Page History

...

12) We think we support the Board, and we do so in so far as the Board is supporting the REC6 recommendations on sensitive strings.

...

Disagree with Board response

4.2) Strong support in the NCSG for marking this as a 2 as it goes beyond the role of ICANN to seek data on the application process itself.

6.1.1) The NCSG points out that this goes back to scope defined in the IRT, which was rejected by the STI.  To go beyond the scope and rationale of Trademarks to other types of IP like patents, copyrights or trade secrets excedes ICANN's scope The GAC request as well as the Board response are unclear as to the scope of Intellectual Property and taken literally this would too broad.

6.2.3) The NCSG supports the recommendation made in the STI process: the respondent should be given the right to participate in selecting a panel.

6.2.5) Strong support in the NCSG for marking this as a 2, as the default should not be this equate default with a presumption of guilt.

6.2.10.3) Strong support in the NCSG for marking this as a 2, as the default should not be this equate default with a presumption of guilt.

6.2.12) There was a specific agreement in the STI that the URS would be limited to locking.  This difference  This critical difference from the UDRP was how the URS was sold to the communityoriginally framed.

11.2.1) Strong Support in the NCSG for marking this as a 2 because of the difficulty in categorizing strings.

...