[gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Apr 12 16:29:36 UTC 2016


First, while domain names are almost certainly "intangible property," I
don't see them considered as intellectual property, except to the extent
they are an expression of a trademark or trade name, one letter from 1999
notwithstanding.  But that's neither here nor there, and beyond the scope
of the conversation.  After all, trademark owners are also domain name
owners (and, after domain investors, probably the most prolific domain name

Second, I don't think anything I've said has marginalized or delegitimized
anyone, and I've gone to pains to say otherwise, if you look at my emails.


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:00 PM, George Kirikos via gnso-rpm-wg <
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 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.
> https://web.archive.org/web/19991009052951/http://www.alston.com/docs/Articles/199709/umbrodns.htm
> "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
> owners.
> 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.
> Sincerely,
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160412/1bcc80b6/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list