Hi folks, On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course, that was an average of 130 sunrise registration per new gTLD, not 130 overall. I think all of the numbers relating the new gTLD program have been quite a bit lower than expected, so sunrise registrations is just part of the larger trend. Maybe the only number that has bucked that trend is percentage of cybersquatting and other forms of abuse in at least some of the new gTLDs.
No one claimed there were 130 overall. I implicitly multiplied by 1000 TLDs, when coming up with the numbers. Although, I did make a rounding error. i.e. 65 x 0.02 = 1.3 [had mistakenly rounded that to "1"]; multiplying by 1000 and dividing by 4 = 325 extra UDRPs per year, rather than 250. And that's $1.625 million/yr, rather than $1.250 million/yr. Still, it's much less than what's being spent on TMCH-related costs, especially when considering costs borne by registry operators, registrars, and registrants.
I also have to say that this statement is both false and insulting:
I think many people are overly protective of the TMCH & sunrise period not because it's "working", but because it's an opportunity for extra consulting, revenue streams, etc. e.g. lawyers can tell their clients "get registered", and they can make money from the filing fees, etc. There's a huge amount of money being wasted, in my voice, that can be redirected to other things (like curative rights, better education, etc.).
The stereotype of the greedy, money-grubbing lawyer who wants to suck up all their client's money rather than represent their client's best interests is as old as it is untrue (acknowledging that all profession/businesses have their bad actors, whether it's lawyers or domain investors). Further, for anyone who has been following the discussion, it would be easy to notice that (a) a lot of this work is handled "in-house" so greed is even more ridiculous as a motivation and (b) most if not all of us are very concerned with being cost-effective and prudent (or else there would be many more TMCH registrations and less concerns about the strategic decisions around what to put in the TMCH).
Disagree, there's a lot of "scare mongering" to convince people to buy things they ultimately don't need or benefit from. It's being sold as a form of overpriced and ineffective insurance. Consider how many people were convinced to register .XXX domain names, needlessly. It wasn't just registries/registrars doing the scare mongering. The amounts wasted on defensive registrations, and TMCH (sold as an alternative to defensive registrations) could better be directed elsewhere. Consider how Verizon sued iREIT, with excellent outcomes for them. Much better result, and much greater deterrent effect than filing a UDRP or giving a "TMCH claims notice". There's a scene in the 1989 Batman: [Batman dangles a mugger over the side of a building] Nic: Don't kill me! Don't kill me, man! Don't kill me! Don't kill me, man! Batman: I'm not going to kill you. I want you to do me a favor. I want you to tell all your friends about me. Nic: What are you? Batman: I'm Batman. That's what Verizon did when they sued. I'm sure the "organized industrial cybersquatters" heard that message loud and clear, and cleaned their portfolios. Microsoft has done the same.
Finally, the statement about "some who feel, wrongly, that they have exclusive rights to common dictionary terms, etc., which is not something the law supports," is just incorrect as a statement about the law, no matter how many times it is said. Trademark law does not distinguish between whether a mark is an invented (a/k/a "fanciful" or "coined") term or a so-called "dictionary term" -- both can be equally valid and equally strong as a trademark. (I won't rehash the discussion of "apple for apples" is generic and not protectable, but "apple for computers" is arbitrary and protectable, and that in between there are descriptive uses (which can be protectable) and suggestive uses (which are protectable), etc.)
You obviously misread what I wrote --- note the word "exclusive" before "rights". Apple (of iPhone fame) has the most famous trademark in the world, arguably, but even they don't have exclusivity over the word 'apple' (NB: I'm a small shareholder in Apple, for disclosure). It's a valid trademark, but others can certainly use it without violating Apple's rights. Never claimed it was not protectable. I think if one crunches the numbers, elimination of the TMCH and sunrise would make obvious sense for registrars, registries, and registrants. For most TM holders, it would make sense, given I've shown how post-registration curative rights would be made better for them for any domains registered in landrush (higher standard to register, with financial penalties). [i.e. the horse trading Phil suggested] The math would probably work even without the horse trading. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/