Whats our standing position with Clearinghouse for that matter?
We should oppose it from beginning to end. ICANN is supposed to operate for the benefit of the public, not for the narrow interest of large corporations who can afford trademark lawyers. Trademark owners already have far too much influence on ICANN's operations.
I do support URS on a very restrict case, e.g. obvious criminal activities such as phishing.
A takedown process for clear criminal use would be a fine idea, and has nothing to do with trademarks. I agree that it is a problem that in some places it is a crime to insult the government, but given ICANN's long history of fugding, we should be able to craft criteria like forbidding activity that is generally considered to be a crime in most countries. R's, John