[gnso-rpm-wg] Fwd: Suggestion for Leadership Team

Tue Apr 12 18:31:30 UTC 2016

+1 to Reg

From:  <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan via
gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Reply-To:  Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Date:  Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 2:27 PM
To:  <Gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  [gnso-rpm-wg] Fwd:  Suggestion for Leadership Team

Forwarding the email below to the list as requested. (No endorsement
implied.)

Greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Reg Levy <reg at mindsandmachines.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

Greg‹I can't reply to the group from my phone, can you please forward this?

All‹

I'd like to underscore the fact that Kathy represents users. Volker's
suggestion of three co-chairs‹representing IP rights holders, domain name
rights holders, and end-users rights‹strikes what I see as an appropriate
balance. I'm often concerned that the only "rights" discussed when
discussing "rights protection mechanisms" are IP rights (this is a registry
perspective based on TMCH, Sunrise, URS, &., and I joined this group in the
hopes of being convinced that this is not the state of affairs). Kathy's
presence as a co-chair‹even one of three‹helps give me confidence that end
users will have a voice in this conversation.

P.S. I'd also like to third Kathy's nomination.

Reg Levy 
(310) 963-7135

Sent from my iPhone.

On Apr 12, 2016, at 09:30, Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org');> > wrote:

> George,
> 
> 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 owners).
> 
> 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.
> 
> Greg
> 
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:00 PM, George Kirikos via gnso-rpm-wg
> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/Article
>> s/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 <tel:416-588-0269>
>> http://www.leap.com/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org');>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org');>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ 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/20160412/95cb718d/attachment-0001.html>