Hi Georges N. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
You need to read my emails more carefully, as you misstate what I have said in the past. Look I get it that you want to get rid of sunrise and claims. Your justifications, however, do not hold up. Cybersquatting is a problem and it costs brand owners, law enforcement, consumers etc. a bunch of money every year. This is not about being alarmist, but stating a fact that there are real costs involved. I know you want to pretend they do not exist. That's your choice, but I do not agree. When you have folks that basically want to sweep that reality under the rug, you have to point out those costs and the ultimate benefits of having sunrise and claims RPMs.
1. Actually, I did read your emails carefully, perhaps more carefully than you wrote them. See the point made in my prior email: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002225.html re: the distinction between "evidence" and "proof". 2. It's difficult to suggest that I've pretended real costs do not exist, when in my email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html (which I had linked to when replying to your analysis) I assigned an even *higher* cost to the UDRP ($5,000) than you did in your own analysis: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002218.html which instead used a figure of $4,000. I don't deny the costs and benefits -- I've instead been carefully trying to weigh them to get to the best policy choices, instead of using wild assumptions like a 50% cybersquatting rate to "put a finger on the scale" to change the balance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/