<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black"></span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#002e62"></span></b><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div class="m_-7227208324892647022WordSection1"><div><div class="h5"><div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>While we're horse trading, let me bring up an additional thought. Someone else had brought up the (old) topic of a globally protected marks list. While that's been controversial, I think what could be done, if it's in conjunction with the changes I've suggested, is the development of a "globally abused" marks list, with an algorithm for pattern matching.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">This would be for the smallest number of truly abused terms (e.g. "paypal", and other financial institutions), with evidence of past fraud, large history of numerous UDRP/URS cases, etc.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">For those terms (say 100 or another 'small' number we can form a consensus around), registrations would not be blocked. Instead, domains that are triggered by the algorithm would not resolve for a certain period after registration (say 2 weeks). This allows for investigation by the various companies of new registrations, to take action before the domains resolve. It would also act as a deterrent, by reducing the benefits of registering them in the first place (i.e. register throwaway domain, abuse it immediately, then throw it away after being confronted). Those domains could get registration of 1 year + 2 weeks or (slightly longer), by the way, to ensure the inconvenienced registrant is made "whole".<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">There'd need to be a 'balancing" to prevent overreaching of which marks make the list (perhaps with human oversight, with balanced representation of stakeholders), and creation of false positives, but this would be another way to change the economics of cybersquatting and enforcement. Perhaps higher registrant validation (more than just testing that their email works) for those who can't wait 2 weeks.<br></div><br></div>Thoughts? <br></div><div><br></div>George Kirikos<br>416-588-0269<br></div><a href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a><br></div>