Bruce, Thanks for forwarding. I think there are some points in here that need to be discussed at the community level and some flaws (in my view) in the logic of the assumptions behind the decision. I would like to propose adding this as a topic for the next council meeting and inviting one or more members of the BGC to our call. I will provide more of a background on my concerns with the decision in a subsequent e-mail, but I would like to get this on the agenda and get the invites out there to the BGC. I would also request that the ICANN Board to NOT adopt this recommendation until a full discussion can take place. PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT PERSONALLY CONCERNED WITH THE RULE ALLOWING 50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS. AS A REGISTRY, WE ARE BUILDING IN THE CAPABILITY AND WILL LEAVE THAT DEBATE TO OTHERS. BUT I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE WORDING OF THIS DECISION AND THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ALONG WITH THE IMPACT ON THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MODEL ESPECIALLY IF THIS DECISION IS EVER USED TO SET PRECEDENT IN FUTURE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS. This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably from outside legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. If ICANN wanted to justify their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations, they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not only demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if we do not step in. Jonathan - can we add this to the agenda and invite the BGC members to the next Council meeting? Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:32 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse Hello All, For information, I have attached details on reconsideration request 13.3 from the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG). These have been published at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration The Board's Governance Committee considered the request at its meeting in Amsterdam on 16 May 2013, and its recommendation is now posted. Regards, Bruce Tonkin