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@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:42 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg