Following on Claudio and Cyntia's emails, it's very significant that the New gTLDs are the first attempt at "narrowcasting" on a significant scale. That, in a sense, is one of the innovations (or at least, mutations) of the New gTLD Program. The first gTLDs were largely unconstrained or very broad in their appeal, or became almost unconstrained. Later attempts at "narrowcasting" on a small scale (.travel, .museum, .coop) were not particularly successful if you look at sheer numbers (and may not have been successful even within their niches, but that's another story). Given the different models, it's would be completely illogical to think that most New gTLDs would have anywhere near 15,000 sunrise registrations as .mobi did -- even before taking into account the maturation of approaches by brandowners and attorneys, and the folly of registering everything everywhere, when everywhere is hundreds of times larger than before. And even before taking into account that a new gTLD with 15000 registrations of any sort would be in the top 15% or so of all new gTLDs. I think this also points out the claim that there was a "99%+ reduction in Sunrise" is junk math and sophistry at best. A comparison between the average number of sunrise applications in the current environment and the total number of sunrises in a single TLD rollout 10+ years ago says a lot about the changing times, but doesn't even measure a "reduction" in anything. Speaking of changing times, once upon a time jazz was the most popular music in the US, filling the charts and selling out the biggest halls around. Now jazz is a niche art form and relatively speaking has a tiny overall share of the music scene. Following the original logic that started this whole discussion, and paraphrasing Shakespeare, I guess "The first thing we do, let's kill all the jazz musicians." Then we can toss their bodies next to all the books that were thrown out because libraries aren't "popular" enough for some people and they were all closed. Greg On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 3:32 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Building on Georges and Cynthia's very insightful analysis, please see this staff report on RPMs and the utilization of Sunrise in new gTLDs at:
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm/draft-rpm-review-02feb15-en.pdf
Some key take-aways of interest:
Between Dec 13 to Dec 2014, there were 33,008 Sunrise transactions.
From my perspective, the fact these Sunrise registrations are spread over hundreds of gTLDs, may reflect less profit per registry, but does not change the net costs associated with the utilization of this RPM. In fact, since we do not know the price per Sunrise registration, the total costs are unknown (although can be estimated to some extent).
Note: this figure does not incorporate the costs associated with the voluntary blocking services purchased during this same 12 month period.
As far as I am aware, this figure of over 30,000 domains represents one of the largest number of Sunrise registrations in gTLDs over a 12 month period, going back to 2001 (.info - 52,000).
For context, in 2006, .mobi had around 15,000 (50% less than the 2014 totals). In 2008, .asia processed somewhere between 27,000-31,000 domains (their website references Sunrise 'applications' not registrations). In 2011, .XXX collected an estimated $13M for 80,000 blocks, but these are more akin to the DPML or the related blocking services.
As an aside, from other sources (not the staff report), .porn and .adult totaled around 8,000 Sunrise registrations (in 2015), along with .sucks getting over 3,000 - making 2015 a banner year for Sunrise fees.
The staff report also highlights various challenges faced by TM owners during Sunrise, including some that hinder the utilization rate, including:
1. The difficulty associated with identifying an eligible registrar for a particular TLD, suggesting that registries provide a list of accredited registrars on their websites.
2. Pricing being too expensive, including Premium Names. Suggestion for registries to publish list of premium names on its website.
3. SLD Block lists (associated with the name collision issue). One registrar informed the TM owner that 35 names were unavailable for registration.
I hope you find this information helpful, and please let me know of any questions/comments.
Have a nice weekend.
Best, Claudio
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:47 PM Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com> wrote:
Hi George,
Thoughts:
- It makes sense the vast majority of nTLDs have low/no sunrise registrations as they’re uptake has been low. - 64% of nTLDs have less than 1,000 registered domains - 85% have fewer than 10K registrations - All nTLDs are not created equal. It’s no surprise nTLDs that are expensive, have limited applicability, and/or are similar to other extensions see fewer Sunrise registrations. - Sunrise registrations are affected by many factors in consideration by registrants at any given moment (the economy, cash-on-hand, marketing plans, life of the brand, etc.).
In other words, just because we don’t see Sunrise registrations booming across all nTLDs doesn’t mean it isn’t a valuable tool where it is applicable. It’s rather like a product warranty: you may decide to cover everything, only what you can easily afford, or to skip it altogether. The fact that many people opt out of the warranty doesn’t invalidate the concept.
Sunrise is relatively simple and provides a reasonably effective initial bar to bad behavior.
Rather than eliminating a feature that is often useful as a first measure of protection & not overly-burdensome, we should tweak Sunrise & move on.
O: +1 81-ModernIP
C: +1 818.209.6088 <(818)%20209-6088>
[image: MIP Composite (Email)]
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 12:44 PM To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Claudio:
Costs of a sunrise also scale as you increase the number of gTLDs. Are new gTLD registries paying on a per domain name (variable cost per domain name) only? Or are there fixed costs too? Are sunrise periods (which delay launch of GA) shorter, if there are more TLDs? Or are they fixed in length? Are there equal amounts of "good" domain names in those new gTLDs, or are the gamed sunrise domains representing a higher proportion of the "good" ones, as one scales?
If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched, clearly any sunrise period is *pointless*, as TM holders are going to focus nearly entirely on *curative rights.* That was my point --- they're *already* doing that, shifting to curative rights, by decreasing their usage of sunrise periods. Thus, the costs of eliminating sunrise period are lower, because of that reduced usage (or, in other words, the benefits of retaining that sunrise period are low).
That's why it's time to sunset/eliminate the sunrise period mandate -- it outlived its usefulness as a tool, as the numbers show. It's only there to "shear the sheep", so to speak (i.e. soak TM holders who are highly risk averse, and don't know any better; i.e. bad insurance, like the folks who buy those electronics "Extended Warranties").
As for those 1,000,000 new gTLDs, realize that if sunrise was eliminated, there'd also be 1,000,000 landrushes --- any brandholder that had coveted a name could still get it, on an equal playing field with everyone else, instead of jumping ahead of the line.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:24 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
I'm going to use an extreme example to illustrate my point.
If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched in the next round, how many
Sunrise registrations do think there should be order to reach the "success"
threshold?
Best,
Claudio
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:50 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi again,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
with stats propped up with high counts of sub-$1 registrations, or
even domains that are stuffed into the accounts of registrants of
other TLDs (e.g. .xxx with NSI, or .kiwi).
Sorry, that was a typo. It should have been .XYZ with NSI, of course,
not .XXX, e.g.
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg