Hello, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Apologies if I incorrectly in your view added the word percent after the raw numbers.
In any event, I stand by what I said, and prefer not to engage in further discussion.
So, if it's the WIPO position, that you "stand by", that 6% constitutes "very few", what does that imply about 1200 UDRPs for new gTLDs (or say 3000, to estimate the total including other providers, out of 25 million new gTLDs)? By my math, 3000 out of 25,000,000 or so new gTLD domains is 0.012 percent (i.e. 0.00012 x 100). It seems by your analysis, there's no real problem of cybersquatting. That would seem to argue for the elimination of the UDRP/URS and TMCH, given there are "very few" cases. Indeed, since 0.012 percent is 1/500th of 6%, it might be called "very, very, very few". Divide it by 4, even, given those cases are spread over approximately 4 years. Why are we investing such substantial time and effort, for a so-called "problem" which affects "very, very, very few" domain names??!!?? Those "very, very, very few" domain names would not cause any significant burden on the judicial system, spread over 100+ countries, given there are "very, very, very few" of them to begin with. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/