Hi folks, On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
I would like to recall some points made in an email I sent to the list on 13-April: the number of sunrise registrations per new gTLD launch was an average of 130 (I believe the high-water-mark was 950). This alone seems to mitigate against further investigation for evidence of abusive use of Sunrises.
Let's see: when talking about "abuse" of the sunrise, the "low" number of registrations is cited as a reason not to investigate further. However, when talking about whether or not the sunrise period should be entirely eliminated, because the benefits are small, how is it that these "low" number of registrations are not cited (by these same people) as a reason to abandon the sunrise, for lack of benefits?
Also, Jeff Neumann has advanced on several occasions that a large portion of the abandoned registration attempts were not actual registration attempts, but registries, registrars, and registrants pinging the TMCH in an attempt to find commercially-valuable information. Perhaps such practices should be examined in more detail.
Sometimes this mailing list feels like the movie "50 First Dates", where folks lost their memories each night. Albeit, with a time spam here of just a few hours. That discussion of "pinging" skewing results was already discussed in an earlier post in this very thread at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002182.html which, ironically given Susan's (and others') objections re: "inline posting" vs. "top posting", actually appears within Brian's email (see near the middle of the entire archived post): http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002194.html They've already removed more than 60% of the data (to get down from 99% raw abandonment rate to 93.7% filtered abandonment rate). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/