Hello,

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@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/