I am well aware that the BC favored expansion of the TMC database to allow rights holders to add up to 50 domain name variations that had been recovered via UDRP or court proceedings. While not wishing to be the skunk at the garden party, I continue to believe that the manner in which ICANN made this determination raises serious procedural issues (especially coming right after being advised by the GNSO that a majority believed it was a policy matter requiring further discussion) - and raises additional implementation questions that have yet to be addressed. Tom Barrett of Encirca and TM.biz has a guest post at http://www.thedomains.com/2013/03/23/guest-post-tom-barrett-icann-expands-tr... that addresses the subject in what I believe is a balanced manner. I have posted my own article on this at http://internetcommerce.org/ICANN_Amnesia . The point for business users is to be cautious in validating questionable procedures to reach decisions you favor, because the same procedures can later be used to ram through decisions you strongly disfavor. For my own part I think the TMC decision may sometimes be useful as an educational measure for registrants who may have no intention to infringe, but in many other instances will generate false positives that deter registrations that would not constitute bad faith registration and use. Regardless, now that ICANN has made the decision some additional questions arise that have not been clarified: * What if any documentation will rights holders have to submit to the TMC when they seek to list TM variants claimed to have been recovered in prior proceedings? * When a registrant receives a TMC warning will he/she be advised whether the domain being sought is an exact TM match or a variation that was lost in a UDRP or litigation? * When the domain was lost in a UDRP, will there be further information as to whether the filing was responded to or was a default judgment - and whether there was an appeal by registrant and, if so, its result? * If a registrant proceeds with a domain registration of a TM variation despite receiving the TMC warning will that subsequently be viewed (at least presumptively) as prima facie evidence of bad faith registration in a subsequent UDRP or URS, or will that critical factor remain an open question for panel determination? All of these are relevant questions that are not addressed in ICANN's announcement of last week. The answers are important for all prospective registrants in new gTLDs. Thanks for considering my viewpoint, and best regards. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey