Hi,

One other thing we discussed, though I do not know if there was  
consensus on it was that, none of these mechanisms could be mandatory.

i.e.
- If a registry wants to use a Clearinghouse ok, but it can't be  
required.
- Likewise if a Registry want to allow for URS, it may, but it should  
not be required.

a.

On 4 Nov 2009, at 23:02, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> So we (NCUC/NCSG) responded. During our all-day meeting on Tuesday,  
> we spent a good amount of time on these new gTLD issues. We reviewed  
> the Trademark Clearinghouse Staff Report and, after discussion,  
> decided on some key principles:
> ==> While we believe that the best place for trademark clearing is  
> outside of ICANN altogether, if we must have a TM Clearinghouse,  
> then the rules must be explicit as to the limits and protections for  
> Domain Name Registrants, including:
> - The Clearinghouse must not expand trademark law beyond national law;
> - Registrants must not be dissuaded from registering domain names to  
> which they have a right or would otherwise be entitled;
> - The Clearinghouse should minimize Chilling Effects; and
> - A clearer IP claims process and sunrise period is required.
> We also reviewed the URS Staff Report and expressed our deep concern  
> about this Rapid Takedown System for Domain Names. We are deeply  
> concerned about its creation, and wonder at its rationale, but  
> should it go forward, we noted that it must embrace fundamental  
> principles:
> - Due Process;
> - An Assumption of Innocence and Good Faith of the Registrant;
> - A Fair Right of Response;
> - Have a Clear definition of egregious conduct;
> - Require a High burden of proof,
> - Properly protect Registrant rights, and also
> - Provide a process inexpensive enough for small noncommercial  
> trademark owners to pursue.
>