[gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team
icann at leap.com
Tue Apr 12 16:00:18 UTC 2016
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg <
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> On an informal or "de facto" level, J Scott tends to represent (or at
> least stand for) the interests of businesses for whom IP is a significant
> asset, while Phil represents (and actually does represent) the interests of
> domain investors (a very specific sector of the business community for whom
> IP is, at best, not a significant asset). As such, Phil's perspectives are
> far more aligned with those represented by Kathy, and that is the imbalance
> to which I refer.
Domain names have been recognized, in law, as a new form of intellectual
property since the 1990's, e.g. see:
Umbro International, Inc., Judgment Creditor v. 3263851 Canada, Inc
Judgment Debtor, and Network Solutions, Inc, Garnishee, At Law No. 174388.
"Until Umbro's effort, domain names apparently have not been subjected to
garnishment, but that is no reason to conclude that this ****new form of
intellectual property**** is therefore immune." (emphasis added)
I think instead of "IP" you meant "trademarks", a different form of
intellectual property (which sometimes might overlap with, interact with,
and/or conflict with domain names).
Certainly for my own company's domain names, and for many other owners of
domain names, it would not be correct to say that these are "not a
significant asset." Many domain names are worth thousands, hundreds of
thousands, or even millions of dollars, and are significant assets to their
I think participants in the working group should be more cautious before
trying to marginalize or delegitimize others who are volunteering their
valuable time and expertise to improve ICANN policymaking.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg