NCSG's strawman response:

"In regard to expanding the TMCH database to incude up to 50 previously abused variations, Fade informed members of the US Congress on September 19, 2012:

“It is important to note that the Trademark Clearinghouse is intended to be a repository for existing legal rights, and not an adjudicator of such rights or creator of new rights. Extending the protections offered through the Trademark Clearinghouse to any form of name would potentially expand rights beyond those granted under trademark law and put the Clearinghouse in the role of making determination as to the scope of particular rights. The principle that rights protections ‘should protect the existing rights of trademark owners, but neither expand those rights nor create additional rights by trademark law’ was key to work of the Implementation Recommendation Team…”

And ICANN’s own summary of the Strawman Model clearly states that this proposed expansion of the scope of trademark claims involves policy and not mere implementation:

“The inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy matter. This proposal provides a path for associating a limited number of additional domain names with a trademark record, on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding. Given the previous intensive discussions on the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO Council.”

So why does ICANN now believe that this expansion is within its powers, and that GNSO Council guidance is not required? The written memo they just issued does not provde a satisfctory explanation."