As to the force of the conclusions or policies of NSI, IFWP, ICANN, etc., etc., it may be interesting to note that in Cardservice International Inc. v . McGee, in Virginia, the court said with reference to the NSI first-come-first-served policy: "Such a policy cannot trump federal law." The issue with respect to the NSI 30-day letter policy is of course a different issue, but the same conclusion would apply. That policy, in my opinion -- and of course speaking academically here, is in violation of federal law because as a practical matter it places the burden of going forward with evidence upon the holder of the domain name -- file suit or lose your domain name -- rather than upon the owner of a registered trademark. That trademark owner continues to have the burden of proof on any infringement issue once it gets to court, in spite of the NSI policy, but procedurally the party having the burden of proof will also have the burden of going forward with the evidence, with some exceptions not relevant here. Point is, of course, that this august group might well take better account of what the law actually provides, and where there is the authority to change any of that law, e.g., in the U. S. Congress as to U. S. law, and similarly elsewhere. ICANN, WIPO, and other alphabet soups have no such authority that I've been able to discern, which means that nothing said here or there will in fact resolve any TM-DN conflict issues. There is a lot of puffin' smoke goin' on around here! Bill Lovell
