at the sole discretion of the gTLD operator.Submitted by Tim RuizMay 19, 2007Outcomes Report of the GNSO PRO WG, Version 1.6Authors: Kristina Rosette & Kelly Smith (IPC Constituency) Liz Williams (ICANN Staff) Page 118 of 118