Whats our standing position with Clearinghouse for that matter? While I find it "harmless", I do not as a matter of principle, support the IP Clearinghouse as I see trademark owners overarching beyond what their rights. Trademarks are classified by per country, per classification for a reason. So I hesitate to even give an answer to the questions, that (weakly) imply that I support IP Clearinghouse, looking for ways to make it work, and I am not interested to make it "work". I do support URS on a very restrict case, e.g. obvious criminal activities such as phishing. I am not so sure about the broader definition of "malicious activities", if it includes free/protected speech. If someone wants to make an ICANNsux.com website to make a critical remarks of ICANN activities, they might be malicious but I do not think we should allow URS to apply to it. I support URS as a best practice but not mandatory. I also think that the takedown should only happen *after* the notice is legally served, and the one requesting suspension should bear the burden to serve the notice in writing to the owner. (Exception, whois record is not accurate or incomplete). The burden should not be on the registrars or the registries or ICANN. Once proof that the notice is properly served to the owner of the domain name, I think the suspension can kick in 7 days or 14 days as IRT recommended (or immediately, which is also fine with me). The subsequent process can then follow on as per norm. -James Seng On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Folks:
apologies for cross-posting, but I don't know if enough people are subscribed to the other list, so I'l like to obtain as much feedback as possible. Over on the names-issues At Large list, we are having a consultation re: the Trademark Clearinghouse and the "Uniform Rapid Suspension System" (URS).
Yesterday, the GNSO formally created a GNSO Review Team to draft a reply to the Board's letter enquiring about solutions/suggestions for the "Trademark Clearinghouse" and "URS" parts of the IRT recommendations regarding Trademark rights for new gTLDs.The deadline for At Large filing a draft reply is 4 November 2009. That gives us about 5 days to respond. With many people currently travelling, this is a very short deadline, but it is required for GNSO procedural matters to reply to the Board's letter in time. A copy of the brainstorming sheet drafted during the meeting yesterday is downloadable from the Web page of our working group:
https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_naming_issues_taskfor...
and has a link to the brainstorming sheet in question named: STI Brainstorming Notes.doc
Please be so kind to download it and email replies to me, or to the name-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org list (registration might be required)
Kind regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org