Greetings from Las Vegas, my first non-conference, non-family travel in years (current gambling tally: -$91 after two days) Alan and Olivier have done a fantastic job in assembling together a compendium of diverse views while still tracking the work being done on this issue within the NCUC and GNSO's STI working group. The only deficiency I see is beyond the bounds of the specific issues raised by the Board, because (IMO) the Board has been listening to the IPC and US government and is seeing the issues within those groups' frames of reference. What I mean to say is... there seems to be an asssumption that all the brand owners are working in good faith and (at least most of) the targets of their UDRP/URS actions are working in bad faith. But what protections exist to prevent abuse? How do we protect legitimate brand protection interests while protecting harrassment good-faith use that brand owners don't want? (ie, "this-brand-sucks.tld") Such good-faith registrants are usually low in the resources needed, and brand owners can use the processes to hound them into submission. This is of significant concern to me as we move to opening up new TLDs. The NCUC has been addressing this internally, but such issues have not appeared to make their way into the thought process of the Board (or the STI) in dealing with this issue. Is this considered a significant issue within At-Large? How do we best (re-)introduce this issue, which goes beyond the Board's charge to GNSO? - Evan