[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

[Michael Graham (ELCA)]

No, I think the reference is correct in this context.  Domain name speculators/investors and even Cybersquatters can also be trademark owners.  However, the reference is accurate in reflecting their principal reason for participating in the domain name ecology.

Michael R.

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:42 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

Georges:

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
> So apparently you have an alleged anecdotal example of gaming the 
> system by a speculator/domainer (your earlier evidence on .casino was 
> incorrect as I noted in a prior email to you).  I note that the 
> examples do not show a widespread practice of abuse by brand owners.

You keep calling them "speculator/domainers", to try to distance them from what they are, namely *trademark owners*. That's the camp where the problem comes from, not from "domainers/speculators".

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