Thank you Steve and others who worked on this draft. I have a couple of comments and questions: What logic did staff (or those that pushed back on this) provide for termination of TM claims notices? [TM claims notices should not be arbitrarily terminated after 90 days] It is difficult to understand the logic, i.e. 'yes' we need to provide TM claims notices, but only for an arbitrary period! Your argument is quite clear: There is nothing equitable about a registrant applying for a name in the first 90 days getting a notice, while another registrant applying on the 91st or 210th day after launch doesn't get one.... Just doesn't make sense. We need to make the demand to leave the notice period in place until independent review stronger, in my view. Regarding the arbitrary limit of 50 related names for each Clearinghouse record I fully agree that the Strawman Solution may need to allow sufficient related domains to cover all actual instances of past abuse. Arbitrary determinations by ICANN serve no one. Can you provide the logic that was used to choose 50? Like the termination after 90-days issue, this just doesn't make any sense either. Why not all actual instances of abuse? Who is the loser with that policy (there must be one otherwise I cannot understand why)? I fully support the way forward on LPR. A PDP could create the semblance of a balanced approach for businesses through a lower cost bulk purchase program. Defensive registrations cannot be the driver for new gTLDs. That is not why this program was instituted to begin with. Thanks again for the work on this. And for providing the answers to the questions posed herein. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:47 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT for review: BC comment on Strawman Solution BC members: In Toronto , the BC/IPC/ISPC requested improved Rights Protection Measures (RPMs). That prompted ICANN executive management to host follow-up meetings with multiple stakeholders. As a result, ICANN posted a "strawman solution" for public comment (link <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solutio n-03dec12-en.pdf> ). Public comments are due by 16-Jan-2013. Attached is a draft BC comment on the Strawman solution, based on prior BC positions and discussions, email exchanges with BC members, and initial review by the ex comm. Per the BC charter, this draft is posted for 14 days of review and comment. As soon as possible, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits to these comments. If any BC member objects to the BC filing the attached draft comment , please REPLY ALL and indicate your objection and reason. We plan to finalize and submit these comments on 16-Jan-2013. -- Steve DelBianco BC vice chair for policy coordination