[GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12

[Jonathan Frost]

Would it materially impact the proposal if we replaced the word
"intellectual" with "intangible"?

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:03 AM <gmlevine at researchtheworld.com> wrote:

> Domain names, valuable or not, are not intellectual property. The
> referenced Virtual Dates (Forum 2005) decision did not rest on a finding
> that the new owner was a successor in interest.  GmLevine
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of George
> Kirikos
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:36 AM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>; Ariel Liang <
> ariel.liang at icann.org>
> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12
>
> [re-sending from my correct email address]
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Attached is the revised version of URS Proposal #12, after discussions
> with Rebecca on how to handle the unintended consequences she identified in
> the original proposal. Many thanks to Rebecca for identifying the issue and
> the solution.
>
> 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/20181016/af3a1f57/attachment.html>