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. >