Hi folks, On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course, if we find that these were registered during Sunrise in any percentage (high or low) that is absolutely NOT evidence of a problem. Rather it's evidence that the Sunrise is working as intended, which is one of the key questions this WG has to answer. So that fact would be good to know.
First, we started with the example of "THE", from the EFF letter (which originated from a blog post on the Mike Berkens blog at TheDomains.com. Secondly, we saw the top 10 strings from the report by the Analysis Group that demonstrated that they were all common dictionary terms that should be available to anyone to register (without any priority in sunrise). Thirdly, I dived deeply into one of those 10 strings, HOTEL, and demonstrated in detail how it was gamed. See point #6 in my March 12 email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-March/001119.html which showed the linkages, and even provided screenshots of the domain names being listed for sale after being harvested during the Sunrise periods. And, there was a "bonus" --- it demonstrated that the plural HOTELS was also gamed. Then, some IPC members took this clear evidence of gaming and suggested that it was "domain speculators", trying to shift the blame away from the trademark holders. When domain names are misused, it's sometimes called cybersquatting and the "domain camp" is held responsible. In this case, it's *trademarks* that are being misused, in order to game the domain name process established for new gTLDs. It's the "trademarks camp" that is responsible, not domain name registrants (who had little say in designing the system that the trademark camp used to their advantage in an unbalanced manner). While Greg and his camp might suggest that this is evidence that the TMCH is "working as intended", that's obviously not a credible argument. I will now provide a fourth example, one that should raise some eyebrows amongst those who are neutral and are here to improve the system for everyone. Remember, when we joined this PDP, we were asked to set aside our personal interests and work to improve the system for the benefit of all, and not just be obstructionists preserving the status quo or advocates for a particular position regardless of the evidence. Here it is: RICH! Yes, RICH. Was the TMCH designed to "protect" that string from abuse by the public, and give "priority" sunrise rights to its "TM owner"? According to: https://ie.godaddy.com/help/about-casino-domain-names-16213 the sunrise period for the .CASINO TLD opened on 3/24/15 at 16:00 UTC and closed on 5/23/15 at 16:00 UTC. Landrush didn't begin until May 27, 2015 at 16:00 UTC. However, the WHOIS for Rich.casino shows it was created 2015-05-26T17:53:28Z (i.e. before the landrush started, and thus presumably in the sunrise period). https://whois.domaintools.com/rich.casino And as a bonus, I'll provide as fifth example, another one that should boggle the mind --- CREDIT! Take a look at the WHOIS for credit.casino: https://whois.domaintools.com/credit.casino Creation Date: 2015-05-26T17:53:31Z indicating again that this was a sunrise registration, since it predated the landrush. Mike Berkens had even more potential examples of gaming of commonly used dictionary terms on his blog at: https://www.thedomains.com/2015/05/28/trademark-game-playing-results-in-grea... Since some in this working group suggest that we need to gather more evidence, I propose that we open up a public comments period *NOW*, while our work is ongoing, to solicit examples of TMCH gaming behaviour from the public, and also to ask them directly whether the TM claims notices had a chilling effect. Since it is the pool of domain name registrants who were denied the ability to register these strings because they were already taken during the sunrise periods, they are in the best position to know exactly which questionable strings entered into the TMCH database with sunrise privileges. So, let's do it --- let's get the *public* to CROWDSOURCE the data that some folks are demanding (but are insisting the TMCH database be kept secret, thus denying us the very data needed to uncover gaming). I am sure the public has a lot to say about this important issue, and it behooves us to gather that data now, and not pretend we can do an adequate review without that data and input. Crowdsourcing the data also shifts some of the "work" to the public, and reduces the burden on PDP working group members. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/