I'll stick to the factual errors.
One, that you correctly predict all creative constructions of domain
names that may conflict with your mark.
The IP Claim service we deployed is for exact match, strcmp() returning 0.
Your items two and three are speculative, and anyone can speculate, which
may be the root problem.
Your conclusion (based upon one factual error and two speculative claims)
is contradicted by the experience with the URDP, and as the study was done
by academics (and fairly interesting, covering the major modes of DRP and
the outcome distributions) you may want to fix their methodology, data and
So, if you want my proposal ...
Only 2 boundary conditions removed: existance of ICANN, existance of marks.
Neat. I'd have gone for gravity myself, it is such a bother.
I hope that was interesting enough.
Fairly lame actually, on par with Jim Fleming's v8 cure for what ails the net
as a reality-based proposal, and dull-as-ditchwater/common-as-crud as netzine
Do your "business associates and perhaps [your] customers" give a fig about
your irrepressible vision and truth of DNS reform? Why? Are they bored?
Feel free to have the last word, its your scam. Follow-ups to the NANFG list.
 Preliminary Report from Max Planck Institute on UDRP study, ICANN
DNSO Intellectual Property Constituency Meeting, Stockholm, 1 June