gTLD	Full Legal Name	E-mail suffix	Detail
.beats	Beats Electronics, LLC	beatsbydre.com	View

29.1 Rights Protection Mechanisms

Beats is firmly committed to the protection of Intellectual Property rights and to implementing the mandatory rights protection mechanisms contained in the Applicant Guidebook and detailed in Specification 7 of the Registry Agreement. .beats recognizes that although the New gTLD program includes significant protections beyond those that were mandatory for a number of the current TLDs, a key motivator for .beatsʹs selection of Neustar as its registry services provider is Neustarʹs experience in successfully launching a number of TLDs with diverse rights protection mechanisms, including many the ones required in the Applicant Guidebook. More specifically, .beats will implement the following rights protection mechanisms in accordance with the Applicant Guidebook as further described below:

-Trademark Clearinghouse: a one-stop shop so that trademark holders can protect their trademarks with a single registration.
-Sunrise and Trademark Claims processes for the TLD.
-Implementation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy to address domain names that have been registered and used in bad faith in the TLD.
-Uniform Rapid Suspension: A quicker, more efficient and cheaper alternative to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy to deal with clear cut cases of cybersquatting.
-Implementation of a Thick WHOIS making it easier for rights holders to identify and locate infringing parties

29.1.1 Trademark Clearinghouse Including Sunrise and Trademark Claims

The first mandatory rights protection mechanism (RPM) required to be implemented by each new gTLD Registry is support for, and interaction with, the trademark clearinghouse. The trademark clearinghouse is intended to serve as a central repository for information to be authenticated, stored and disseminated pertaining to the rights of trademark holders. The data maintained in the clearinghouse will support and facilitate other RPMs, including the mandatory Sunrise Period and Trademark Claims service. Although many of the details of how the trademark clearinghouse will interact with each registry operator and registrars, .beats is actively monitoring the developments of the Implementation Assistance Group (IAG) designed to assist ICANN staff in firming up the rules and procedures associated with the policies and technical requirements for the trademark clearinghouse. In addition, .beatsʹs back-end registry services provider is actively participating in the IAG to ensure that the protections afforded by the clearinghouse and associated RPMs are feasible and implementable.

Utilizing the trademark clearinghouse, all operators of new gTLDs must offer: (i) a sunrise registration service for at least 30 days during the pre-launch phase giving eligible trademark owners an early opportunity to register second-level domains in new gTLDs; and (ii) a trademark claims service for at least the first 60 days that second-level registrations are open. The trademark claim service is intended to provide clear noticeʺ to a potential registrant of the rights of a trademark owner whose trademark is registered in the clearinghouse.

.beatsʹs registry service provider, Neustar, has already implemented Sunrise and⁄or Trademark Claims programs for numerous TLDs including .biz, .us, .travel, .tel and .co and will implement the both of these services on behalf of .beats.

29.1.1.1 Neustarʹs Experience in Implementing Sunrise and Trademark Claims Processes

In early 2002, Neustar became the first registry operator to launch a successful authenticated Sunrise process. This process permitted qualified trademark owners to pre-register their trademarks as domain names in the .us TLD space prior to the opening of the space to the general public. Unlike any other Sunrise plans implemented (or proposed before that time), Neustar validated the authenticity of Trademark applications and registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Subsequently, as the back-end registry operator for the .tel gTLD and the .co ccTLD, Neustar launched validated Sunrise programs employing processes. These programs are very similar to those that are to be employed by the Trademark Clearinghouse for new gTLDs.

Below is a high level overview of the implementation of the .co Sunrise period that demonstrates Neustarʹs experience and ability to provide a Sunrise service and an overview of Neustarʹs experience in implementing a Trademark Claims program to trademark owners for the launch of .BIZ. Neustarʹs experience in each of these rights protection mechanisms will enable it to seamlessly provide these services on behalf of .beats as required by ICANN.

a) Sunrise and .co

The Sunrise process for .co was divided into two sub-phases:

-Local Sunrise giving holders of eligible trademarks that have obtained registered status from the Colombian trademark office the opportunity apply for the .CO domain names corresponding with their marks
-Global Sunrise program giving holders of eligible registered trademarks of national effect, that have obtained a registered status in any country of the world the opportunity apply for the .CO domain names corresponding with their marks for a period of time before registration is open to the public at large.

Like the new gTLD process set forth in the Applicant Guidebook, trademark owners had to have their rights validated by a Clearinghouse provider prior to the registration being accepted by the Registry. The Clearinghouse used a defined process for checking the eligibility of the legal rights claimed as the basis of each Sunrise application using official national trademark databases and submitted documentary evidence.

Applicants and⁄or their designated agents had the option of interacting directly with the Clearinghouse to ensure their applications were accurate and complete prior to submitting them to the Registry pursuant to an optional Pre-validation Process. Whether or not an applicant was pre-validated, the applicant had to submit its corresponding domain name application through an accredited registrar. When the Applicant was pre-validated through the Clearinghouse, each was given an associated approval number that it had to supply the registry. If they were not pre-validated, applicants were required to submit the required trademark information through their registrar to the Registry.
As the registry level, Neustar, subsequently either delivered the:

-Approval number and domain name registration information to the Clearinghouse
-When there was no approval number, trademark information and the domain name registration information was provided to the
Clearinghouse through EPP (as is currently required under the Applicant Guidebook).

Information was then used by the Clearinghouse as either further validation of those pre-validated applications, or initial validation of those that did not go through pre-validation. If the applicant was validated and their trademark matched the domain name applied-for, the Clearinghouse communicated that fact to the Registry via EPP.

When there was only one validated sunrise application, the application proceeded to registration when the .co launched. If there were multiple validated applications (recognizing that there could be multiple trademark owners sharing the same trademark), those were included in the .co Sunrise auction process. Neustar tracked all of the information it received and the status of each application and posted that status on a secure Website to enable trademark owners to view the status of its Sunrise application.

Although the exact process for the Sunrise program and its interaction between the trademark owner, Registry, Registrar, and IP Clearinghouse is not completely defined in the Applicant Guidebook and is dependent on the current RFI issued by ICANN in its selection of a Trademark Clearinghouse provider, Neustarʹs expertise in launching multiple Sunrise processes and its established software will implement a smooth and compliant Sunrise process for the new gTLDs.

b) Trademark Claims Service Experience

With Neustarʹs biz TLD launched in 2001, Neustar became the first TLD with a Trademark Claims service. Neustar developed the Trademark Claim Service by enabling companies to stake claims to domain names prior to the commencement of live .biz domain registrations.

During the Trademark Claim process, Neustar received over 80,000 Trademark Claims from entities around the world. Recognizing that multiple intellectual property owners could have trademark rights in a particular mark, multiple Trademark Claims for the same string were accepted. All applications were logged into a Trademark Claims database managed by Neustar.
The Trademark Claimant was required to provide various information about their trademark rights, including the:

-Particular trademark or service mark relied on for the trademark Claim
-Date a trademark application on the mark was filed, if any, on the string of the domain name
-Country where the mark was filed, if applicable
-Registration date, if applicable
-Class or classes of goods and services for which the trademark or service mark was registered
-Name of a contact person with whom to discuss the claimed trademark rights.

Once all Trademark Claims and domain name applications were collected, Neustar then compared the claims contained within the Trademark Claims database with its database of collected domain name applications (DNAs). In the event of a match between a Trademark Claim and a domain name application, an e-mail message was sent to the domain name applicant notifying the applicant of the existing Trademark Claim. The e-mail also stressed that if the applicant chose to continue the application process and was ultimately selected as the registrant, the applicant would be subject to Neustarʹs dispute proceedings if challenged by the Trademark Claimant for that particular domain name.

The domain name applicant had the option to proceed with the application or cancel the application. Proceeding on an application meant that the applicant wanted to go forward and have the application proceed to registration despite having been notified of an existing Trademark Claim. By choosing to cancel, the applicant made a decision in light of an existing Trademark Claim notification to not proceed.

If the applicant did not respond to the e-mail notification from Neustar, or elected to cancel the application, the application was not processed. This resulted in making the applicant ineligible to register the actual domain name. If the applicant affirmatively elected to continue the application process after being notified of the claimantʹs (or claimantsʹ) alleged trademark rights to the desired domain name, Neustar processed the application.

This process is very similar to the one ultimately adopted by ICANN and incorporated in the latest version of the Applicant Guidebook. Although the collection of Trademark Claims for new gTLDs will be by the Trademark Clearinghouse, many of the aspects of Neustarʹs Trademark Claims process in 2001 are similar to those in the Applicant Guidebook. This makes Neustar uniquely qualified to implement the new gTLD Trademark Claims process.

29.1.2 Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)

29.1.2.1 UDRP

Prior to joining Neustar, Mr. Neuman was a key contributor to the development of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) in 1998. This became the first Consensus Policy of ICANN and has been required to be implemented by all domain name registries since that time. The UDRP is intended as an alternative dispute resolution process to transfer domain names from those that have registered and used domain names in bad faith. Although there is not much of an active role that the domain name registry plays in the implementation of the UDRP, Neustar has closely monitored UDRP decisions that have involved the TLDs for which it supports and ensures that the decisions are implemented by the registrars supporting its TLDs. When alerted by trademark owners of failures to implement UDRP decisions by its registrars, Neustar either proactively implements the decisions itself or reminds the offending registrar of its obligations to implement the decision.

29.1.2.2 URS

In response to complaints by trademark owners that the UDRP was too cost prohibitive and slow, and the fact that more than 70 percent of UDRP cases were clear cut cases of cybersquatting, ICANN adopted the IRTʹs recommendation that all new gTLD registries be required, pursuant to their contracts with ICANN, to take part in a Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS). The purpose of the URS is to provide a more cost effective and timely mechanism for brand owners than the UDRP to protect their trademarks and to promote consumer protection on the Internet.

The URS is not meant to address Questionable cases of alleged infringement (e.g., use of terms in a generic sense) or for anti-competitive purposes or denial of free speech, but rather for those cases in which there is no genuine contestable issue as to the infringement and abuse that is taking place.

Unlike the UDRP which requires little involvement of gTLD registries, the URS envisages much more of an active role at the registry-level. For example, rather than requiring the registrar to lock down a domain name subject to a UDRP dispute, it is the registry under the URS that must lock the domain within 24hours of receipt of the complaint from the URS Provider to restrict all changes to the registration data, including transfer and deletion of the domain names.

In addition, in the event of a determination in favor of the complainant, the registry is required to suspend the domain name. This suspension remains for the balance of the registration period and would not resolve the original website. Rather, the nameservers would be redirected to an informational web page provided by the URS Provider about the URS.
Additionally, the WHOIS reflects that the domain name will not be able to be transferred, deleted, or modified for the life of the registration. Finally, there is an option for a successful complainant to extend the registration period for one additional year at commercial rates.

.beats is fully aware of each of these requirements and will have the capability to implement these requirements for new gTLDs. In fact, during the IRTʹs development of f the URS, Neustar began examining the implications of the URS on its registry operations and provided the IRT with feedback on whether the recommendations from the IRT would be feasible for registries to implement.

Although there have been a few changes to the URS since the IRT recommendations, Neustar continued to participate in the development of the URS by providing comments to ICANN, many of which were adopted. As a result, Neustar is committed to supporting the URS for all of the registries that it provides back-end registry services.

29.1.3 Implementation of Thick WHOIS

The .beats registry will include a thick WHOIS database as required in Specification 4 of the Registry agreement. A thick WHOIS provides numerous advantages including a centralized location of registrant information, the ability to more easily manage and control the accuracy of data, and a consistent user experience.

29.1.4 Policies Handling Complaints Regarding Abuse

In addition the Rights Protection mechanisms addressed above, Beats will implement a number of measures to handle complaints regarding the abusive registration of domain names in its TLD as described in .beatsʹs response to Question 28.

29.1.4.1 Registry Acceptable Use Policy

One of the key policies each new gTLD registry is the need to have is an Acceptable Use Policy that clearly delineates the types of activities that constitute abuse and the repercussions associated with an abusive domain name registration. The policy must be incorporated into the applicable Registry-Registrar Agreement and reserve the right for the registry to take the appropriate actions based on the type of abuse. This may include locking down the domain name preventing any changes to the contact and nameserver information associated with the domain name, placing the domain name on hold rendering the domain name non-resolvable, transferring to the domain name to another registrar, and⁄or in cases in which the domain name is associated with an existing law enforcement investigation, substituting name servers to collect information about the DNS queries to assist the investigation. .beatsʹs Acceptable Use Policy, set forth in our response to Question 28, will include prohibitions on phishing, pharming, dissemination of malware, fast flux hosting, hacking, and child pornography. In addition, the policy will include the right of the registry to take action necessary to deny, cancel, suspend, lock, or transfer any registration in violation of the policy.

29.1.4.2 Monitoring for Malicious Activity

.beats is committed to ensuring that those domain names associated with abuse or malicious conduct in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy are dealt with in a timely and decisive manner. These include taking action against those domain names that are being used to threaten the stability and security of the TLD, or is part of a real-time investigation by law enforcement.

Once a complaint is received from a trusted source, third-party, or detected by the Registry, the Registry will use commercially reasonable efforts to verify the information in the complaint. If that information can be verified to the best of the ability of the Registry, the sponsoring registrar will be notified and be given 12 hours to investigate the activity and either take down the domain name by placing the domain name on hold or by deleting the domain name in its entirety or providing a compelling argument to the Registry to keep the name in the zone. If the registrar has not taken the requested action after the 12-hour period (i.e., is unresponsive to the request or refuses to take action), the Registry will place the domain on ServerHold. Although this action removes the domain name from the TLD zone, the domain name record still appears in the TLD WHOIS database so that the name and entities can be investigated by law enforcement should they desire to get involved.

29.2 Safeguards against Unqualified Registrations

IN THE EVENT, .BEATS IS VERIFYING INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY REGISTRANTS TO ENSURE THAT A REGISTRANT IS QUALIFIED TO REGISTER A DOMAIN, INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE INSERTED IN THIS SECTION. IT IS NOT REQUIRED BY ICANN IN ORDER TO SCORE A 1 MEETS REQUIREMENTS, BUT MAY BE REQUIRED TO GET A SCORE OF 2 ON THIS QUESTION. THIS IS NOT PART OF NEUSTARʹS REGISTRY SERVICES OFFERING.

29.3 Resourcing Plans

The rights protection mechanisms described in the response above involve a wide range of tasks, procedures, and systems. The responsibility for each mechanism varies based on the specific requirements. In general the development of applications such as sunrise and IP claims is the responsibility of the Engineering team, with guidance from the Product Management team. Customer Support and Legal play a critical role in enforcing certain policies such as the rapid suspension process. These teams have years of experience implementing these or similar processes.

The necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in the response to Question 31. The following resources are available from those teams:

-Development⁄Engineering 19 employees
-Product Management- 4 employees
-Customer Support 12 employees

The resources are more than adequate to support the rights protection mechanisms of the .beats registry.

gTLD	Full Legal Name	E-mail suffix	Detail
.whoswho	21st Century Communications Limited (AND⁄OR) 二十一世纪通讯有限公司	whoswho.com	View

29. Rights Protection Mechanisms

Who’s Who Registry is firmly committed to the protection of Intellectual Property rights and to implementing the mandatory rights protection mechanisms contained in the Applicant Guidebook and detailed in Specification 7 of the Registry Agreement. Who’s Who Registry recognizes that although the New gTLD program includes significant protections beyond those that were mandatory for a number of the current TLDs, a key motivator for .whoswho’s selection of Neustar as its registry services provider is Neustar’s experience in successfully launching a number of TLDs with diverse rights protection mechanisms, including many of the ones required in the Applicant Guidebook.

More specifically, .whoswho will implement the following rights protection mechanisms in accordance with the Applicant Guidebook as further described below:
- Trademark Clearinghouse: a one-stop shop so that trademark holders can protect their trademarks with a single registration.
- Sunrise and Trademark Claims processes for the TLD which, for .whoswho, are especially relevant to eponymous companies and brands.
- Implementation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy to address domain names that have been registered and used in bad faith in the TLD.
- Uniform Rapid Suspension: A quicker, more efficient and cheaper alternative to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy to deal with clear cut cases of cybersquatting.
- Implementation of a Thick WHOIS making it easier for rights holders to identify and locate infringing parties.
- Through the extra fields that .whoswho is adding to WHOIS, rights holders may check the public WHOIS display to identify, beyond simply the registrant’s identity, a reference resource in which they may typically find a concise biographic summary of the registrant.

29.1 Trademark Clearinghouse Including Sunrise and Trademark Claims

The first mandatory rights protection mechanism (RPM) required to be implemented by each new gTLD Registry will be support for, and interaction with, the trademark clearinghouse. The trademark clearinghouse is intended to serve as a central repository for information to be authenticated, stored and disseminated pertaining to the rights of trademark holders. The data maintained in the clearinghouse will support and facilitate other RPMs, including the mandatory Sunrise Period and Trademark Claims service. Although specifics about how the trademark clearinghouse will interact with registry operators have not yet been finalized, Who’s Who Registry is actively monitoring the developments of the Implementation Assistance Group (IAG), which was designed to assist ICANN staff in firming up the rules and procedures associated with the policies and technical requirements for the trademark clearinghouse. In addition, .whoswhoʹs back-end registry services provider is actively participating in the IAG to ensure that the protections afforded by the clearinghouse and associated RPMs are feasible and implementable.

Utilizing the trademark clearinghouse, all operators of new gTLDs must offer: (i) a sunrise registration service for at least 30 days during the pre-launch phase and (ii) a trademark claims service for at least the first 60 days that second-level registrations are open. For the .whoswho registry, the sunrise registration service will provide a window during which holders of registered trade⁄service marks for eponymous (one taken from the name of an individual, in this context the eponym) brands⁄companies may be registered in advance of the registry launch. The trademark claim service is intended to provide clear notice to a potential registrant of the rights of a trademark owner whose trademark is registered in the clearinghouse.

Who’s Who Registry’s service provider, Neustar, has already implemented Sunrise and⁄or Trademark Claims programs for numerous TLDs including .biz, .us, .travel, .tel, and .co and will implement both of these services on behalf of .whoswho.

29.1.1 Neustar’s Experience in Implementing Sunrise and Trademark Claims Processes

In early 2002, Neustar became the first registry operator to launch a successful authenticated Sunrise process. This process permitted qualified trademark owners to pre-register their trademarks as domain names in the .us TLD space prior to the opening of the space to the general public. Unlike any other “Sunrise” plans implemented (or proposed before that time), Neustar validated the authenticity of Trademark applications and registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Subsequently, as the back-end registry operator for the .tel gTLD and the .co ccTLD, Neustar launched validated Sunrise programs employing processes. These programs are very similar to those that are to be employed by the Trademark Clearinghouse for new gTLDs.

Below is a high level overview of the implementation of the .co Sunrise period that demonstrates Neustar’s experience and ability to provide a Sunrise service and an overview of Neustar’s experience in implementing a Trademark Claims program to trademark owners for the launch of .BIZ. Neustar’s experience in each of these rights protection mechanisms will enable it to seamlessly provide these services on behalf of .whoswho as required by ICANN.

a) Sunrise and .co
The Sunrise process for .co was divided into two sub-phases:
- Local Sunrise giving holders of eligible trademarks that have obtained registered status from the Colombian trademark office the opportunity apply for the .CO domain names corresponding with their marks
- Global Sunrise program giving holders of eligible registered trademarks of national effect, that have obtained a registered status in any country of the world the opportunity apply for the .CO domain names corresponding with their marks for a period of time before registration is open to the public at large. Like the new gTLD process set forth in the Applicant Guidebook, trademark owners had to have their rights validated by a Clearinghouse provider prior to the registration being accepted by the Registry.

The Clearinghouse used a defined process for checking the eligibility of the legal rights claimed as the basis of each Sunrise application using official national trademark databases and submitted documentary evidence. Applicants and⁄or their designated agents had the option of interacting directly with the Clearinghouse to ensure their applications were accurate and complete prior to submitting them to the Registry pursuant to an optional “Pre-validation Process”. Whether or not an applicant was “pre-validated”, the applicant had to submit its corresponding domain name application through an accredited registrar. When the Applicant was pre-validated through the Clearinghouse, each was given an associated approval number that it had to supply the
registry. If they were not pre-validated, applicants were required to submit the required trademark information through their registrar to the Registry.

As the registry level, Neustar, subsequently either delivered the:
- Approval number and domain name registration information to the Clearinghouse
- When there was no approval number, trademark information and the domain name registration information was provided to the Clearinghouse through EPP (as is currently required under the Applicant Guidebook). Information was then used by the Clearinghouse as either further validation of those pre-validated applications, or initial validation of those that did not go through pre-validation. If the applicant was validated and their trademark matched the domain name applied-for, the Clearinghouse communicated that fact to the Registry via EPP.

When there was only one validated sunrise application, the application proceeded to registration when the .co launched. If there were multiple validated applications (recognizing that there could be multiple trademark owners sharing the same trademark), those were included in the .co Sunrise auction process. Neustar tracked all of the information it received and the status of each application and posted that status on a secure Website to enable trademark owners to view the status of its Sunrise application.
Although the exact process for the Sunrise program and its interaction between the trademark owner, Registry, Registrar, and IP Clearinghouse is not completely defined in the Applicant Guidebook and is dependent on the current RFI issued by ICANN in its selection of a Trademark Clearinghouse provider, Neustar’s expertise in launching multiple Sunrise processes and its established software will implement a smooth and compliant Sunrise process for the new gTLDs. Who’s Who Registry will benefit from Neustar’s experience and guidance in managing the .whoswho Sunrise Process.

b) Trademark Claims Service Experience
With Neustar’s biz TLD launched in 2001, Neustar became the first TLD with a Trademark Claims service. Neustar developed the Trademark Claim Service by enabling companies to stake claims to domain names prior to the commencement of live .biz domain registrations. During the Trademark Claim process, Neustar received over 80,000 Trademark Claims from entities around the world. Recognizing that multiple intellectual property owners could have trademark rights in a particular mark, multiple Trademark Claims for the same string were accepted. All applications were logged into a Trademark Claims database managed by Neustar.

The Trademark Claimant was required to provide various information about their trademark rights, including the:
- Particular trademark or service mark relied on for the trademark Claim
- Date a trademark application on the mark was filed, if any, on the string of the domain name
- Country where the mark was filed, if applicable
- Registration date, if applicable
- Class or classes of goods and services for which the trademark or service mark was registered
- Name of a contact person with whom to discuss the claimed trademark rights.

Once all Trademark Claims and domain name applications were collected, Neustar then compared the claims contained within the Trademark Claims database with its database of collected domain name applications (DNAs). In the event of a match between a Trademark Claim and a domain name application, an e-mail message was sent to the domain name applicant notifying the applicant of the existing Trademark Claim. The e-mail also stressed that if the applicant chose to continue the application process and was ultimately selected as the registrant, the applicant would be subject to Neustar’s dispute proceedings if challenged by the Trademark Claimant for that particular domain name.

The domain name applicant had the option to proceed with the application or cancel the application. Proceeding on an application meant that the applicant wanted to go forward and have the application proceed to registration despite having been notified of an existing Trademark Claim. By choosing to “cancel,” the applicant made a decision in light of an existing Trademark Claim
notification to not proceed. If the applicant did not respond to the e-mail notification from Neustar, or elected to cancel the application, the application was not processed. This resulted in making the applicant ineligible to register the actual domain name. If the applicant affirmatively elected to continue the application process after being notified of the claimant’s (or claimants’) alleged trademark rights to the desired domain name, Neustar processed the application.

This process is very similar to the one ultimately adopted by ICANN and incorporated in the latest version of the Applicant Guidebook. Although the collection of Trademark Claims for new gTLDs will be by the Trademark Clearinghouse, many of the aspects of Neustar’s Trademark Claims process in 2001 are similar to those in the Applicant Guidebook. This makes Neustar uniquely qualified to implement the new gTLD Trademark Claims process.
.
29.1.2 Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)

29.1.2.1 UDRP

Developed in 1988, the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) became the first “Consensus Policy” of ICANN and has been required to be implemented by all domain name registries since that time. (A key contributor to that development has since joined the Neustar team and brings with him his expertise in this regard.) The UDRP is intended as an alternative dispute resolution process to transfer domain names from those that have registered and used domain names in bad faith. Although there is not much of an active role that the domain name registry plays in the implementation of the UDRP, Neustar has closely monitored UDRP decisions that have involved the TLDs for which it provides supports and ensures that the decisions are implemented by the registrars supporting its TLDs. When alerted by trademark owners of failures to implement UDRP decisions by its registrars, Neustar either proactively implements the decisions itself or reminds the offending registrar of its obligations to implement the decision.

29.1.2.2 URS

In response to complaints by trademark owners that the UDRP was too cost prohibitive and slow, and the fact that more than 70 percent of UDRP cases were “clear cut” cases of cybersquatting, ICANN adopted the IRT’s recommendation that all new gTLD registries be required, pursuant to their contracts with ICANN, to take part in a Uniform Rapid Suspension System (“URS”). The purpose of the URS is to provide a more cost effective and timely mechanism for brand owners than the UDRP to protect their trademarks and to promote consumer protection on the Internet. The URS is not meant to address questionable cases of alleged infringement (e.g., use of terms in a generic sense) or for anti-competitive purposes or denial of free speech, but rather for those cases in which there is no genuine contestable issue as to the infringement and abuse that is taking place. Unlike the UDRP which requires little involvement of gTLD registries, the URS envisages much more of an active role at the registry-level. For example, rather than requiring the registrar to lock down a domain name subject to a UDRP dispute, it is the registry under the
URS that must lock the domain within 24hours of receipt of the complaint from the URS Provider to restrict all changes to the registration data, including transfer and deletion of the domain names.

In addition, in the event of a determination in favor of the Complainant, the registry is required to suspend the domain name. This suspension remains for the balance of the registration period and would not resolve to the original website. Rather, the nameservers would be redirected to an informational web page provided by the URS Provider about the URS. Additionally, the WHOIS reflects that the domain name will not be able to be transferred, deleted, or modified for the life of the registration. Finally, there is an option for a successful Complainant to extend the registration period for one additional year at commercial rates. .whoswho is fully aware of each of these requirements and will have the capability to implement these requirements for new gTLDs. In fact, during the IRT’s development of the URS, Neustar began examining the implications of the URS on its registry operations and provided the IRT with feedback on whether the recommendations from the IRT would be feasible for registries to implement. Although there have been a few changes to the URS since the IRT recommendations, Neustar continued to participate in the development of the URS by providing comments to ICANN, many of which were adopted. It follow naturally, therefore, that Neustar will be especially committed to supporting the URS for all of the registries that it provides back-end registry services.

29.1.3 Implementation of Thick WHOIS

The .whoswho registry will include a thick WHOIS database as required in Specification 4 of the Registry agreement. A thick WHOIS provides numerous advantages including a centralized location of registrant information, the ability to more easily manage and control the accuracy of data, and a consistent user experience. Furthermore, because Who’s Who Registry’s WHOIS will provide even more data in extra fields to be added to the public WHOIS display (including the title, year of publication and publisher name for each registrant’s Who’s Who reference credential), both rights holders and the public will benefit from these extra data points directing them to reference sources that provide real insites into a registrant’s identity.

29.1.4 Policies Handling Complaints Regarding Abuse

In addition the Rights Protection mechanisms addressed above, Who’s Who Registry will implement a number of measures to handle complaints regarding the abusive registration of domain names in its TLD as described in .whoswho’s response to Question 28. In keeping with ICANN policy on this issue, the registry will include a point of contact to report abuse as well as an interface to report deficiencies in contact or other information in the WHOIS database, for reporting to Registrars for action, and later followup.

29.1.5 Registry Acceptable Use Policy

One of the key policies each new gTLD registry needs to have is an Acceptable Use Policy that clearly delineates the types of activities that constitute “abuse” and the repercussions associated with an abusive domain name registration. The policy must be incorporated into the applicable Registry-Registrar Agreement and reserve the right for the registry to take the appropriate actions based on the type of abuse. This may include locking down the domain name preventing any changes to the contact and nameserver information associated with the domain name, placing the domain name “on hold” rendering the domain name non-resolvable, transferring to the domain name to another registrar, and⁄or in cases in which the domain name is associated with an existing law enforcement investigation, substituting name servers to collect information about the DNS queries to assist the investigation. Who’s Who Registry’s Acceptable Use Policy, set forth in the response to Question 28, will include prohibitions on impostrous registrations, phishing, pharming, dissemination of malware, fast flux hosting, hacking, and child pornography. In addition, the policy will include the right of the registry to take action necessary to deny, cancel, suspend, lock, or transfer any registration in violation of the policy.

Monitoring for Malicious Activity
Who’s Who Registry is committed to ensuring that those domain names associated with abuse or malicious conduct in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy are dealt with in a timely and decisive manner. These include taking action against those domain names that are being used to threaten the stability and security of the TLD, or is part of a real-time investigation by law enforcement. Once a complaint is received from a trusted source, third-party, or detected by the Registry, the Registry will use commercially reasonable efforts to verify the information in the complaint. If that information can be verified to the best of the ability of the Registry, the sponsoring registrar will be notified and be given 12 hours to investigate the activity and either (i) take
down the domain name by placing the domain name on hold; or by (ii) deleting the domain name in its entirety; or (iii) providing a compelling argument to the Registry to keep the name in the zone. If the registrar has not taken the requested action after the 12-hour period (i.e., is unresponsive to the request or refuses to take action), the Registry will place the domain on “ServerHold”.
Although this action removes the domain name from the TLD zone, the domain name record still appears in the TLD WHOIS database so that the name and entities can be investigated by law enforcement should they desire to get involved.

Who’s Who Registry has opted for Neustar’s Registry Threat Mitigation Service as part of an enhanced services offering that is of importance to a global niche registry such as Who’s Who Registry, in order to meet registrant demands.


29.2 Safeguards against Unqualified Registrations

Who’s Who Registry has signaled its commitment to safeguard against unqualified registrations by designing the authentication of registrants into the mechanics of the domain creation process. Registrations will enter pendingCreate status directly from registration, and no domain will be created until efforts to authenticate the registrant have been successfully completed. As discussed in the response at to Question 28 (see 28.4.1, above), authentication efforts will include review of all new registrations.

The bona fides of those participating in pre-launch registrations through the Trademark Clearinghouse should prove quite straight-forward, assuming that the clearinghouse is representational of true IP owners of bona fide trade⁄service marks. This should make an expected surge of registrations during the pre- and post-launch period more manageable, assuming that the Trademark Clearinghouse can under these circumstances be considered a source of third-party verification.

The main goals of authentication, starting with the most important, are:
(1) establishing a correlation between the registered domain and the applicant’s name
(2) resolving that the named registrant (or authorized legacy registrant) has, in fact, registered the domain
(3) establish that the contact information for the registrant provides a reliable means of contact
(4) verification of the Who’s Who research credential

Because both the applicant name and domain name are included on each registration pendingCreate, a gross discrepancy will immediately flag a need for clarification. More subtle discrepancies may require additional consideration and online research to explain any discrepancy. Where there is no discrepancy or once resolved) the second issue is to resolve that the registrant name provide is in fact that of the registrant, and not an attempt at an impostrous registration of the domain. A personal services approach, explaining the important authentication issue at hand should not only be well-received but also appreciated by the population eligible to register a .whoswho domain(s).

Following online research seeking to corroborate the contact information provided, outreach may commence and end with a confirmation phone call (in the USA leaving a toll-free callback number of 1-800-WHOSWHO or fax of 1-866-WHOSWHO) and leaving a reply email address. Where no corroborating data can be located through online search, nor any mention in the daily⁄online media or professional journals, an enhanced level of enquiry may be indicated. Such circumstances, as well as a seemingly unqualified Whoʹs Who credential, will result in the enquiry rising to the third, and perhaps fourth, tier of enquiry for authentication purposes.

While the registry is committed to making commercially reasonable efforts at authentication, it does not have have access to every Who’s Who edition published around the world during the past half-century. Virtually all of them, however, are accessible to those with Internet across the globe and, guided by the additional data fields provided in response to WHOIS queries, the potential for “group sourced” verification becomes real. The fact that the .whoswho Registration Agreement specifies that the Registrant’s identity must correlate with that of the Who’s Who publication data cited in the registration, together with anticipation of an increased level of scrutiny from the public should together dampen an inclination toward puffery.


29.3 Resourcing Plans

The rights protection mechanisms described in the response above involve a wide range of tasks, procedures, and systems. The responsibility for each mechanism varies based on the specific requirements. In general the development of applications such as sunrise and IP claims is the responsibility of the Engineering team, with guidance from the Product Management team. Customer Support and Legal play a critical role in enforcing certain policies such as the rapid suspension process. These teams have years of experience implementing these or similar processes.

The necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in the response to Question 31.
The following resources are available from those teams:

Development⁄Engineering – 19 employees
Product Management- 4 employees
Customer Support – 12 employees

The resources are more than adequate to support the rights protection mechanisms of the .whoswho’s registry.